Learning about the Rise of Nazism in Germany (Part 14)

To read the first part of this series, click here.  

I'm distracted this afternoon by an infuriating conversation I had, on Instagram, with one of my favorite podcasters.  

It was in response to their Instagram rant about how media and politicians push an agenda, and we should use critical thinking instead of getting fooled by their agenda.  

I got the sense he was talking about the hearings. Though I hoped I was wrong.

I asked him.

He said he hasn't been paying attention (to the hearings). He called it "political circus".

Uh...how can you have critical thinking about something you're not even paying attention to?

I'm kind of hoping we got our wires crossed.  Like he was ranting about something else going on in politics. I don't expect everyone to be fully engaged in every current event out there.  

Well...still...the fact that he called the hearings "political circus" kind of makes me think...even if he was talking about something else, he's still making a harsh judgement about something he's not paying attention to.  

I would have been much happier if he said something like, To be honest, I haven't been paying much attention to them. So...don't have an opinion about it at this point.  

The other thing that was hard for me to tolerate is he said that even though what happened was bad, it's  distracting from more important things.

Yeah. Domestic terrorist attacks, attempted coups...secret service workers fearing for their lives....

Not that important.  

He's not the first person I've seen push the idea that Congress is letting the world fall apart, because they're too busy bullying Donald Trump.

It's as if Congress would shake Donald Trump's hand and say,  Awww...let's let bygones be bygones; then suddenly abortion rights would be restored, gas prices would be lowered, Israel and Palestine would be BFF's, Russia would leave Ukraine, Covid would disappear, mass shootings would stop, the glaciers would stop melting, the plastic in the ocean would vanish....

Congress is made up of many people.

The day is made up of many hours.

There is plenty of time for the investigation and the hearings.

* * *

In my experience, when someone says there is no time for something...what is really means is they don't want to hear criticism. They don't want to know why you're mad at them. Or they don't want to hear negative things about something they love or support. They don't want accountability.  

* * *

On a more positive/hopeful note....

This person did say that they planned to read an analysis from a variety of sources when it was all over.  

I wonder if they were planning to do that all along...or if in the midst of our conversation, they realized they were maybe being a bit contradictory and/or hypocritical.  

* * *

In my fantasies, he reads from a variety of sources and comes out feeling a bit ashamed that he called the hearings a circus.  He then jumps off the trump train (whether it's my first kind of Trump train or the second).

In reality, he'll probably read a variety of editorials on Fox News and The Wall Street Journal plus a couple of right-winged editorials in the Washington Post and then conclude he was totally right about it being a circus.  

* * *

I've not done any research today.

It's close to 6 pm.

I'm trying to decide if I should start....

or just wait until tomorrow.

Though tomorrow we're going to see Nope.  

So there may not be much time.

I also didn't do research yesterday.

I should do at least a little today.

I don't want to lose the momentum. 

* * *

I'm going to start learning about Gleichschaltung via The Holocaust Explained.

* * *

Maybe when he said the hearings were distracting from more important things...he wasn't talking about congress work.  

Maybe he was saying that if people are watching the hearings, they'll have less time to listen to his podcast or watch his YouTube videos.

Hey...maybe if the hearings weren't on, I'd have thousands of hits on these posts...instead of like only 13.

* * *

Gleichschaltung is the process of the Nazis taken over "all aspects of Germany".

Interesting word there.

Did it exist before Nazism?

Or is it Nazi specific?

I put it into Google Translate.

It means synchronization.

The sentence example they give is die Gleichschaltung der Verwaltung war den Nazis wichtig which means the synchronization of the administration was important to the Nazis.

I'm guessing it's a word that's associated mostly with Nazism. 

* * *

I just tried to get more information on which websites I should italicize.

This grammar website says there are different approaches.

Speaking of...in my past research posts, I usually didn't even name the sources.  I would just put links to them.  (as above).  

But these days, I'm feeling the names of sources are more important.  

I mean not that names of sources are more important these days than they were in those days.

