|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 29, 2010 14:15:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 29, 2010 14:35:23 GMT -5
I laughed my ass off at this, especially the part about watching porn on the computer while the kids are in front of the tv for 5 hours. Oh my. We worldly women love our porn. BTW, I'm one of those worldly women with a career and only one kid. I guess I'm going to hell...in a handbasket...with no brakes. We eat out a lot and use the laundry drop-off. Shame, shame, shame on me for not burying myself under housework. I think you need to start a parody site what with all the free time you have. (Joking.)
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 29, 2010 15:18:19 GMT -5
I laughed too. Yep, here I am, watching porn while my kids zone out to the Disney Channel (OR WORSE!).
I also ate a frozen burrito for lunch. It was an organic veggie frozen burrito though.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 29, 2010 15:38:10 GMT -5
Great article!! I needed that today. This one: ... really struck me because it is a sticking point for a lot of the Reformed teachers I've been finding, that whole question about covering and authority and dominion. A wife is supposed to be, their reasoning goes, furthering her husband's or father's dominion and under their covering and authority. So they reason that if she is working outside of the home at all she is furthering some other man's dominion and prosperity and therefore would be considered a whore. The hoops you have to go through to get to 'so she would be a whore' are fantastical. And they are so deadly serious about it all. They write and discuss and blog and research and agonize over every word of scripture they think can remotely be brought to play to justify their point of view, decide on the issue and then declare it to be TRUTH which must be obeyed else it's SIN. They write long convoluted articles and treatises on the subject of wives working outside the home or even going to college. Can't do that, they reason -- it would mean placing herself under another's authority, outside of the covering of her father/husband. This stuff I find endlessly fascinating while also enraging. Some of my old friends are so far up the Reformed stream that talking to them is like talking to a stone wall on this stuff. And because they believe in predestination, my refusal to 'believe' the way they do just means that I am not one of the 'elect' and can never be saved anyway so they don't really care. At least an evangelical will want to 'save' you. My reformed friends think there's no point, I wasn't born to be saved, there's really nothing that can be changed about that. This makes them completely closed off about just about everything. Hermetically sealed, so to speak, with no sense of humor whatsoever. These were good people, my friends, and now they are just judgmental assholes. It breaks my heart and makes me want to punch a wall. (but I won't. )
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on May 29, 2010 15:55:09 GMT -5
Nikita said: and it made me cringe/laugh in light of the discussion on another thread about "christianisms" and triggering and terms meaning different things in different circumstances. I was raised on a farm, and unless one is actually referring to blankets and such, "covering" has a rather specific meaning. Add "her husband's or father's" and it's downright creepy. Fun with language!
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 29, 2010 15:57:52 GMT -5
Wow, while all of these are pretty abhorrent, this one is particularly bad-
The worst part is that this type of rape apologetics is actually pretty wide-spread. I can’t wait for the day when people from all walks of life realize that rape doesn’t have anything to do with what a woman is wearing. Six year old girls, ninety year old women, and all ages in between (and beyond) have been raped while wearing every conceivable type of clothing. You name it- revealing, modest,- burqas!- for crying out loud! You can’t get much more modest than that. It makes me sad to think that otherwise intelligent people can believe this kind of thing, not to mention all the damage it can do to rape victims.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2010 16:19:29 GMT -5
The other thing about that whole statement is that the choices are whore, or slave. There's no "furthering her own interests" or even "furthering the interests of her family (including herself & her children) - it's all about serving *some* man somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 29, 2010 16:23:32 GMT -5
I do worry about this one, though:
"4) Worldly parents indulge their kids and refuse to train them to be “instantly, joyously obedient” and to honor their fathers because they are guilt-ridden for not caring enough about their kids to spend a quantity of quality time with them."
I know women with young children who I see getting sucked into - not QF, but definitely a spare the rod/quit your job/have a lot of children ideal, and I feel like my son - who is not at all instantly obedient - just convinces them further.
