As many here probably know, I am a live-in nanny. When I was going through the hiring process, my "Mom-Boss" (an industry term, my dears) asked whether I would be willing to continue as her nanny, should she and her husband call it quits. I said that I was there for the kids, and as long as she and I were able to communicate well, and I was able to do my best for her kids, then the number of parents living in the house was irrelevant to my job.
Fast-forward almost a year. I now am absolutely in love with "my" kids. I have also formed strong friendships with my mom-boss and dad-boss. I get along with both of them, can have productive conversations with both of them, and consider them both to be friends even outside my professional role.
The problem is that they are incredibly miserable together. I have found I am a really good peace-keeper, but it takes so much energy to process everything, and it also just plain stresses me out to be around so much tension. Add to that that Mom-boss will tell me all about this or that fight they've had, or this thing he did 5 years ago, and I'm standing there thinking, "Hello! HE'S my friend, too, y'know!" It just makes my daily life such a tightrope.
I think it's also complicated by my parents' divorce. They split up when I was in college, and I remember explaining to a friend how I felt by saying, "It's kind of like how I felt when Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston broke up. I'm like, 'Meh, I never really liked them as a couple to begin with.'" In short, I spent my whole childhood with parents who really should have been divorced, but were living together bickering instead. Familiar territory, but not something I'd like to revisit.
I don't know if there's a question here, since I'm simply not considering quitting, and I know for a fact that they will be together at least until next year (they have some financial entanglements that make splitting up really complicated/impossible, but which should be resolved by then). I guess I'm just looking for advice on how to handle the tightrope, how to manage the stress, and what I can say to make this easier for them and for their kids (who are toddlers, btw).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Would it be impolite to tell you mom-boss you don't wish to talk about the topic of your dad-boss as both of them matter to you? Personally I'd just say I don't wish to gossip if I was going that route.
As an aside, I hope I'm not being too insensitive as I don't have enough information to make a strong judgement.
quote:In short, I spent my whole childhood with parents who really should have been divorced, but were living together bickering instead.
I'd say you were living with two parents who should have been effectively working through their issues rather than hoping arguing combined with time would see the issues through.
I don't subscribe to the idea that two people who have decided to get married cannot under any circumstance make it work and need to get divorced. I do believe there are circumstances where one or both spouses simply will not do what needs to be done and divorce is inevitable and even preferrable to a holding pattern.
[ July 29, 2010, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I am not at all familiar with how nannies relate to family members, but I do think it's crossing the line for one boss to try to pit you against another boss (even implicitly, by complaining to you about that other boss).
(Honestly, I think it's crossing the line to share marital problems with an employee, but I can see how being a live in nanny might already obviate boundaries that would ordinarily be important.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The entire situation sounds like a living nightmare to me, but that's just my personality. I absolutely hate it when people complain to me about their significant other.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree 100% with BlackBlade.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I don't subscribe to the idea that two people who have decided to get married cannot under any circumstance make it work and need to get divorced.
Seriously? You think ANY troubled marriage can be solved through hard work?
Whenever I hear something like this, I think my my parents, and I think of a friend of mine's parents. His parents are ALWAYS fighting with each other. Screaming, throwing things, swearing, knock-down drag out fights that seriously warped both kids into having negative views on a lot of things. They WANT their parents to get divorced, but the parents stayed together "for the kids" and now are together because both thing they're too old to start a new life for themselves.
My parents got divorced when I was around ten. They get along so well now that it took my current group of friends four years to figure out they were even divorced because my dad was always at the house, and they got along so well. I think the key to my parents getting along so well is that my dad goes home at the end of the day, so they never have a chance to let a day's worth of tiny slights turn into any sort of serious bickering, and they're over it the next day. If they had stayed married? I think it would be a much different story, and I know I wouldn't have friends marveling at the fact that my divorced parents have a better relationship than a great many married couples.
I know that's just an anecdote, but while I think that many married couples give up too easily, and two willing parties willing to work out their issues would likely solve some of those disagreements, sometimes sticking it out isn't worth it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't subscribe to the idea that two people who have decided to get married cannot under any circumstance make it work and need to get divorced.
I'm going to go ahead and say that this is disagreeable for so many reasons. It's naive to the extreme.
Cases of incurable neglect and emotional differences aside, there are absolutely a phenomenal amount of situations wherein a spouse turns out to be abusive and/or mentally unstable, such as with possessiveness and borderline personality disorder, which reach points frequently requiring a complete disconnect by the spouse.
There are plenty of situations where it is completely unconscionable and harmful to suggest that a planned divorce is optional and that they can 'make it work.' Child and spousal abuse/molestation provide a fair number of these circumstances.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
With the exceptions of abuse, addiction, untreated mental disorders (properly treated is a whole other story), and possibly infidelity, I do not believe any troubled marriage has only the two choices y'all are listing: divorce, or staying together and suffering. There is a third choice, but it only works if both partners are willing.
It almost always involves a qualified third party who can teach the couple how to be partners to each other.
To go back to the OP, I do wonder, Hank, if there's any way you could say something like this the next time Mom-Boss starts telling you something that makes you uncomfortable: "I'm not comfortable when you tell me things that should be just between you and Dad-Boss. I know it's important that you have someone to talk about these things, but maybe it would be better if that was a marriage counselor instead?"
Because regardless of whether they do end up divorced or not, this is clearly a couple and a family in a great deal of emotional pain, and talking to a qualified therapist might help, regardless of what they decide.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: rivka said essentially what I would have said. I didn't say "hard work" solves all the problems. People arguing all the time, fighting, suffering through bouts of depression brought on by the circumstance are "working very hard", but they are not "effectively working through" their problems.
Further I said,
quote: I do believe there are circumstances where one or both spouses simply will not do what needs to be done and divorce is inevitable and even preferrable to a holding pattern.
That to me covers instances where a spouse for example goes insane, won't cooperate, fails to change, etc, as they "will not do...etc"
I'm sorry your parents divorced, I can't relate well as I've had a very stable family background. But I do know what it's like to have grevious differences emmerge in a marriage and to work through them. Not because divorce was off the table and unthinkable, but because we'd both made a serious committment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I didn't say "hard work" solves all the problems. People arguing all the time, fighting, suffering through bouts of depression brought on by the circumstance are "working very hard", but they are not "effectively working through" their problems.
I sort of assumed that you'd understand "hard work" to mean "hard work towards solving the problem" rather than effort expended towards further dysfunction. I'm a little puzzled that "hard work" in the context I was using it could be construed to mean a continuation of marital troubles.
Your position continues to be that two regular people who don't have mental dysfunctions of some sort can ALWAYS get along with some sort of therapy, but they have to be willing to do the work. I don't think that's always true. Even so, I wonder how useful a belief that is anyway, given the immense numbers of people who suffer from SOME sort of mental affliction.
quote:I'm sorry your parents divorced
I'm not. My brother might feel a little different, since he was older and really didn't like the divorce, and thus took it hard, and took it personally.
But since my memories don't really go back that far, all I remember is two parents who never fought, who are basically best friends, who help each other in times of need, who love their children and provide support, but they just happen to live a mile away from each other. As far as I'm concerned, my childhood was stable and healthy, and I feel fortunate to have the parents I do, and the relationship they have.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn:
quote:I sort of assumed that you'd understand "hard work" to mean "hard work towards solving the problem" rather than effort expended towards further dysfunction. I'm a little puzzled that "hard work" in the context I was using it could be construed to mean a continuation of marital troubles.
Well I meant it the way I meant it. It sounded to me like you were accusing me of saying in effect, "If you just work real hard you can solve any problem."
I'm not that naive.
quote:Your position continues to be that two regular people who don't have mental dysfunctions of some sort can ALWAYS get along with some sort of therapy, but they have to be willing to do the work. I don't think that's always true. Even so, I wonder how useful a belief that is anyway, given the immense numbers of people who suffer from SOME sort of mental affliction.