It's more like my feelings about it have changed.  

* * *

I'm thinking maybe I will italicize the name of publications...such as The New York Times or The Holocaust Explained but not italicize the names of places such as The Weiner Holocaust Library or companies such as Amazon or organizations like The Heritage Foundation.  

Shit. Now I feel obligated to go back and fix all the old posts in this series.

I might not.

At least not today.

Or tomorrow.  

* * *

Etymology Geek says that Gleichschaltung is: The forced standardization of political and social institutions under an authoritarian regime, originally with reference to Nazi Germany.The forced standardization of political and social institutions under an authoritarian regime, originally with reference to Nazi Germany.

So I guess it started with Nazism.

I'm wondering about the breakdown of the word.

Looking back at Google Translate.  

Gleich means same.

Schaltung means circuit.

Same circuit.

That's pretty cool.

Too bad it's about Nazis.

I wonder if it's used in other circumstances these days.  

* * *

It's two days later.

We saw Nope.

When we finished with the movie and going to the theater bathroom, Jack asked me if I liked the movie.

I said, Nope.

But I was sort of joking.

I did like it less then Get Out and a lot less than Us.  

But Nope is one of those movies where the more you read about it and talk about it...the more you like it.

I did question whether liking it more after seeing/hearing other responses meant that peer pressure pushed me to like it.

And actually, I think peer pressure played a part.  BUT I think the reason why I felt that pressure is Us is one of my favorite movies.  When I went on Twitter and saw the positive reactions to Nope, I felt jealous and left out.  If the movie was from a director I wasn't into, I don't think I'd care.  

My growing like, though, wasn't all due to peer pressure.  I didn't understand the full point of Steven Yeun's storyline and felt he was either unnecessary or underused.  (more the latter since I like him).  But once I understood more about how his storyline connected to the main themes, I was able to like the movie much more.  

* * *

This morning I read an editorial in The Washington Post that talked about the United States flirting with ideas of a dictatorship back in the 1930's.

I didn't really understand the editorial.  A lot of it went over my head.  But maybe one day I'll look into it more.  

* * *

Back to Gleichschaltung.

The Holocaust Explained says the process took place between 1933-1934.

I think it's just a bunch of shit shows happening at once.

There was the Act for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in April 1933.  This was about kicking non-Aryans out of civil service roles.

In the judicial system, they removed judges that didn't side with the Nazis.  

The Supreme Court was replaced by something called The People's Court.  Judges were chosen specifically for their Nazi beliefs.  This reminds me a little bit of American Supreme Court judges being chosen for their anti-abortion/pro-Christian beliefs. But at least, the Republican Party replaced only dead justices and didn't kick out all the justices.

* * *

I've decided to go down a Supreme Court rabbit hole.

I'm wondering how unusual was it for Mitch McConnell to block Obama's nomination?

I have two questions.

A) Has a Senate Leader blocked votes on other nominations.

B) How much did it matter that McConnell blocked voting on the nomination.  If the vote was allowed, would it have passed?  Is it usual that nominated judges are accepted...even when the President's party is not the majority in the Senate? 

One thing that makes me think that McConnell's obstructionism did matter is why would he obstruct if he was certain or close to certain that there wouldn't be enough votes for Merrick Garland?

Anyway....Lord Wiki has a list of unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court. I'm going to skim through it.

The first I saw was a case of the nominee themselves doing the rejection—declining the job.

* * *

Alexander Walcott lost the nomination-9/24.  I guess that was back when there were less states.  

He was part of the Jeffersonian Republican Party, and that party had the majority in the Senate at the time.  So it was more about questioning qualifications than one party trying to come up on top.

* * *

Here's something that seems a bit like what McConnell did to Obama.

John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden.  The Senate voted to postpone the confirmation. Then Andrew Jackson ended up filling the seat.  Though Lord Wiki says they didn't intend to indefinitely postpone the nomination.  

* * *

I had to do some outside-in-the-heatwave work for Tim...which was pretty much standing around, because he forgot to tell me I can leave.