I actually talked to my mom about this recently. I don't know if you have ever heard the phrase "behaves like he's been beat" but I have cousins whose dad beat the crap out of them all the time. Nobody knew at the time, but my mom spent years feeling like she couldn't live up to her mousy, helpful, soft-spoken stepsister with perfectly-behaved children. She feels like our teen and adult years really justified her to her stepmother, but it caused her a lot of angst.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 29, 2010 16:37:07 GMT -5
There's an article regarding the scriptural reasoning behind the 'covering, authority, dominon' problem on Patriarchy.org (which is a more liberal interpretation of the same Reformed theology, so on the one hand at least someone is trying to be more reasonable but on the other hand they do believe that all of this is a serious problem that needs men to work out properly so....) Anyway, it's here. If you choose to read it you may need to fortify yourself first. www.patriarchy.org/family/double_curse.html
|
|
|
Post by juliacat on May 29, 2010 16:41:03 GMT -5
Did you really believe these things? Some of them seem pretty far out there.
I used to be very judgmental of parents, until I became one. That pretty much cured me. I'm more surprised by people who have lots of kids and still have the time to be judgmental when they already know how hard it is!
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on May 29, 2010 17:10:13 GMT -5
1) Well, I have only one child so you got me there.
2) I did send that child to public school, but I don't know about being brainwashed by secular humanism in Satan’s government-run indoctrination centers. This is Louisiana after all. Son's computer science teacher kept a Bible on his desk and gave the prayer at graduation. There were also prayers at football games. I would have loved to send him somewhere to be be brainwashed by secular humanism if I knew where that was.
3) I do work outside the home, but I work for a non-profit agency so I'm not sure who I'm making rich by my labor. Maybe the companies that sell test protocols.
4) Don't get me started on kids who have been indulged. I work with other people's children. My husband refers to me as Robomom. Never mind if my kid was honoring his father, he had better be honoring me.
5) My son's other caregiver was a grandmotherly woman who cared for children in her home. He's still friends with her youngest son. And I hate to shop.
6) I fed my son home-made baby food. Dessert was fresh fruit. He still loves to snack on raw vegetables. He started eating drive-through food when he could pay for it himself.
7) We didn't have computers back in the day. The first one we owned was one I got for my son when he was in middle school so he could learn about them. He now works for a computer software company and travels all over the world. His job most recently has taken him to Paris.
8) Worldly parents have learned a lot from our dating history. That's why we want our kids to learn about birth control and STD's.
9) Once again, you got me. I wear shorts and pants. I used to wear miniskirts. I even used to go out alone in the evening, in the French Quarter, no less. What was I thinking?
(Actually, seriously, what was I thinking?)
So you were at least 50% right about me.
BTW, where are these churches with no membership fees? The ones I'm familiar with, even the most liberal, seem to want ten percent of your income.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on May 30, 2010 7:15:05 GMT -5
Good article - good observations. That's what I observed too when I used to post on Large Family Boards because I'm a mom of many myself. Unfortunately, every large family board I've ever posted on had a heavy QF/patriarchal theme to it or if it didn't initially, it turned into that down the road (sigh).
This one disturbs me (personally) the most: 1) Worldly parents only have one kid ~ two at the most (and sometimes none at all ~ gasp!) because they are selfish and lazy and cannot be bothered with the responsibilities of parenthood. Yes, this is posted and discussed ALL THE TIME; you hit the nail on the head with this one.
In my own personal experience growing up as one of two children with a divorced, working mom, our life was anything BUT (that of ease and luxury) that and my mom's life was anything BUT that. Both my brother and I, as well as my mother, had nothing but all-encompssing responsibility. Both my brother and I worked extremely hard; I started working at a family-owned restaurant at age 14 and he started at age 12! Yes, 12! Of course, this wasn't allowable by law as the minimum age was/is 16, but as I said, it was a family-owned restaurant and there were no such things as work permits or even job applications for that matter. My mom worked any job she could find that would support us. She didn't speak English when she first emigrated to the U.S. so that limited her job opportunities.
The so-called "caring" crowd never cared about my story as it wasn't relevant in their world or it didn't jive with their beliefs which were already set in place. My opinion is that they like to marginalize others so they can uplift themselves and somehow make themselves long-suffering martyrs who are doing "God's work" and are therefore "better" than everyone else.