"Will" to me in the context of my statement means, "Able to and does so." Like in the sentence, "Will he make it!? Yes, he will move on to the finals!"
quote:But since my memories don't really go back that far, all I remember is two parents who never fought, who are basically best friends, who help each other in times of need, who love their children and provide support, but they just happen to live a mile away from each other. As far as I'm concerned, my childhood was stable and healthy, and I feel fortunate to have the parents I do, and the relationship they have.
I hope this isn't too personal, but are you saying your parents got divorced moved only a mile or so away, rotated having the children and reestablished a relationship where they were, "best friends?" but continued to remain unmarried to anybody?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I sort of assumed that you'd understand "hard work" to mean "hard work towards solving the problem" rather than effort expended towards further dysfunction.
I've seen plenty of people put in effort to fix things without ever getting down to the actual problem. Deep emotional disagreements spawn lots of tiny problems. You can deal with a lot without ever fixing things, in my experience.
quote: Your position continues to be that two regular people who don't have mental dysfunctions of some sort can ALWAYS get along with some sort of therapy, but they have to be willing to do the work.
And I think we're back to the point of the red vs blue thread. Any random two people might not be happy together, but they should be able to work together. I mean really, what is a spouse but a super-coworker you get to pick? You spend all day with people you don't necessarily like getting a job done. You can't spend less time building a shared relationship of responsibility with someone you liked at one point?
The biggest trick in marriage, in my opinion, is to make a concious effort to grow together. If both people put in at least enough effort to be emotionally trustworthy and kind, the process of moving together towards shared goals should take care of the rest. There's something to be said for shared history.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I mean really, what is a spouse but a super-coworker you get to pick?"
Everything important?
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I wondered where this thread would drift. Interesting.
To BlackBlade's question, I actually believe that most divorces aren't a result of "irreconcilable differences" so much as "differences I'm not interested in reconciling, since I kind of hate you at this point." In other words, I sort of agree. When I say my parents "should" have been divorced, I mean it as an extension of, well, to put it rather childishly, "Poop or get off the pot"--that is, "Make your marriage work, change something about the way you interact, get counseling and actually listen (rather than celebrate BlameFest) or just get a divorce already."
To Rivka, they are in counseling, but the therapist has said that he'd like to work one-on-one with Dad-Boss (seriously, why do I know all this?!) and I think Mom-Boss doesn't have anyone else close enough to her to talk to, and can't afford therapy for her individually.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah. Well you can still use the first line, even if you're not using the second.
I also wonder (wild speculation begins here) how much of what is going on in the marriage has to do with the fact that she has no external support system. And if a support group, which is usually less expensive that a therapist, might be of some use.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't like to comment in threads I have no experience on, but I would like to point out that Rivka and Samp (although he didn't in this thread) almost ALWAYS recommend therapy.
I never wanted to say - hey, maybe therapy isn't the best idea, or maybe there are solutions that don't involve therapy - because, who am I to suggest that - but I did kind of want to point out that Hatrack's overwhelming cry to get therapy need not be the only perspective.
It sounds like these people are your friends, and that they are treating you like friends. You're a nanny, not an employee. They bring you into their family and you make their family whole, and better, and safe. So they trust you.
Maybe be a good friend. Maybe, if you get close to them, have them be good friends to you - have them maybe consider your perspective. Or don't. People expect that they can talk to their friends, even if they aren't "qualified therapists."
It's cool that you unloaded here, but you pointed out that you didn't have a question. So I think you're okay with your role in all this. You may not love the situation, but I think you know how to be a good friend and a good nanny.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
That's worth looking at. I think right now, it's partly that she's working so much that she doesn't invest much in support systems, since her life is pretty much just working or being with her kids. For example, she goes to church every sunday, but it's all about the kids, and she often goes to the kids' sunday-school with them, instead of getting time to talk to any other adults or even just get a spiritual re-charge. Dad-Boss is agnostic, so it's also hard to get much out of it handling both kids by herself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't like to comment in threads I have no experience on, but I would like to point out that Rivka and Samp (although he didn't in this thread) almost ALWAYS recommend therapy.
That's because in nearly all of the cases where a person/couple has marital troubles and come to the internet seeking advice, it almost always results in a story that suggests that marital counseling is in order, as well as a perfect opportunity to re-iterate that the internet is not your marriage counselor and you can't be effectively diagnosed from a post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lyrhawn: rivka said essentially what I would have said.
Rivka left important exceptions Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
None that I didn't leave myself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
umm, i dunno. you said that the exceptions were only where people 'will not do' what needs to be done to save the marriage. s'what I think is wrong. There's plenty of people who cannot (not will not, CAN not) be assumed to be able to do so, even if they swear they can. It's simply not an option for them. People come with wildly differing levels of mental stability and confidence, and we're surprisingly frequently capable of expressing permanent dysfunction. On an anecdotal level, I watched a disastrous marriage prolong itself torturously because the husband was a malignant sociopath, but they were part of a religion that thought that marriage was for-keeps-forever-no-matter-what, so when they turned to the church for advice, they only got terrible advice of the 'you have to make it work' variety.
That one kind of had a 'happy' ending though; he's in jail for wire fraud, she's Episcopal now and the mother of a happy baby who is not at risk of being raised by a psychopath.
understanding that some people simply cannot be assumed competent enough to remain married to, no matter how much they are willing to 'try,' can actually make the process of moving on easier. it can even make them easier to forgive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hank, if I were in that situation, I would try to keep from getting in between the parents (being especially wary of any unusual attachment from the opposite gender parent) and concentrate on being an advocate and help to the children.
[ July 29, 2010, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't like to comment in threads I have no experience on, but I would like to point out that Rivka and Samp (although he didn't in this thread) almost ALWAYS recommend therapy.
That's because in nearly all of the cases where a person/couple has marital troubles and come to the internet seeking advice, it almost always results in a story that suggests that marital counseling is in order, as well as a perfect opportunity to re-iterate that the internet is not your marriage counselor and you can't be effectively diagnosed from a post.
But maybe people aren't looking to the internet for their answers. Maybe it's just a forum, or venue, for self-expression and mild feedback. Oneof many factors a person uses in his life to help with his own self-assessment. And I personally believe that it is better to engage in interdependent relationships than it is to use a therapist on whom you can only be dependent.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would try to keep from getting in between the parents (being especially wary of any unusual attachment from the opposite gender parent)
This is fortunately not even an issue since he is a good 35 years my senior and has a daughter (from another relationship) exactly my age. I am definitely the second daughter to him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hank, good. That is a complication you don't want!
Armoth, would you say the same thing about other kinds of professional help? If someone needed medical advice or legal advice for example?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: But maybe people aren't looking to the internet for their answers.
Two-part answer.
1. When therapy/counseling is recommended, it's nearly always related to there being some solicitation of advice.
2. The other cases are where even if no solicitation of advice was made clear, the situation still seems starkly in need of the pros.
quote:[/qb]And I personally believe that it is better to engage in interdependent relationships than it is to use a therapist on whom you can only be dependent. [/QB]
Describe this 'dependence' that you have an apprehension of, re: therapists.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Armoth, heaven knows Samp and I don't agree on a whole lot. Maybe the fact that we agree on this means something?
I also wonder if you would similarly object if on a JO forum, I were to suggest CYLOR if someone posed a complex practical sheilah? The internet is not a marriage counselor, and it's no replacement for a rav -- or as Kate said, a doctor or lawyer -- either. Or do you also object to the fact that 90+% of the time that someone starts a medical question thread, the answers are mostly "see a doctor"?
No one is suggesting that Hank seek therapy. But part of BEING a good friend is knowing when you are not an expert and your friend needs one.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
People also routinely respond to medical question threads with the advice, "Go see a doctor!"
Internet forums are not the places to go for diagnoses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Blackblade: I hope this isn't too personal, but are you saying your parents got divorced moved only a mile or so away, rotated having the children and reestablished a relationship where they were, "best friends?" but continued to remain unmarried to anybody?
Sort of.