I did some informal research on my phone.

American political parties are confusing.

That's all I'll say about that.

Both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were in multiple political parties. I THINK Andrew Jackson may be the father of the Democrat party?  Back when the party was the party of Racist Shitheads.

It's too deep of a rabbit hole to figure out why the vote on John J. Crittenden was postponed.  Despite Lord Wiki saying it wasn't intended to be indefinite.  I don't really understand what that means, anyway.  But I'm not going to conclude that the postponement wasn't politically motivated.  I'm not going to assume it wasn't an asshole-move.

* * *

If anyone is wondering, I'm not mad at Tim.

I'd feel cheap doing so, since he's been outside in the heatwave, most of the day, doing work.

Also, I was fortunate to be there when the squirrel visited the little restaurant I have set out for him (water and seeds).   

* * *

Looking at more cases of Supreme Court nomination sabotage.

Andrew Jackson himself was a victim.  The Senate voted to postpone his nomination of Roger B. Taney.  But once the Senate composition changed, the new Senate confirmed him.

John Tyler had multiple rejections of his Supreme Court nominations.  But they did do the voting part.

I have to admit, if someone asked me who is John Tyler, I probably would not be able to say, a President of the United States.  Or if I was trying to list the Presidents of the United States, he'd be one that I'd likely forget.

* * *

I think I'm going to speed this up by looking only for ones where the voting itself was not allowed to take place.

So....

Millard Filmore (Another I'd likely forget) was fucked over by the Democrats. They were in the Senate. He was from the Whig Party.  

I think this is still the time of Democrats being the Asshole-Party.  I mean not that any party is free of assholes. But some parties have MORE assholes.  

* * *

James Buchanan's nominee was blocked.  His successor Abraham Lincoln filled the vacancy.

Rutherford Hayes had his nominee blocked with what seems to be the same rational of Mitch McConnell's blocking of Obama's nominee—It was too close to the end of the term.

The Senate refused to consider Warren Harding's nomination.

Lord Wiki says that one of Eisenhower's nominees was "not reported out of the judiciary committee".  I'm not sure what that means.

Well, I guess sometimes there's a procedural vote saying we're not going to vote on the confirmation.  And in this one, they didn't even get that far.

* * *

Now I'm getting into the more modern-day Republican vs. Democrat drama.

Republicans fucked with LBJ's nominee.  Democrats retaliated with Nixon's.  

Well...I change my mind.  I mean there may have been retaliation.  But the voting was, at least, allowed.  Nixon's first two nominations were rejected. His third was confirmed.

* * *

Lord Wiki is now explaining to me that the McConnell vs. Obama drama is unique in some ways.

He says that Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination.  He also says it was the longest time for a seat to go unfilled since the end of the Civil War.

I think the nastiest thing about the Merrick Garland situation is the reasoning presented was that a seat shouldn't be filled in an election year.  The voters should choose the president who then will make the nomination.  

Obama made the nomination 8 months before the election.  

Amy Coney Barrett was nominated 38 days before the Biden vs. Trump election.  The vote itself took place on October 26 which was a week and one day before the election.

* * *

That was a pretty huge rabbit hole.

I feel like I've totally neglected Germany.

But I'm not going to feel too bad.  Because the main purpose of me writing these posts is to learn about my own government and what is currently happening in the United States.  

* * *

I was going to end this post here.

But I think I should at least finish with Gleichschaltung.

I'll try not to slide down any more rabbit holes for this post.

If anything catches my eye/brain...I'll try to wait until another post.  

* * *

Fortunately, I've already covered the next part of the Gleichschaltung—Goebbels and propaganda.  Though I think I should definitely go more into that on a later date.

In the second to last paragraph of the Gleichschaltung section, The Holocaust Explained says that the Nazis were not successful at getting everyone onto this same-circut-thing.  Or at least not immediately.

It was a challenge to get local governments onboard.  40% of mayors were not members of the Nazi party.