The only thing that I regret is spending so much of my time trying to find fellowship and support from other so-called "like-minded" moms when I was in the throes of raising my family. Because I was house bound with small children, I reached out to other moms through the internet. I made some good friends/acquaintances, but unfortunately, as some boards shut down or changed formats, these moms left and never joined the new boards. All that remains now are the types of women/moms Vyckie writes about. It's just amazing how hurtful and destructive they are to anyone who comes in contact with them; whether you are woman who once was entrenched in this system/model or merely a person who was associated with them via the internet. I think that alone speaks volumes on how unhealthy their views are. They do not uplift others, they uplift themselves.
|
|
|
Post by kalikat on May 30, 2010 11:35:13 GMT -5
Ooh! I want to play, I was raised by "worldly parents" (DH was raised by fundies, who constantly look down upon me for my "worldly upbringing" and lack of current fundie-hood.) (actually, I've always considered, the term "worldly" to be complementary, to me it implies, knowledge (both "book knowledge" and practical knowledge), culture, and sophistication--I aspire to be worldly one day...) 1) I'm one of 2! (My mom really wanted more, bur ironically, did not have any more children because my grandmother (who took care of my sister and I during the day) said she couldn't handle it and my mom really didn't want to put a child in daycare, she wanted us all to be with family when we were babies we couldn't be with her.) 2) Not only did I go to public school, my mom was a public school teacher for 40 years. My dad is still a public school teachers. They're both devout Catholics, I'm sure they'll be interested to know they've been in league with Satan for all of these years (though my Mom would probably tell you that "No Child Left Behind" (read, all of the standardized testing and rigid curriculum involved) is the closest thing there is to Hell on Earth for teachers.. . 3) Hmm...My Mom did always make more money than my dad... 4) I think the term "joyously obedient" would make my entire family erupt into a sea of laughter for days. 5) See my earlier reference to my mother's aversion to Daycare. She cried every summer when she had to go back to work, and cried when my sister and I were born and had to go back to work, spent hours with us when she got home at night, even though it meant she herself ended up staying up until 3 am getting papers corrected and housework done; then getting up at 6 to go to work. 6) We got pizza on Fridays and McDonalds on Saturday. Friends were Jealous. 7) I did watch an ungodly amount of television (more Grandma's fault than Mom's...) But I was 19 before I set foot in a Wal-Mart. 8) My mom cried when I volunteered for PP, teaching sex ed. (remember she's Catholic...) 9) I used to spend hours convincing my parents that I should be allowed to go to school in a shirt that showed my midriff. I never convinced them. Does that count? 9) I think my parent's are quite pleased that I'm still alive, yes. I love your response, Vicki, we ARE all trying the best that we can
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 30, 2010 11:48:22 GMT -5
Well, that post explains a lot of why "Christian" home school support groups have not been supportive of me! I am going to grab my two children and go out for some junk food now. Not because I hate my kids, but because I love hot wings.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on May 30, 2010 13:09:30 GMT -5
Okay, I'll play the game too: 1) 1-2 children. My mom had 2 children because she felt that was the ideal family size. I would have liked to have 2, but my partner convinced me that risking my life in pregnancy a second time would be selfish because it would be putting him & our son in the position of suffering for MY choice (whether I died or only had another difficult bed rest pregnancy).
2) My mom put me in public school because as a public school teacher and the child of public school teachers, she felt it was the best thing for me. On top of her reasoning (excellent education & opportunity to reach out past the boundaries of family) I am putting my son in public school because I expect him to thrive and excel there, AND I think the public schools are a cohesive force in my community and a pillar of democracy. I also have been a political delegate to the School Board nominating convention and have the opportunity to affect curricula, funding, and other school issues by voting and being active in the PTA.
3) I went back to work earlier than planned at the request of my partner; the anxiety of being our sole wage earner was killing him and causing us to fight.
4) I was not indulged as a child and neither is my son. He is respected, treated as a mostly-reasonable being, and listened to - but not indulged.
5) My mom was a stay at home mom; she went back to teaching when she went back to work, so we were never in daycare. My son actually loves daycare and putting him in daycare and me back to work relieved a lot of stress and strife in our family, which I think is good for all of us.
6) I was raised on all homemade and mostly home-grown food; my mom still tells the story of how, after years of cooking and baking for us my little brother asked her, please, please, please could he just have some Oreos and not homemade cookies? We go out to eat about once a week, with friends.
7) I do use the electronic babysitter, but not to read porn - to sleep in, read NLQ, or deal with a rainy day.
8) I watched other women shamed and degraded in their marriages, while I was having fun dating and being independent. Unlike these sanctimonious judges, I don't assume that EVERY woman who marries young is taken for granted and used by her husband.