My dad moved about a mile away, but we stayed with my mom. My dad was always at the house though, so much so to the point that my friends in high school never suspected that they were divorced. I wouldn't necessarily say they were best friends right away, but after a decade and change, they spend probably 75% of their social free time with each other, do shopping together, and he goes to the house to do chores on a weekly basis to help out around the house. They both dated someone in the years immediately after the divorce, but my brother and I hated both the people they were dating, and both relationships ended.
Essentially you got it though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyrhawn, you do realize that what you are describing is an extremely uncommon scenario? My ex and I work very hard to keep our co-parenting relationship cordial (and have frequently been complimented on it), and the custody arrangement (alternate weekends and a night a week with their dad) are pretty close to what is the most typical. So I'd say my kids have it better than many children of divorce.
But I'd be lying to myself if I said this was a better scenario than if their dad and I had managed to successfully repair the relationship.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, I've been informed by every child of divorce I've ever met, and some kids of married parents, that my situation is very atypical. I put in the anecdotal disclaimer above though. I don't think divorce is a great solution to making home life better. I think in some cases it can be an improvement though. Not all, not even a majority.
And at no point will I, or have I, said that divorce is preferable to successfully repairing a broken relationship. I would think that's anyone's first choice. It just isn't always possible, and that's the only point I've been trying to make.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My sister and her ex-husband are far better off not married and now she is married to a much kinder man.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Armoth, heaven knows Samp and I don't agree on a whole lot. Maybe the fact that we agree on this means something?
I also wonder if you would similarly object if on a JO forum, I were to suggest CYLOR if someone posed a complex practical sheilah? The internet is not a marriage counselor, and it's no replacement for a rav -- or as Kate said, a doctor or lawyer -- either. Or do you also object to the fact that 90+% of the time that someone starts a medical question thread, the answers are mostly "see a doctor"?
No one is suggesting that Hank seek therapy. But part of BEING a good friend is knowing when you are not an expert and your friend needs one.
First, Samp - I currently function as a sort of adviser for high school kids. It's more of a religious adviser, but it generally stems to a lot of issues, including eating disorders, depression, issues with parents, etc. I find that the girls like to attach themselves to male advisers and form really unhealthy relationships. A lot of the guy-advisers are into it - they like being fawned over by 16 and 17 year old girls. I think what's worse is I find a lot of girls who are extremely dependent reinforcing their dependence by constantly relying on advisers.
These girls will email me and txt me and gchat me with every accomplishment in their lives. They'll ask me advice on anything and everything. At a certain point, I told one girl who was about to graduate that I though she was incredibly smart, incredibly capable, and that I was really proud of her - but I don't think she needs an adviser anymore. She agreed with me and told me that she is going to see a therapist instead, expecting me to be proud of her. I was not and am not - in my opinion, she doesn't need a therapist, she needs to be alone for a little bit to figure herself out.
Dependent relationships are necessary in our lives, but I think, only to the extent to which they make us independent. A therapist has its place. But if you are an independent person, there is more to be gained by interdependence, by being in a relationship where you give as well as receive - I think that's more healthy and productive.
Rivka - I'm not arguing against the assertion that the internet isn't a rabbi, doctor or therapist. I'm suggesting that people perhaps don't approach the internet asking for a dcotr, rabbi or therapist. People are mature enough to control whom they are asking for advice. If I come to you for emotional advice, I will be really upset if you tell me to go to a therapist. We're friends. I don't want a therapist. I want to speak with YOU. I'm not a child, and I knew the options available to me before I approached you. Ya know?
And not all situations warrant therapy. I don't believe that therapy is akin to law, medicine or halacha. I believe that a good friend is often better than a therapist. Sometimes they know you better, they know the context better, and your relationship can be interdependent as opposed to dependent.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
Armoth, I have a good friend who feels a sort of scorn towards the idea of therapy in general, because she feels that people would be better off spending their time and money building long-term friendships. I saw her point.
We once discussed the therapy issue with another mutual friend, who had been through lots of therapy after her father died at a young age. She had a very interesting response: Not every support system is created equal.
I'd like to say that I have a great support system. I have a friend to call about family stuff who gets it as gives great advice. I have a friend to call about work stuff who is the same. I have a very girly friend and a very feminist friend. I have religious friends and atheistic and other faiths. I have people I can call to go to the movies and people I can call to talk and cry with. I'm very fortunate, but that isn't the only reason I have such a great group of friends, from so many walks of life.
The people whose advice means the most to me are people who have known me for years, who have accepted my care and concern during their rough patches and who have seen me through mine. I have invested time, money, and baked goods into all of these relationships.
If I was someone who was going through lots of issues in my life, who had difficulties in multiple areas, particularly in my family or romantic relationships, I may have let some of these sorts of friendships deteriorate. I may not even have had the right type of social skills to form such truly supportive relationships to begin with. So I could easily find myself with no real support system, in the middle of a crisis.
If that were to happen, yes, I should work on rebuilding or establishing a support system, but that takes a lot of emotional and social capital. Wouldn't it be not just helpful, but maybe even necessary to have a sort of instant-friend? Someone who is willing and able to support me, offer perspective and counsel and help me to sort out the best course to recover from my situation?
I agree that to assume a therapist is the answer is misguided at best, but in many cases, a therapist can help you ask the right questions, and can guide you back into a successful life.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yes. As I said. There are periods in life where we need to be dependent. For those times, a therapist isn't just alright - a therapist is necessary.
But I think a person will be emotionally healthier and happier if they always tried to make themselves be as independent and as interdependent as possible. There are times where without a doctor, you will die. But there are times where if you are without a therapist - you might slip into dangerous depression, but another possibility is that with effort, self reflection, and the involvement of your interdependent relationships, you may grow into a stronger and more healthy person.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
So your concern is that you believe for those who may possibly be able to work things out for themselves, seeking help might stifle those impulses. Which is valid. But Samp and Rivka's concern is that those in the middle of a crisis are probably least likely to be able to determine whether they need help.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I would guess the subset of people for whom seeing a therapist is a negative (for non-financial reasons) to be very small. Is there any data to suggest that working out your problems via a therapist is inferior to gutting it out on your own (or talking with friends)? It's not like they're doing your math homework for you and now you won't be able to solve a problem of a certain type on the final. Ultimately, the therapist is helping the individual help themselves.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I don't believe that therapy is akin to law, medicine or halacha.
I could not POSSIBLY disagree with you more. I think this attitude within the frum community is a HUGE, HUGE problem, and that many of the major social ills that infect the frum community trace at least partially back to this attitude. And to reiterate, since you don't seem to be clear on the distinction, Samp and I are NOT talking about just anyone in an "adviser" position. Unless you have a Ph.D. or M.D. I don't know about, we are NOT talking about you or someone in a minimally-trained position like that.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I believe that a good friend is often better than a therapist.
Actually, I agree with that. For some issues, like occasional venting, a good friend is more appropriate. For serious marital strife, that is almost never the case.
Have you ever read any of Rabbi Dr. Avraham Twerski's books or articles? I strongly recommend that you do so, and can make specific recommendations if you like.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's not as back and white as seeing a therapist is a negative. In the right contexts, it's quite positive.
Let's take the dependence thing. Say that you need to share all your achievements with others because you have such low self esteem - or that your locus of self esteem is external - you desperately care what others think of you.
A therapist recognizes this and tries to help you, but what will probably happen is that you will grow dependent on the therapist.
1) A therapist has no financial incentive to decrease your dependence on him.
2) Tough love of the natural world may be the best instructor for being able to understand yourself, and to really develop your self esteem.
As for data? I don't really know how to answer that. It's my perspective based on personal definitions of health, values, and on experiences.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Rivka - I have read R' Dr. Twersky. And a lot of his stuff is good - but a lot of it is too therapy/addiction focused.
If I were to become a therapist, I think I would be good - less because of the training I would receive (in fact, I think some training would be more harmful than helpful), and more because of the person I am.
People need to be willing to get help when they need it. I agree that that's a problem. But I think a lot of the problems that exist because of a lack of effort. And I think sometimes that getting a therapist is an easy way out, and ultimately will not contribute to a person's mental health.