* * *

I just remembered my plan of looking at a different Holocaust website for each post.

Now I'm torn between following my rule and avoiding making this post way-way too long.

What should I do?

* * *

I think I need to end this here.

But I'll make up for it in the next post by looking at TWO other Holocaust websites.  

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

 .  

 

Not All Narcissists

As I've said before, there are people on social media complaining about the use of the word narcissist, because it's a personality disorder, and it's not fair to paint all people with this personality disorder as bad or abusive.

Their argument is that not all narcissists are abusive.  

I kind of feel that by definition, narcissists are going to be abusive.  If we have a high enough need for adoration and validation to qualify for a personality disorder and a high enough intolerance of criticism to qualify for that personality disorder, how do we manage all that without resorting to psychological manipulation?

Maybe the people saying that not all narcissists are abusive don't count psychological manipulation as abuse?  Maybe to them, emotional abuse would be the more obvious types: Yelling, threatening, blatant insults, etc.  

Anyway, Yesterday, I decided to look at the DSM to see if I could be actually technically right about the narcissists-being-abusive.

No. I was not right.  According to the DSM, you can be diagnosed with only 5 out of 9 criteria.  

None of the 9 explicitly indicates abuse.

I think 3/9 seem likely to lead to abuse: 

Requires excessive admiration.  If we REQUIRE admiration, how do we behave towards those who don't show admiration?  And what do we do towards the people who dare to criticize us?

Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e. - takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).  I can't see how we can exploit others without hurting them.  I mean if we're exploitive enough to a degree that would qualify us as having a personality disorder.  And I think taking-advantage-of is different than quid pro quo.  Being used and realizing you're being used.  It might not qualify officially as abuse.  But it sure can hurt. 

Has a sense of entitlement (i.e. - unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).  It seems a person with a strong degree of this trait would be controlling and likely to lash out if things aren't going their way.  

I think 3/9 of the traits are pretty sympathetic.

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g. - exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).  I wonder how many narcissists don't have achievements meriting recognition vs how many do.  I guess if one is truly talented and successful, they can't put a little check on this symptom.  

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.  I think this can be done to an extreme level without causing anyone harm.  In fact, it can do the opposite.  People could be inspired by these fantasies to create really fun novels, movies, TV shows, etc.  

Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).  That's sad.  

One of the other symptoms is a lack of empathy.  I've seen NPD-defenders, on social media, saying that one doesn't need empathy to be a good person.  

This I actually agree with.  In fact, I think in some cases one can be a better person without empathy rather than too much.  Or at least one can make better choices at times.  

Should we worry about the surgeon who doesn't give a crap about the patient?  Not necessarily, because it might be enough that she cares about being known as the best surgeon in the country.  

So....

Anyway....

Technically speaking, one can be diagnosed with NPD and not be abusive.  But I think that would be fairly rare.  And again, it might depend a lot on how we define abuse.

For example, do we believe in the concept of emotional neglect?  This would be where a child is fed, sheltered....material needs fulfilled. They are not molested. They are not beat up or tortured.  They are not often yelled at our threatened.  But their emotional needs are rarely met. They're treated like accessories. They are led to believe their emotions, hobbies, hopes, etc. are wrong and/or not important.  

If a parent is so caught up in their own narcissistic needs, how do they manage to not emotionally neglect their child?  I think it would be hard.   

All this aside....

I can believe there are people with NPD who are not abusive.  But to make a point of pointing that out...to make this the main message we're trying to spread on social media.

Well....it kind of sounds to me like 

Not all men!

Or

Not all white people!

Or

Not all Cops!

One of the ways to make ourselves seem like one of THOSE men or THOSE white people or THOSE cops is to say things like, But not all....

Because the men and white people and cops who are truly in the NOT group?  They choose a different message to promote.  They care less about image and more about fixing the problem.  

For those who create narcissism content...I think it can be divided into two categories.  A) Beware the narcissist B) If you use the word narcissist outside of a sympathetic discussion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you are guilty of ableism.    