9) On the contrary - feminists and "worldly" fathers understand that danger comes, not from how a young woman dresses or how she looks or where she goes, but from the ill intent of some of those around her. Nothing can protect anyone from serious ill-intent, but healthy self-esteem, a wide safety net, and a trust in her own judgement and instincts are a better bet than long skirts and being trapped at home.
|
|
|
Post by 4leafclover on May 30, 2010 15:03:04 GMT -5
nikita - you seem to be using the term "Reformed" to refer to Dominion theology/Theonomy or maybe some other subset of the Reformed camp, but the views that you are calling "Reformed" most certainly do not represent the views of most people who would call themselves "Reformed." I know plenty of Reformed women who work outside the home and are not considered whores by their churches. As you say, the logistical hoops one has to go through to get to such a view are huge, and most Reformed people don't go there.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 30, 2010 15:06:05 GMT -5
"5) Worldly mothers are eager to hand their kids over to minimum wage-earning daycare workers who don’t give a rat’s ass about their precious children so they can spend their time shopping, getting their nails done and working out to keep their bodies hot for their worldly husbands who only love them superficially.
6) Worldly mothers are clueless about nutrition and growing healthy bodies ~ that is why they only feed their kids pre-packaged junk food. They are more concerned about their kids being popular and “well-rounded” (read: worldly) than they are about their health ~ which is why worldly moms pick up dinner at the McDonald’s drive-thru on their way to soccer practice or dance class almost every night of the week."
What strikes me about this is that you were so quick to insult women who do each of these things (work for minimum wage at daycare centers and/or feed their their children too much fast food);' people who do either are so often acting out of necessity. (I know you're talking specifically about women who leave their children at daycares, but the "minimum wage" bit about workers who "don't give a rat's ass about the children" is pretty telling, I think.) These are things that the working poor/members of the so-called "unskilled labor force" must do. It's just one more way to justify blaming the poor for being poor. It's also interesting to me that you saw these minimum wage people as the kind of middle class soccer moms who could afford weekly dance lessons and other expensive activities for their children. I think the reality is probably quite different. When people have to subsist on fast food, I find that it is often because they can't afford more nutritious food. This is particularly problematic in poor inner city areas where people often don't have immediate access to the kinds of grocery stores most of us are accustomed to.
It's interesting, though, given that the QF worldview is so resistant to debt--and to making use of public services/welfare. Minimum wage workers often have to have up to three different jobs in order to cover the most basic living expenses. When you earn any income at all, your chances of getting any government assistance decrease dramatically... I wonder what QF people expect women to do when they need this money to feed their children? It seems like very superstitious thinking--this idea that money and finances will automatically work out as long as the mother isn't "worldly" and that the things women often do out of necessity are somehow "worldly." Especially surprising when so many QF families become poor with so many children and only one income.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on May 30, 2010 15:41:41 GMT -5
When people have to subsist on fast food, I find that it is often because they can't afford more nutritious food. This is particularly problematic in poor inner city areas where people often don't have immediate access to the kinds of grocery stores most of us are accustomed to. It's interesting, though, given that the QF worldview is so resistant to debt--and to making use of public services/welfare. Minimum wage workers often have to have up to three different jobs in order to cover the most basic living expenses. When you earn any income at all, your chances of getting any government assistance decrease dramatically... \o Story of my damn life. >_< I don't even bother looking for work now because even if I *got* a job, it wouldn't make me enough to justify risking my SSI check. (I've got... mental problems. But I get by, and do remarkably well for my income. ETA that I do in fact survive on a significant amount of junk food, something which I am trying to reduce.) Or perhaps it's that they think "The Lord will provide" ? Then again, I guess it's kind-of, as someone said, putting God to the test (Matthew 4.7)?
|
|
|
Post by kalikat on May 30, 2010 15:44:45 GMT -5
...number 9, I should have added....
I never drank of did drugs in high school (though my dad gave me "the talk" when I was around 12 asking me to remember 3 things: 1. Always pour your own drink and never let it out of your sight. 2. Beer before liquor, never been sicker, 3. Never drink jungle juice.)
When I was actually older (college and beyond) and tried marijuana and drank alcohol it was with homeschooled QF Christians who had been doing it for years.