Then again, this is why I refrained from mentioning this until now. I'm not married and can't speak to the particular issues. I'm just not a huge fan of therapy for every issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:First, Samp - I currently function as a sort of adviser for high school kids. It's more of a religious adviser, but it generally stems to a lot of issues, including eating disorders, depression, issues with parents, etc. I find that the girls like to attach themselves to male advisers and form really unhealthy relationships. A lot of the guy-advisers are into it - they like being fawned over by 16 and 17 year old girls. I think what's worse is I find a lot of girls who are extremely dependent reinforcing their dependence by constantly relying on advisers.
These girls will email me and txt me and gchat me with every accomplishment in their lives. They'll ask me advice on anything and everything. At a certain point, I told one girl who was about to graduate that I though she was incredibly smart, incredibly capable, and that I was really proud of her - but I don't think she needs an adviser anymore. She agreed with me and told me that she is going to see a therapist instead, expecting me to be proud of her. I was not and am not - in my opinion, she doesn't need a therapist, she needs to be alone for a little bit to figure herself out.
Then you guys run a very amateur shop and you are making the mistake of conflating your very amateur shop's patently nonethical behavior with what you have to expect from professional, licensed therapists, not people who 'sort of act as advisors' for a church. So the people we would advise they go see would not foster an environment nearly anything like what you have witnessed where you are. Which is thankful, because what you described is would be considered critically unethical in professional therapy.
An ethical therapist is not going to make you dependent upon them. The point to having a therapist help with marriage disputes is that you build up healthier habits of conflict resolution, and the therapist is the one that facilitates that growth. To judge professional therapy over your experiences with your evidently codependency-fostering environment for youth would be like judging medicine by what you see in a homeopathy clinic.
In addition, you seem to misunderstand therapy to its core, or at least conflating it with the way your religious advice center causes girls to have unhealthy relationships with the males there. You don't go to someone, lay out all your problems, and in return get a handy list of solutions. A relationship therapist for someone in a relationship experiencing problems is there to help you be able to communicate with your partner, not someone to talk to instead of them.
quote: I will be really upset if you tell me to go to a therapist. We're friends. I don't want a therapist. I want to speak with YOU. I'm not a child, and I knew the options available to me before I approached you. Ya know?
Is someone necessarily talking down to you or treating you 'as a child' were they to suggest to you that it is their opinion that you should consult a therapist? I know that stigmatizing therapy is fairly common, but I want to understand more about your own personal stigmatization.
quote:And not all situations warrant therapy.
Good. Nobody is arguing that, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: 1) A therapist has no financial incentive to decrease your dependence on him.
Losing your license due to unethical practices is most certainly a financial disincentive.
quote:As for data? I don't really know how to answer that.
Then you may want to educate yourself instead of remaining dependent on personal anecdote.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: A therapist recognizes this and tries to help you, but what will probably happen is that you will grow dependent on the therapist.
This statement leads me to believe that you have never actually been in therapy -- or not with a good therapist, anyway. I have, both marital and individual, and I reject this notion as the norm. I'm sure there are lousy therapists who do this (actually, come to think of it, I know at least one, although she was not yet licensed when I saw her and probably still isn't ), but it is definitionally not what a good therapist does.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: but a lot of it is too therapy/addiction focused.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And I think sometimes that getting a therapist is an easy way out
Oh, and this? NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO! Therapy is NOT easy. It is painful, like most growth processes. It is, in fact, one of the most painful-yet-useful things I have ever done.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In fact, the continued stigmitization of therapy ensures that there's a steady stream of people soliciting advice on personal issues who have not yet considered therapybecause they think it's 'a cop out' or an 'admission of failure,' that they can't do it themselves/are weak/should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and do it on their own/etc etc etc
It's a veritable panopoly of situations where preconception begets an inability to move forward or do what is most likely to help.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hank: I have invested time, money, and baked goods into all of these relationships.
Not to make light of a serious topic, but loved that line.
Many years ago, I was a nanny for about 6 months to a single mom (or almost single; I don't remember if the couple was divorced yet). I still remember the time she asked me if it was okay if her ex called me about working on a Saturday, and I said sure. So I worked a Saturday when he was supposed to have the kids, and at the end of the day asked him about getting paid and he said she would pay me. I was young and naive and should have said "no way." So of course I told her that the following week and she about blew a gasket.
Yeah. Really grown up behavior. If they play games like that using the nanny, I wonder what those children, who are now adults, went through at the hands of their parents using them as pawns in their bitter little game?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't have anything to say. All I have is personal experience and it leaves me with a distaste for therapy. It isn't limited to the one situation I've been in, but I can't exactly write out my life story.
I have been to therapy, and I found it silly. I've been able to accomplish a lot more through friends.
I suppose I was writing this to see if there were others who agreed with me, and I also wanted to point out that it's just Rivka and Samp who feel so incredibly strongly - and that there are other perspectives out there. If others agree with me, fine. If not, I'm okay backing into the shadows and letting you guys dominate the mainstream opinion. Maybe I'll even agree with you at a later date in life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: it's just Rivka and Samp who feel so incredibly strongly
Pretty sure that's not true. Which is not to discount your opinion. But accuracy is nice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just know that your personal experience as a 'sort of therapist' for the religious group is an unfair test (even forgiving how limited anecdote is), because it's not at all representative of qualified therapy.
You also seems to only be comparing therapists to your position only when it's convenient. You can't argue it's both very similar and completely different from what you and your coworkers are doing. Either you argue it's similar to what you do and thus have to acknowledge there are good practitioners and bad practitioners, or you acknowledge it's not the same at all and let it go.
tl; dr version for whole thread: your internal condescension for therapy is interesting, but it derives from personal unrepresentative bias.
I'd still enjoy talking about it because it's, for once, an interesting position from a rather unique source (a religious therapy system that sound so skeevy I'd keep anyone a mile away from it, period, and if it were a licensed therapy group I'd flag it for unethical practices in a HEARTBEAT). It's definitely something I'll reference in the future when talking about the therapy stigma.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
"so incredibly strongly"? I dunno, I feel like I'm on firm ground there.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Samp. I think you misunderstood. The religious therapy thing? It's not therapy, nor is it my source. It was just a personal experience I drew upon for making the point that interdependence was better than dependence.
Also, so you stop wigging out about ethics - it's more akin to peer mentoring than "religious therapy."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: "so incredibly strongly"? I dunno, I feel like I'm on firm ground there.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: As for data? I don't really know how to answer that.
We don't define 'firm ground' the same, then.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: I'm agreeing with rivka in that therapy absolutely isn't an easy way out. Heavens, if there were more qualified therapists and even more people willing to just visit with one a few times, millions of tragedies needn't have happened.
In my church we have bishops who often act as counselors to troubled members, using reason, morals, and even asking God for direct assistance. Done right, it's a beautiful thing. But even that cannot replace a circumstance where a person has deep seeded problems that require extensive work. There are already people who have the knowledge to help you with most any problem, why should religion invoke God's assistance when he already has tools out there willing to help?
When I walked into the door of a therapists office I wasn't totally against it, but I definitely felt like therapy was admitting I was weak and unable to take care of myself. It's a terrible belief that has to be thrown out. We wouldn't call somebody weak just because their immune system fails to kill a virus and they get sick. Why then should we call somebody weak or lazy when a very real mental issue arises and they can't deal with it alone?
A good therapist is a wonderful tool. They don't have any history with you at the start, they know when to listen and when to talk, they say things from a perspective you are not used to and it sheds light in places you just aren't seeing because you don't even know you can't see them.
I hope you never need a therapist, but I mean that in exactly the same way I mean that I hope you never have to visit the doctor because you don't feel well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Definitely not just rivka and Samp who feel like that. I know there are at least a dozen other posters on hatrack who have been outspoken beneficiaries of therapy -- and that's just the ones who speak up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp. I think you misunderstood. The religious therapy thing? It's not therapy, nor is it my source. It was just a personal experience I drew upon for making the point that interdependence was better than dependence.