I've seen a lot of A and a little of B.

From self-proclaimed narcissists, I've seen some category A stuff.  Like...Hi! I'm a narcissist. I'm going to teach you how to spot other people like me and teach you hot to avoid that abuse.  And I've seen some B stuff which is along the lines of, Please give us sympathy and stop being so ableist.

Are there any narcissists who are trying to reach out to other narcissists to say things like?...Here are ways you can get your dose of narcissistic supply without causing harm.  Or: Here are things you can do instead of gaslighting.  

Another thing I've heard on social media is that we shouldn't use the term narcissistic to describe someone who is psychologically abusive.  Instead we should say something like Shitty-person or asshole.  I get this sense that we're supposed to be sympathetic towards the person diagnosed as NPD, because it's not their fault they have this disorder.  But we don't need to be sympathetic to a shitty person, because the shitty person is just shitty.  They're bad....not disordered.  

But if the NPD person deserves our sympathy, patience, and understanding...why doesn't the same apply to the "shitty person"?   Shouldn't we wonder why they're behaving that way?  Shouldn't we wonder if some kind of trauma caused them to act like an asshole?  

Shouldn't their backstory be just as important as the person who has been diagnosed with NPD?

To some folks, the answer would be no, no, and no.

Because for them, "Ableism" isn't about everyone being different, everyone having needs, everyone having limitations, everyone deserving compassion, everyone needing some kind of accommodation, everyone having an important backstory.

For some, "ableism" equals: I am special, because I have a diagnosis or label and that makes my story and my needs more important than those who don't have a diagnosis or label.  And for them, the words used in their diagnosis become sacred, untouchable.    

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

Hilary Clinton Doesn't Drink the Blood of Children Because the Accusation Hurts Her Feelings

If someone suggests we have said something racist and we respond by telling them that they have hurt our feelings with the accusation, this is not evidence against us being racist. It's just evidence towards the fact that we can't handle criticism and also maybe that we're avoidant and manipulative.

If someone accuses us of sexual assault, talking about how this accusation has cost our family, and our friends does not prove we are innocent of sexual assault.  It just shows we are capable of using those who love us as manipulation tools.  

I think it's sometimes easier to gel with these concepts when we believe accusations and when the accused belongs to the opposite political viewpoint or the opposite whatever-viewpoint. 

But...

Sometimes it comes from our own side.

And sometimes it comes with accusations we don't actually believe. 

It happened for me yesterday.

Tim and I watched the quite-didactic series Debunking Borat.

It features the two conspiracy theorists of Borat Subsequent Moviefilm—(Jim Russell and Jerry Holleman) being fed debunking stuff from various experts.  

I think one of the main problem with the program is the episodes are too short.  They're about six minutes, and part of the time is dedicated to an intro that is too long in proportion to the size of the episode. Another portion is spent on flashy montages to show off the credentials of the experts. Not much time was spent on actual debunking.  

The show would have been better if each episode was at least 30 minutes.  I think more time is needed to debunk conspiracy theories.  You need more time to show both A) the opposing evidence against the theory B) the origins of the conspiracy theory.  The show did a little bit of this. But little is the key word here. 

The show seemed to think that they could get conspiracy theorists on their side by using bubbly friendliness and impressive credentials.  

Anyway....I wasn't impressed with any of the episodes.  But the one that annoyed me the most was the last.

In this episode, they deal with the conspiracy theory that Hilary Clinton drinks the blood of children.

The episode talked a bit about the blood libel trope. And I think that was supposed to be part of their defense.  But I thought that was a bit confusing, since the trope is known for being against Jews, and Clinton isn't Jewish.

But anyway...Clinton provided a taped defense/debunking to Russell and Holleman. Her main message?  The rumors hurt her feelings and also hurt her friends, families, and coworkers.

Okay. That in no way gives any evidence towards Clinton being innocent of blood-drinking.  

I thought it actually made her look guilty.  