My agnostic, uber-liberal sister has never smoked marijuana or tried any illegal drug in her life.
My husband and his siblings on the other hand (homeschooled, homechurched, ATI, patriarchal upbringing, etc., etc.) have all at one time or another had problems with drugs and or alcohol (many of them starting very young.)
Actually, an interesting thing I've noticed--because of my DH's background I know a lot of people who grew up within this culture (some still practicing, some not) and the overwhelming thing I've noticed is drug and alcohol abuse being really really common. I was actually quite shocked when we first met that so many people in his family and that he'd grown up with had been at one time or another had serious substance abuse problems and I've seen this in other families as well.
Is this fairly common, or is mine just a unique experience?
|
|
|
Post by km on May 30, 2010 16:06:12 GMT -5
Actually, an interesting thing I've noticed--because of my DH's background I know a lot of people who grew up within this culture (some still practicing, some not) and the overwhelming thing I've noticed is drug and alcohol abuse being really really common. I was actually quite shocked when we first met that so many people in his family and that he'd grown up with had been at one time or another had serious substance abuse problems and I've seen this in other families as well. Is this fairly common, or is mine just a unique experience? I've noticed this as well. I wonder if there is any statistical data to back it up?
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 30, 2010 17:12:56 GMT -5
I have no statistics about QF but I do have experience of being a stoner/partier "looking for love in all the wrong places" gal at one time.
I can definitively say that everyone abusing drugs/alcohol has suffered some sort extreme emotional duress that is either on-going or has not been dealt with by the chemically-dependent person.
No question about it. I hate to use the word addict because though I was a full-time partier by the time I was sixteen, when I quit at age nineteen there was no detox to go through. As I slowly came to myself, partying lost all appeal to me. Gradually I scaled back until I just had absolutely no desire for it anymore.
So I am not the least bit surprised to know that many children of fundie/QF spiritual and amotional abuse turn to partying to ease the pain. And also to say "you can't control me now!"
I also encourage everyone here to be kind to everyone you know acting out in substance abuse. There is a trauma to their hearts that needs healed, and partying helps dull the pain. Not that substance abuse should be condoned, but hopefully you could plant a hope of freedom by saying, "I'm hoping (praying) for the day you don't need that anymore."
Sorry to be preachy. It touched my own life, so it's personal for me.
|
|
|
Post by egalgirl on May 30, 2010 18:35:03 GMT -5
Ooh, ooh, ooh...I want to play
1) I have no kids yet - I am in the process of trying, and it would be great to figure out the perfect timing between my cycle and my husband's and my work schedules. We're not all as fertile as Michelle Duggar!!! I myself was raised as one of two kids.
2) I grew up in private Christian schools most of my life [which were actually academically superior to the public schools in my area!] - if I homeschool my future children, it will be IN SPITE OF, and not due to, the influence of the patriarchal people I know. And they think they're having such a positive influence in people's lives....
3) On the "working for other people, so I'm a whore" bit: Since the majority of my supervisors [other than the last two!] have been female, does that make me a lesbian? I am sure my husband would LOVE to know that!!!!
4) Ah, yes - instant, joyful obedience. My mom tried that until I raised a very good point: "Well...do YOU enjoy doing the dishes/dusting/whatever it is that you are asking me to do?" She realized that I did have a point there, and from then on, just expected me to do as I was told - I didn't have to do the happy dance on top of it!!
5) My mom RAN a daycare center out of our home until my brother and I were both in school full time and she went back to teaching. Does that make her a good, Christian mom for staying at home, or a worldly mom for aiding and abetting those evil working mothers
6) As mentioned above, I grew up living in a state-licensed home daycare center. Healthy snacks were mandatory. I have eaten more apple slices, orange slices, and ants on a log [celery with peanut butter and raisins] than most people I know. I was given a hard time by fundies at my Christian school because my mom would throw a few M&Ms in my trail mix in my lunches.
7) My husband and I were just talking about watching Saturday morning cartoons with gigantic bowls of cereal while our parents slept in. No porn to speak of there - just good, old-fashioned sleep. And a little Schoolhouse Rock thrown in, so it was even semi-educational ;D.