Also, so you stop wigging out about ethics - it's more akin to peer mentoring than "religious therapy."
Call it what you want. It's certainly not professional, either way. And you DO obviously draw upon it when you search for your distaste about therapy, because you consider it an argument on the behalf of therapy in terms of 'dependence.' And, okay. Let's call it 'peer monitoring.' It still sounds horrendously creepy, and none of the 'dependences' you talk about there should be considered standard or remotely appropriate in professional therapy.
Therapy is not supposed to be a dependent relationship. You use the dependence argument to explain your personal distaste of therapy (or, at least, its one of the major themes that comes up in your contempt for therapy). You do not go to therapists for sources for self-esteem. You go to therapists to gain tools to help yourself. Part of therapy can be venting and getting validation, but good therapists guide toward self-help and insight.
Therapists who allow unhealthy dependent relationships form are not good therapists (or advisers).
Conversely, a patient who is not interested in growth will not utilize therapy well.
Therapists provide a space for you to work out problems away from your social life. Some issues can dominate your emotional life, and create stress in your relationships. Sometimes we have a great friend or family member to help us out, but other times we don't. Therapy is time that you set aside for yourself with a professional to improve your life.
Dependent relationships can be created with anybody, not just a therapist. You can start using your friend for a source for self-esteem with much greater ease than a professional therapist, who knows not to let you slip into that habit. You said:
quote:I believe that a good friend is often better than a therapist. Sometimes they know you better, they know the context better, and your relationship can be interdependent as opposed to dependent.
Correct (sort of. Okay, not really at all; it's a false dichotomy between 'friends can give you interdependent help' 'versus' therapy which will give you 'dependent' help, blah blah blah). sometimes that interdependence leads to them telling you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.
Something else interesting I get from this is inherent condescent/disdain towards teenage girls becoming dependent on advisers and not that fact that there might be legitimate underlying reasons why this might be occurring.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When I walked into the door of a therapists office I wasn't totally against it, but I definitely felt like therapy was admitting I was weak and unable to take care of myself. It's a terrible belief that has to be thrown out. We wouldn't call somebody weak just because their immune system fails to kill a virus and they get sick. Why then should we call somebody weak or lazy when a very real mental issue arises and they can't deal with it alone?
Awesome. Yes, this. "Bootstraps" mentality is a toxic resistance that leads to this stigmatization. I mean, if one is so worried about dependences, they would do well to tear down rather than build up the therapy stigma, since when people are too uncomfortable to accept therapy when it would really help them, it drives up rates of maladaptive strategies such as pharmaceutical palliation without empowering toolsets, among scores of other things, not least of which includes the ruination of relationships from neglect.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Call it what you want. It's certainly not professional, either way.
Not it's not. And neither is life, btw. Doctors, lawyers, - they're all about formalism. You have a problem, you isolate it, you present to the trained professional and they deal with it. The heart and mind doesn't work this way. The best argument for therapy is that they can help you help yourself - but that's it. If you approach a therapist with the wrong mindset, expecting to be changed, expecting that the effort you put in is limited the dollars you pay, then therapy isn't going to work.
That's a HUGE frustration of mine about therapy. Again, drawing on my own experiences, mostly with friends and family members who have been to therapy - they aren't changing, and no therapist can force them to. But they are deluding themselves into thinking they are fixing things, or using it as an excuse for why they are cursed and why nothing can ever change "I'm going to a therapist and he's not helping me!"
Talking to your friends? That's also not professional. But having a friend as instant support or as incredibly deep support...friends can be around at times and can be present in places that therapists cannot. Just because something isn't professional does not make it less valuable.
As per the broader argument of therapists vs. friends, or my assumptions of dependence and interdependence. If you want to continue the discussion (not that I do, but you guys seem to), I think we should define where we are disagreeing. I agree therapists are necessary at times, but if something can be done without a therapist, I think that's good.
And just to address something - Samp, I think you are a great poster. So much of your personality comes through. You are incredibly articulate, and skilled at argument. Sometimes, I even find your condescension to be so artful, I find myself appreciating it rather than resenting it.
That having been said - I believe you took my quotes out of context and sandwiched them unfairly. When I said I had not data, I had no data about the efficacy of self-development rather than therapy. I do have data for yours and Rivka's outspokenness. Obviously, neither of us can say anything of those who follow and do not comment, but that's exactly whom I was addressing with my posts. Hatrack now has a therapy culture, whenever advice is solicited, you and Rivka are vehement in suggesting therapy - and I think that people who follow and do not comment, may simply accept that that is true without realizing that there may be other perspectives out there.
And as for detecting tones of condescension - do you WANT my religion to be the bad guy? Because this has more to do with how teenage girls relate to older guys than with anything else.
It should be noted that the flaws of religion, in general, are systemic, and not inherent. Take the perspective that religion is a creation of the mind - it is corrupted by the general flaws of humanity - religion is not an evil in itself. According to your perspective, fight the disease, not the symptom.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When I walked into the door of a therapists office I wasn't totally against it, but I definitely felt like therapy was admitting I was weak and unable to take care of myself. It's a terrible belief that has to be thrown out. We wouldn't call somebody weak just because their immune system fails to kill a virus and they get sick. Why then should we call somebody weak or lazy when a very real mental issue arises and they can't deal with it alone?
Awesome. Yes, this. "Bootstraps" mentality is a toxic resistance that leads to this stigmatization. I mean, if one is so worried about dependences, they would do well to tear down rather than build up the therapy stigma, since when people are too uncomfortable to accept therapy when it would really help them, it drives up rates of maladaptive strategies such as pharmaceutical palliation without empowering toolsets, among scores of other things, not least of which includes the ruination of relationships from neglect.
I don't know. Both perspectives are necessary. I'm not a fan of throwing pills at every problem. There is a place for medicine, and a place for therapy. I think destroying the stigma will destroy independence, self-help, and maybe even will harm productive friendships or the potential for productive friendships "that's not something I discuss with a friend, it's something I discuss with my therapist." If you need therapy, you need to making yourself secure in realizing that you truly needed a therapist, and so you weren't weak, you were in need. But if you destroy the stigma altogether, then people who are weak, and are just being weak, will show up to the therapists office, and I don't think that's a good thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Hatrack now has a therapy culture, whenever advice is solicited
Should I now link to multiple threads where either Sammp or I or the majority of responding posters have provided concrete suggestions in advice threads that were not therapy-related? Because I won't have to look all that hard. Nor would you.
Again, one more time: Sometimes therapy is not indicated. Heck, even most of the time that someone is looking for advice! But when severe marital distress or certain types of severe emotional distress are involved, therapy almost always IS indicated. And "bootstrapping" just ain't gonna do the trick.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Count me with Rivka and Samp. I won't bother repeating what they have already written but I will add this. Friendships are not always so "balanced" in terms of who depends on whom. A "friend" who is always depending on friends and acquaintances for what should be addressed by a professional is not a very good friend.
"Heart and mind" is not separate from the body. Physical, emotional, spiritual, and mental health are all connected. None of them should be a playground for amateurs.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Playground for amateurs? Ugh. I hate that. Not my philosophy, but that's alright.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well what would you call people who try to handle problems that they haven't the training to handle?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Humans? That's my perspective. I think the realm of heart and mind - you have to do a lot of amateur work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do you think that "heart and mind" are less complicated or prone to damage than the physical body?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have mixed feeling about therapists. I know people who've been helped by them a great deal but I also no some real nightmare stories.
I guess that isn't really all that different from medical doctors in general. I still encourage people to see doctors even though some of them occasionally cut off the wrong leg.
(shrug)
Perhaps I'm more ambivalent towards therapists because therapy is really much more of a black box. What works for one person can do real harm to another. If you can find a therapist that's right for you, it can work wonders but that "if" can be a biggy.