I'm pretty sure she's NOT guilty of blood-drinking. But after watching her defense, I'm more open to the idea than I ever was before watching the Borat special.  

Note about the photo used: It comes from a True Blood  fan Flickr account via Wiki Commons.  If you were/are a fan of True Blood, you might enjoy their other photos.

Actually now that I look at the photos, I realize the photo I chose was somewhat inappropriate. One of the main plot points of the show is that vampires stopped needing real human blood, because a Japanese company invented an artificial alternative.  

Really. Instead of using energy on debunking rumors of political and Hollywood elites drinking blood, maybe we should be working on coming up with viable alternatives to human-blood-products.  You know....just in case.  

 

How would our world change if we knew for sure there was life after death, and it was easy for our dearly-beloved to talk to us via the Internet?   

The Dead are Online, a novel by Dina Roberts 

 

Yasmeen Calls Geoff from Prison

This morning I watched a very satisfying scene on Coronation Street.  I think a lot of viewers have been waiting for it for a long time.

Yasmeen (Shelley King) finally and firmly comes to terms with the fact that her husband Geoff (Ian Bartholomew) is abusive and that she's been a victim of his abuse.

She's entertained the idea before. A few people have tried to tell her that Geoff is a horrible person. On multiple occasions, Yasmeen's granddaughter Ayla (Sair Khan) has tried to get Yasmeen to see the light. A few times, Yasmeen had started opening up the idea. But she would shut it down, believing Geoff's victimhood narrative of Alya always being out to get him.  

One of the number one tricks in an abuser's playbook is to get his victim and bystanders to believe that HE himself is the one who is abused.  

But no more.

Hopefully.

What finally turns the tide for Yasmeen is a visit from one of Geoff's exes. She visits Yasmeen in prison and reveals that she went through the same abuse Yasmeen went through. Yasmeen isn't at all receptive. She stands by her man. The visiter takes it in stride and simply suggests that Yasmeen go to the prison library and read about coercive control.

Yasmeen must have found a very well-written and convincing book. Because that book manages to do what Ayla and the prison visiter couldn't do.

Anyway, I wanted to write down the dialogue between Geoff and Yasmeen.  Because it's brilliant and satisfying. And I'll probably comment on it as I transcribe.

Geoff: Hello?

Yasmeen: Hi Geoff!

She's cheerful even though she has wickedness up her sleeve. 

Playing mind games with people isn't a nice thing to do. But playing mind games with an abuser? That has to be excused....and maybe even enjoyed.

Geoff: Boy am I glad you called. You're on the naughty phone?

Naughty phone refers to the phone being a prison cell phone—contraband.

Now if Geoff wasn't an abuser, I think he'd just be making a silly, private joke. But since he IS an abuser, I think his little comment is a dig at Yasmeen. He says it lightheartedly, but it's an attempt at reminding her that SHE is naughty. Obedient, well behaved women don't deserve to be abused. But naughty women who use no-no phones?  That's a different story. 

Yasmeen: Yes, I probably shouldn't stay long.

She's still being quite pleasant.

Now I think all this pleasantness might be partly revenge mind games. But mostly, I think the writers are playing games with the viewer. We're led to believe that Yasmeen is still hooked by Geoff. I think this is so we're more surprised when the phone call goes the other way.

Yasmeen-How are you doing?

Geoff: How do you think I'm doing? I'm lost without you. I feel like my right arm is being cut off. And my left.

That would be maybe romantic if it wasn't coming from an abuser.

But with abusers, when they say stuff like that, it's either love bombing or hoovering.  Love bombing is what abusers do to first reel in their victim. Hoovering is what abusers do to their victims when their victims start walking away.

Geoff: And someone's feeding me mashed up rubbish to keep me alive.

This is in reference to Geoff's son recently being kind enough to bring over a meal to Geoff. 

I wonder if this would be a trigger for Yasmeen. Because part of Geoff's abuse was hating on Yasmeen's cooking, severely limiting how much she was able to buy at the grocery store, killing her favorite hen and feeding it to Yasmeen.....