8) My mom waited until she was married to have sex. As did I. And I made the decision armed with the facts about sex, pregnancy, birth control, and STD's and how to protect myself from them. As the daughter of a triplet, I chose to abstain primarily out of stone-cold fear that I'd get pregnant with multiples at age 16!!!! As a Christian I'd like to say that my decision was based solely on the Bible, but it was based quite a bit on the facts I learned in sex ed. And the books my mom gave me to read [and the fact that I could talk to her about it any old time I wanted...my awesome mom helped talk me through several friends' pregnancies and the decisions I was making about relationships at that point in my life]. If that was a "worldly" upbringing, then I guess I'm happy for it!!!
9) My parents separated when I was twelve, so it was just my mom. And even though I did not wear prairie dresses [other than one that I bought at the Goodwill as a joke - I wore it to church with my hair demurely curled and pulled back with pearl barrettes, and got a big laugh from my friends!], I was - and still am - pretty well covered up.
9) My mom expected more than just the "bare minimum" from me, and I will expect more than just "they're not on drugs" from my future kids.
BONUS: Christian parents who *use birth control *do not homeschool, homebirth and run a cottage industry, [All at the same time, or can these activities be done separately?] *own a television [Oh, come on - if I promise to only watch educational television or Vision Forum-approved films? Please?] *send their kids to Sunday School rather than keeping the family together for worship, [the horrors!!! Kids learning about God at their own level!!! Obviously, I am making this statement from a Christian point of view...] *allow their kids to have sleepovers or date [helicopter parenting at its finest - are they children or young men/young women? Make up your mind!!!] *don’t grow their own vegis and grind their own wheat for bread [So they want me to starve? Seriously...I cannot grow things to save my life!!!] *or who are okay with the wife wearing pants and makeup or working outside the home [Because, for some reason, Little House on the Prairie fashions are the epitome of godly apparel. And again with the not starving...]
are actually Worldly Parents ~ they probably aren’t even really saved and are only using church as a social club with no membership fees. [ ???Yup - that's it. I am not really a Christian, and I just go to church - every day of my life (I work on staff at a church!!), just so that I can belong to a social club. ]
If I were the queen of the world, I would wave my magic wand, and all the stupid people of the world would disappear. Okay, catharsis almost complete. One more cup of coffee ought to do it!
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 30, 2010 22:05:10 GMT -5
That was actually a source of debate in our Christian circles at one point! I'm ashamed to say that *I* was the arrogant SAHM questioning the ministry value of our church run daycare.
Oh if I could go back in time and re-do my life....
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 30, 2010 23:50:18 GMT -5
Actually, an interesting thing I've noticed--because of my DH's background I know a lot of people who grew up within this culture (some still practicing, some not) and the overwhelming thing I've noticed is drug and alcohol abuse being really really common. I was actually quite shocked when we first met that so many people in his family and that he'd grown up with had been at one time or another had serious substance abuse problems and I've seen this in other families as well. Is this fairly common, or is mine just a unique experience? I've noticed this as well. I wonder if there is any statistical data to back it up? I think QF often attracts addictive personalities into its dysfuctional ways of living. It's no surprise that the children of these homes exhibit addictive behaviors of their own.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 31, 2010 10:23:05 GMT -5
With great humility I must correct this dangerous and ugly idea:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY.
There simply is not. No research has ever backed that up. All the data about personalities: introvert, extrovert, intuitive, judging, etc. are present in equal amounts in people who are driven to excess and in those who are not.
What IS always present in people who are involved in addictions (whether chemical or behavioral) is unresolved emotional trauma.
What you are calling an addictive "personality" is better understood as "symptomatic of trauma".
All compulsive behaviors- drinking, gambling, excessive religion, counting, cutting, eating disorders, etc.- are ways that wounded people try to shut out painful emotions while at the same time creating feelings of significance in themselves.
This is a very important distinction. Personalities of all kinds respond to unresolved trauma with excess of some kind or another. If the trauma is unresolved, the excess takes over the life of the traumatized person, becoming the main characteristic that defines the person's life.
Whether it is becoming a long-distance runner who can't quit despite multiple injuries, being a workaholic who gives way more than the job requires, being so religious that you leave the love of God far behind in your pursuit to be "blameless", or partying on a daily basis- they are all addictions that at the beginning gave a sense of accomplishment and worth to a wounded soul while at the same time serving as a helpful distraction from the pain that never goes away.
It is not a personality disorder.
|
|