And while I know some people who ought to be seeking professional help and aren't, I can point to others who are seeing a therapist when they'd be better off opening up to friends and family.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would think it is a case of degree. If you catch a cold or get a small bruise or cut, you can self-medicate. If you have pneumonia or a broken bone, you should see a professional. This works the same for matters of the "heart and mind". Severe problems can't be handled by chicken soup or ice pack.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I agree with Rabbit.
And I don't think it's a matter of degree, I think it is the matter of the disease. If you're a ridiculously lazy person and won't put in effort, you're the type of person who needs to hit rock-bottom.
Heart and mind is so complicated and personal that a lot of the work needs to be done on your own. A therapist can be helpful in navigation or teaching, but ultimately, you're gonna have to do the legwork. If you're a self-aware person, like Rivka, you'll use a therapist as a tool. If not, you may use him as a crutch. And that's what I don't like.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Would a physical therapist helping someone after an injury fall into the same category? Should someone with, say, a spinal injury hit rock bottom and eschew using a therapist as a crutch?
Posted by Aglaea (Member # 12378) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think destroying the stigma will destroy independence, self-help, and maybe even will harm productive friendships or the potential for productive friendships "that's not something I discuss with a friend, it's something I discuss with my therapist." If you need therapy, you need to making yourself secure in realizing that you truly needed a therapist, and so you weren't weak, you were in need. But if you destroy the stigma altogether, then people who are weak, and are just being weak, will show up to the therapists office, and I don't think that's a good thing.
Destroying stigmatization would improve more lives than it would coddle. Belief in the stigma, whether upheld by the person zirself or surrounding social circles, discourages people from seeking help or from continuing with therapy once started. There are people, as you say, in need, but they deserve the support of their choices - the right choices of receiving therapy - without fighting for validation. Perhaps you think that these people need to be strong and to believe in themselves and get help. But insisting on stigmatization for a service that helps people is cruel.
Also, determining strength or weakness in terms of self-reliance is harmful. There are those who view themselves too strong to go to therapy when it would be immensely helpful to them. This creates a fear of healthy dependency, the reliance on outside sources when you are in need.
This has been said before: People in therapy who want to improve will do so. But it's cruel to make it harder for them to seek help and to say that they might be weak for going.
And I haven't even touched upon the implications of upholding stigmatization surrounding therapy for those with psychiatric disorders.
[ July 30, 2010, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Aglaea ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Are we really trying to make things so simple for the sake of our discussion? Honestly, I think modern psychology is suffering from a major insecurity (ironically enough) that they are not more like medicine. Psychology and the mind is huge. It's also intensely personal and while a doctor can operate on your body, a therapist can only help you to operate on yourself.
Because of that, therapy in it of itself is not akin to the healing of a doctor - and therefore, therapy may even harm, rather than help. As I said before, a person needs to put in the effort, a therapist can only help them, a person who needs to put in effort may convince himself that he is putting in an effort by going to a therapist, and deceive himself into thinking he needs to do no more.
I think THAT is the problem with our society. The fact that relationships take work. If you use a therapist as a tool, great. As an excuse? Awful. And if you use it to avoid the notion that relationships (or other things, for that matter) take work - terrible.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If you're a self-aware person, like Rivka, you'll use a therapist as a tool.
The incredible irony of this is that is largely THROUGH therapy that I became the self-aware person that you see today.
And because of Hatrack, of course. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Would a physical therapist helping someone after an injury fall into the same category? Should someone with, say, a spinal injury hit rock bottom and eschew using a therapist as a crutch?
Probably. Armoth didn't say everyone needed to hit rock bottom before seeing a therapist, he said some people did. There are likely some people with a spinal injury who need to "hit rock bottom" before the physical therapist can help. Some people with a spinal injury are going to have to seek 100 doctors opinions on surgery or medication before they are willing to work with a physical therapist.
If you go to a therapist with the attitude "My methods for dealing with this problem aren't working, can you teach me a better way", therapy is likely to help. If you go to a therapist with the attitude, "You need to fix me", I think you are in for trouble.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I haven't seen anywhere on Hatrack that someone has recommended some sort of permanent dependence on therapy, Armoth. Your worry about this seems misplaced.
A marriage counselor will work with you to address issues or build up different skills, but not forever. You don't just add a counselor to the marriage and forever turn to the psych-co-spouse to resolve your disagreements.
Other places rivka et al recommend therapy: when you are grieving. You don't grieve forever. The therapist doesn't just compound and prolong misery until you run out of money.
It's hard for me to see how these situations can turn into using therapy as a crutch.
This in particular seems weirdly oriented to me:
quote:If you're a ridiculously lazy person and won't put in effort, you're the type of person who needs to hit rock-bottom.
Again, therapy isn't about being lazy or avoiding the natural consequences of your behavior (cognitive or otherwise). Quite the opposite. It's not a way to coast along without dealing with things.
Obviously one would need a good therapist, and there are bad ones! But this is true for people who need a plumber, it's nothing that taints the entire field.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, it is that simple. You seem to only be dealing with bad therapy. The same could be said of any kind of bad medicine. I still don't understand why you feel that professionals who help you treat your physical health are okay but professionals that help with mental health are not and that this should be handled by amateurs.
My physician can't make me lose weight, for example or excercise for me, but he can give me tools to help with that. He can't make me take my medicine, but he can prescribe what is good for me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think THAT is the problem with our society. The fact that relationships take work. If you use a therapist as a tool, great. As an excuse? Awful. And if you use it to avoid the notion that relationships (or other things, for that matter) take work - terrible.
This!
I have some friends who went through a nasty divorce because he was sleeping with one of his graduate students. They went to a therapist to try to work things out, he couldn't find one he liked. This was because the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair. Before he started sleeping with this grad student, their marriage was going great. He kept trying to manufacture problems that didn't really exist in order to try to justify his behavior. With that attitude, its not surprising that marriage counseling didn't work
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If they never found one he liked and would work with, counseling was never given a chance to work.
And not to give the guy any excuses, because he sounds like a royal jerk, but I doubt that "the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair" is true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If a diabetic refuses to take their insulin we don't say that people shouldn't go to doctors.
Posted by Aglaea (Member # 12378) on :
Modern psychology is part of medicine, or at least hard science. And you can't get a decent psych education these days without studying the underlying physiology. There may be some projected insecurities within the field about its veracity by groups or individuals, but not as a whole.
And it's incorrect to imply that the mind is so vast that mental and personal difficulties are essentially impossible to diagnose except by the self. Self-knowledge is precious, but sometimes other people can get a sense of what's wrong (because they have been trained to spot these kinds of things).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ...I doubt that "the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair" is true.
Me, too. From what I have seen, affairs are more likely to be symptoms than causes.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ...I doubt that "the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair" is true.
Me, too. From what I have seen, affairs are more likely to be symptoms than causes.
Agreed.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
This discussion is interesting.
If you're sick, you go to a doctor. If you're mentally sick, you go to a therapist. That's the analogy? And you're trying to undo a stigma? I can pretend I'm not mentally sick and therefore never visit a therapist.
And my issue is that a lot of times, I don't think people are sick. I think they are normal. They just need to grow up and make healthy decisions, put in real work, and live. Psychology is so pervasive in everything that we do - I don't like the perspective of - "Oh, I'm mentally sick, just like if I caught a disease, let me visit a doctor." - Life isn't full of diseases and professionals - it's full of struggles and you.
Aglaea - I didn't mean to say that things were essentially impossible to diagnose. But it's difficult. I can withhold information from my therapist and thereby interfere with his diagnosis, or a therapist may get lazy in his diagnosis and seek to fit me into a box that I don't exactly fit into.
You alone are the master of your inner world. As I said before, to the extent to which you can usea therapist to help you navigate - great. To the extent to which you use him to help you deceive yourself. Not great.
But I still think therapy and medicine are different. Not that medicine is better - but just that they are two different realms.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ...I doubt that "the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair" is true.
Me, too. From what I have seen, affairs are more likely to be symptoms than causes.
Agreed.
I've heard this too. But is it possible that the affair is actually closer to the cause, to the extent to which that it is a manifestation of a lack of effort, and thereby, a lack of self-control?
(kind of implying that counseling wouldn't help because that person isn't putting in effort.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Armoth, all those things are true for physical doctors as well. I can not tell her about my symptoms. Why do you think that mental sickness should have more stigma than physical sickness?
No one is saying that everyone should go to a therapist for everything - though we do go to doctors for checkups and get routine testing. Hmm...
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ...I doubt that "the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair" is true.
Me, too. From what I have seen, affairs are more likely to be symptoms than causes.
Agreed.
I've heard this too. But is it possible that the affair is actually closer to the cause, to the extent to which that it is a manifestation of a lack of effort, and thereby, a lack of self-control?
So, a symptom, then?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ...I doubt that "the only real problem with their marriage was that he was having an affair" is true.
Me, too. From what I have seen, affairs are more likely to be symptoms than causes.
Agreed.
I've heard this too. But is it possible that the affair is actually closer to the cause, to the extent to which that it is a manifestation of a lack of effort, and thereby, a lack of self-control?
So, a symptom, then?
I thought my comment made sense in the context of the discussion. I'm sorry if used your quote to make the suggestion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you are missing Jake's point. The affair would be a symtom of the guy's lack of self control not the cause of it.
Posted by Aglaea (Member # 12378) on :
Sickness and illness as stigmas are socially constructed. Words such as "sick", "disease", and "illness" do carry much negative connotation, but they are also used, professionally and casually, as neutral terms. Attributing the invocation of the stigma to a conversation or comment where is it obvious that the word at fault was used neutrally misdirects the discussion.
As others have said, there are different degrees to which your mental and personal issues become pervasive in your life. It's generally accepted that the marker should be when you become dysfunctional with your daily tasks (but there is wiggle room for this one), or wish seek answers and advice from a trained professional about how to organize your inner, and thereby your outer, world.
You can't eliminate people taking the easy way out by denying a service for people who need it. Immature people are not going to go away. And believe me, therapists don't like it either, but they accept that there will be people who are looking for that easy answer, just as there will be people who see an MD for that happy pill. (And therapists have a professional obligation to tell that person when therapy isn't working for zir.)
How do you think that therapy and medicine are two different realms?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What I find interesting now is that the points of contention against my position are devolving into a tautological nature. In essence, 'therapy is good, unless it is bad.' Okay, good. I think everyone's got that. it's mainly irrelevant to anything I'm asserting (for instance, nobody's saying 'you should use therapists INSTEAD of friends' or 'therapists are BETTER than friends' — the entire therapists 'versus' friends thing is entirely reflexively construed). Since it doesn't really say anything, I will angle back to the things I found interesting at the outset: The "dependency" label, the bootstraps mentality which we got a little bit more of here:
quote:Life isn't full of diseases and professionals - it's full of struggles and you.
Which is interesting as a supposition, because, to me, life is observably full of all four.
and
quote:I think destroying the stigma will destroy independence, self-help, and maybe even will harm productive friendships or the potential for productive friendships "that's not something I discuss with a friend, it's something I discuss with my therapist." If you need therapy, you need to making yourself secure in realizing that you truly needed a therapist, and so you weren't weak, you were in need. But if you destroy the stigma altogether, then people who are weak, and are just being weak, will show up to the therapists office, and I don't think that's a good thing.
I find this highly incorrect and it draws back to your underlying anecdotal 'gut reaction' to the idea of therapy, involving it inherently with dependence even though considerable effort is being made to show how professional therapy does not encourage dependence and actually makes people more readily able to handle personal issues on their own. As a result, when you extrapolate the 'consequences' of making therapy more acceptable and less stigmatized, you attach these riders. 'we'll use our friends less' and 'removing the stigma will destroy interdependence' and so forth, even though the notion at its core that therapy is "about" dependence "versus" interdependence is probably your most critically flawed notion.
quote:Aglaea - I didn't mean to say that things were essentially impossible to diagnose. But it's difficult. I can withhold information from my therapist and thereby interfere with his diagnosis, or a therapist may get lazy in his diagnosis and seek to fit me into a box that I don't exactly fit into.
Replace the word "therapist" with the word "friend" or "doctor" and it works pretty much exactly the same.
NOW
drawing back even further to more important things.
quote:As per the broader argument of therapists vs. friends, or my assumptions of dependence and interdependence. If you want to continue the discussion (not that I do, but you guys seem to), I think we should define where we are disagreeing. I agree therapists are necessary at times, but if something can be done without a therapist, I think that's good.
There's actually three points along a continuum we could think of.
1. Points at which therapists are, for a given definition of necessary ('a therapist is necessary for this marriage not to fall apart,' 'a therapist is necessary to keep this person from having suicidal ideation,' 'a therapist is necessary to break this person's hoarding habits,' 'a therapist is necessary for this person's major depressive disorder).
2. Points at which therapists are not necessary but greatly beneficial and improve the quality of life for all involved.
3. Points at which therapists are not/are no longer necessary.
Unless you've got major problems that fit into number 1 and appear more pervasive (MDD, bipolar, major life crisis, trauma, grief, etc), therapy starts with an analytical session, then the therapists puts a concluding date. Nearly all therapy is about getting a person to category number 3. You appear assured that this is not the case. But if you ask licensed psychotherapists, even ones that work in fields like eating disorders, anxiety issues, trauma counseling — stuff that's working with people at their absolutely most vulnerable and needing — they would talk about their ethical requirements, their review boards, and their medical ethic (and yes, therapy fits into the broader purview of medicine). They set concluding dates. The goal is self-actualization, not acting as a sponge or a 'dependence.' Some of the most effective certified forms of therapy, including CBT, are all scheduled to an end point where the therapist is not needed anymore. In that sense, it's no more a 'dependence' than job training or school. You are being trained.
quote:And as for detecting tones of condescension - do you WANT my religion to be the bad guy? Because this has more to do with how teenage girls relate to older guys than with anything else.
It should be noted that the flaws of religion, in general, are systemic, and not inherent. Take the perspective that religion is a creation of the mind - it is corrupted by the general flaws of humanity - religion is not an evil in itself. According to your perspective, fight the disease, not the symptom.
Your religion has nothing to do with it. Religion has nothing to do with it. It could be an entirely secular institution and my reaction would be unchanged, utterly. It's skeevy in application. It sets off amateur hour counseling red flags. you have described a bad counseling environment; if it claimed to be a certified therapy operation, I would immediately write an ethics board about it, period. Why would I not be inspired to keep my kid miles and miles away from it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samprimary, you could have a similar contiuum for physical doctors.
1) You've been shot or had a heart attack or gotten cancer - something you cannot help yourself.
2) You have a chronic condition that you and your doctor manage together.
3) You are in pretty good shape but work on your diet and excercise, stop smoking and so forth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Medicine actually needs to be MORE meddling in a person's personal affairs, and I don't consider that 'dependent' in any negative sense. Physical checkups are ace, and your GP is the most important doctor you will ever have. But yeah, they should bring up concerns about diet, lifestyle, health, drug habits, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And your body is pretty darn personal. Anyone who has been to a gynecologist knows this.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
[confession]I have never been to a gynecologist.[/confession]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You should go. All of the ones I've had so far have been pretty hot.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [confession]I have never been to a gynecologist.[/confession]
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you!
I would expect you to be someone who takes better care of themselves than that. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Armoth: Clearly there are people out there who see therapists because they want to talk their issues but they don't actually want to fix them. Of course that's wrong.
There are also people who keep visiting doctors because they hope chewing some pills will solve some of their issues rather than adjusting their lifestyles. Obviously nobody approves of either of these scenarios.
Now without any data to back me up, I'd say that while there is a disturbing increase of people who are just visiting therapists because that's sort of in vogue amongst the rich, there is still an overwhelming majority of people who do not visit a therapist when they ought to. They have friends, they have family members, they even try to utilize them. The venting process is nice, but just as often they are given ignorant advice from those same sources. We laugh at all those "old wives remedies" about how to deal with certain physical health issues. What people don't realize is that there are a lot of those same stupid ideas when it comes to mental health.
"Never go to bed angry"
"If you're angry, sleep on it."
"Go out get drunk and party."
"Get laid."
"Don't worry it's hard at first but it will get easier with time."
"You and your spouse just need to 'communicate' more."
"Just be around your friends more, they appreciate you."
Some of those ideas have some efficacy depending on the person and depending on the problem. But a lot of those ideas are woefully inadequate and actually demean real issues people are having. If somebody is suffering from a divorce and they are experiencing deep seeded self-confidence issues it's common to tell those people, "Just give it time, just spend time with friends, etc." Now that might help, but *a lot* of the time the person's self-confidence issues are also being aggravated by other events and personality quirks that are being tagged by the divorce. That person has to face *all* of those issues (or demons) or else they might come out of it sort of OK, they will try to move on with dating, marriage, etc, but just as often they will do it as if there is a weight on their shoulders and wonder why it's so hard.
Suddenly a person who ended up divorced because they were always denigrating their spouse no matter what their spouse did, realizes they are dealing with abandonment issues, that go back to the time they were a small child and their father constantly verbally abused them and was never emotionally available, and left one day. In their own marriage the fear that their husband is going to act in a similar fashion subconsciously causes them to be anxious to the point that they are constantly critical.
Some people walk away from that background and are fine. That's wonderful for them. But just as many people don't realize that sometimes things like that in our background don't just go away. The person in my example *needs* to work through the problem of their father, before you can even attempt to work out the problem of them being verbally abusive to their spouse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
On the flip side of the argument, there have been two or three books written about the subject of 'therapism' or 'therapy culture' which speaks to people who have a gut distaste of therapy by asserting that today's pop-psych encourages dependence on therapy.
This is actually something I was excited to read about, because I believe absolutely in challenging systems I support, and I want to know in full how and in what ways a system like psychotherapy is becoming abusive, inefficient, or counterproductive.
The end results were two sadly terrible (and terribly written) political fluff pieces, so they were of no use. But they did try to bank on the 'myth of self esteem,' by talking about it generally as an example of when bad therapy is trying to foster unethical dependencies; to get people hooked on self-esteem talk-ups by therapists. And since there's such a wide gulf between a licensed therapist with a psychology degree, beholden to an ethics board, and another state's unlicensed therapist who is a therapist just because they say they are (and can afford a yellow pages ad), it's caveat emptor and a necessity to shop around.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:A "friend" who is always depending on friends and acquaintances for what should be addressed by a professional is not a very good friend.
I completely agree with this. A few years ago I had a friend who went through some very serious issues. At first, I was more than willing to talk with her about it and felt sympathetic. But as years passed, her trauma and depression never seemed to decrease and she just repeated herself again and again. I really wished she'd see a therapist so she'd have somebody to talk to about these things that could provide real solutions rather than just support- and brought up the idea on multiple occasions. I tried to still be there for her, but I'll admit it just wasn't fun to be around her anymore and I gradually started feeling "too busy" to see her as much.
I'm not proud of how this story. But I bring it up because I think that the idea that friends can do what therapists can is largely false. Friends can provide support and advice but they are not qualified to help solve intense depression and the underlying causes of it- nor are they the appropriate source to go to for it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I completely agree with this. A few years ago I had a friend who went through some very serious issues. At first, I was more than willing to talk with her about it and felt sympathetic. But as years passed, her trauma and depression never seemed to decrease and she just repeated herself again and again. I really wished she'd see a therapist so she'd have somebody to talk to about these things that could provide real solutions rather than just support- and brought up the idea on multiple occasions. I tried to still be there for her, but I'll admit it just wasn't fun to be around her anymore and I gradually started feeling "too busy" to see her as much.
This exact same event is pretty much nearing the end of its expected course with a girl I know. I was a bit more straightforward, and said she needed to stop using her friends as emotional sponges if she wanted them to still be her friends, and she needed better help than they could provide for her problems.
months later, I find out in the most callous way that she has worn out her welcome in that exact fashion and was even asked to move out by what has to be about the most selfless and giving group of friends I know of, so I know it can't have been done lightly.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm okay with your 3 part analysis. I just don't know how to go into the particulars of how to fit what into each category.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I totally agree with Rivka. I think therapy is essential.
In my own experience, one-on-one is better than couples therapy, only because in my own experience the chances are pretty high that one out of the couple will see it as an opportunity to bitch and blame in a sanctioned setting without taking a look at themselves, and that's less than effective. But going by yourself, with a set goal? That's marvelous. Even if you're having trouble in a relationship, going by yourself is a good idea.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I completely agree with Lyrhawn that sometimes two people just don't get along anymore. It is better for me, and my brother, that my parents are divorced. Although we have to deal with how our parents play this endless game against each other, it's a thousand times better for us, emotionally and physically, than watching them duking it out in the living room.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't see anyone arguing that having your parents apart from each other isn't better than watching them beat up on each other, but maybe that those don't have to be the only two options. We don't tolerate someone hitting (or verbally abusing) a stranger in our society, and we expect better from mentally healthy individuals. If that behavior is the norm in a family, I would bring into question that mental health. I say that without judgment; I come from a very similar type of family.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would it be impolite to tell you mom-boss you don't wish to talk about the topic of your dad-boss as both of them matter to you? Personally I'd just say I don't wish to gossip if I was going that route.
As an aside, I hope I'm not being too insensitive as I don't have enough information to make a strong judgement.
quote:In short, I spent my whole childhood with parents who really should have been divorced, but were living together bickering instead.
I'd say you were living with two parents who should have been effectively working through their issues rather than hoping arguing combined with time would see the issues through.
I don't subscribe to the idea that two people who have decided to get married cannot under any circumstance make it work and need to get divorced. I do believe there are circumstances where one or both spouses simply will not do what needs to be done and divorce is inevitable and even preferrable to a holding pattern.
I admit to not having read the whole thread - in fact having read it up to this post - but I feel I must answer your post Blackblade.
I am a child of divorce in a way similar to Hank. My parents divorced my junior year of High School - as some of you may remember. At the time I couldn't find the right words to describe it, I just knew I wasn't overly upset by the fact they were divorcing in and of itself. Reading Hank's words just now nailed my feelings toward my parent's own divorce.
They should never have been together in the first place. The fact that they made it through 30 years is a result of them both desperately trying to make it work. But there was no way it was going to work. They were completely different people who wanted different things from their lives, their living environments and their partners. Them staying together was only making them and their children - me and my brother - miserable. It wasn't doing overly much for their friends who got to hear about their issues either.
In a case like theirs, they should never have been married. But due to various pressures - not least of which were their grandparents - they got married. And then struggled to make it work, both of them unhappy with the other, for 30 years. In a case like that, divorce is the clear solution. It's correcting a mistake.
Marriage should be something that you should struggle to make last for your life, and that you should never, ever enter into lightly. But the pressures of our society and the failings of human beings means that people who shouldn't get married, do. And so there will be cases where divorce is the clear and obvious solution. The right solution. I believe my parent's case was one of these. And I understand it when Hank says his parents were the same way - or that his mom-boss and dad-boss are also the same way.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Also, did I miss something that would cause an unregistered person to be allowed to post?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
A glitch in the matrix?
Active banhammer?
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not seeing the unregistered post.
Alcon: Further into the thread I clarify things somewhat, but you have me at a disadvantage. I can't possibly know what sorts of people your parents were, but you do. So I have to take your word for it that, "...there was no way it was going to work."
I stray very far away from that notion. I sympathize with your parents Alcon, I do, marriage can be a wonderful and absolutely terrible arrangement. But as I said before, I can completely trust your parents did everything they thought to do, and it still didn't work out. That to me does not mean they did "everything they could." or that there was no way in this universe they could have found a way to make it work.
In that same post I said that I believe divorce is require under certain circumstances. I'm not sure how your parents example lends itself to the idea that my views on the subject are flawed.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But part of BEING a good friend is knowing when you are not an expert and your friend needs one. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)