Yasmeen: It's not a barrel of laughs here either.

Geoff: Well, I'm sure. But at least you know I'm doing all that I can to get you back home. How lucky are you. 

He doesn't show any sign of interest in what Yasmeen is actually going through. A narcissist rarely cares. The important thing to them is what THEY'RE doing to fix things. Narcissists may lack emotional empathy, but they love playing hero. And they thrive on getting credit for it.  

 

Yasmeen: I'm the luckiest woman alive.

I think this is where I knew Yasmeen had some tricks up her sleeve; not just because of her ridiculous hyperbole but also because of her tone...which is hard to describe.

Geoff: It's a nightmare isn't it.

Yasmeen: What is? 

Geoff: Trials. Tribulations. This whole thing is.....

Yasmeen: Heartbreaking?

Geoff: Massively inconvenient for me. 

I would call this...maybe de-hoovering?

I think what happens is an abuser becomes bored with the hoovering, They get bored playing Mr. Nice Guy. So they start throwing in little digs.

Geoff verbally abused Yasmeen; threatened her with a knife. Out of despair and fear, she attacked him and is now in prison. And to Geoff, it's all just inconvenient.

Well, re-listening to that line.

It's not just a dig...as in a basic insult.

It's also a guilt trip. It's manipulative.

It's a reminder to Yasmeen that her presence in Geoff's life is a burden.

Yasmeen: Is it?

Geoff: Oh no. I didn't mean that to sound self-centered. It's just...How can I put this? It almost feels like I'm the one in the spotlight. Unassuming Mr. Cellophane me.

Poor, Poor Geoff.

It REALLY gets to me when people like him play victim.  I hate the whole mask of I'm-such-a-gentle-innocent-person-what-kind-of-monster-would-want-to-hurt-me?

Yasmeen-You know, I'll be home...soon.  By your side. Just you and me. Dream Team. 

Geoff: You don't know how happy it makes me to hear you say that. 

Yasmeen: I sometimes wonder why I was put on this planet. And the only reason I can come up with is—

Geoff: To make me happy?

It's pretty ugly and self-centered to imagine that someone else on the planet exists solely for our happiness. But it's even worse when that happiness tends to come from the sadistic satisfaction of causing psychological and/or physical suffering.

Geoff: I love you so much.

Silence....

Geoff: And this is where you say it back to me, Dear?

More silence.

Not awkward. But cold....

Geoff: Yasmeen? Are you still there?  Yas?!

Yasmeen: Oh shut up, Geoff.

Yay, Jasmine!

Hearing that was so good for my soul.

I'm kind of re-thinking things.

I thought Yasmeen was playing mind games in the beginning of the conversation; that the book had fully converted her, and she was just waiting to strike.

But maybe what really happened is the book made her think and question. Maybe she was still on the fence but no longer ignorant about emotional, manipulative abuse. Maybe Yasmeen needed to talk to Geoff one more time to get confirmation on the fact that he was what her granddaughter, Geoff's ex, and the book had been trying to tell her.

Yasmeen: I had a visit today.

Geoff: Oh. That's nice. Or wasn't it?

Yasmeen: Illuminating.

Geoff: Was it a traveling torch salesman?

It took me a second to get that. I thought it was some kind of subtle insult. But now I see that it was just a corny joke in response to Yasmeens "illuminating".  Geoff prides himself on being a harmless, dopey, caring man who likes to make corny jokes. That's the persona he tries (and often succeeds in) trying to project.

Yasmeen: You always think you're so funny. Don't you?

Geoff: Yeah.

Yasmeen: When in reality, you are as funny as a car crash.

Geoff: Who was it Yasmeen?

Yasmeen: I had a visit from a woman who said.

Geoff: Said what?

Yasmeen: She said she knew you. Said she'd been in a relationship with you.

Geoff: Who?

Yasmeen: And that you controlled and abused her the same way you did me.

Geoff: I asked you who it was?  

This kind of reminds me of Jonathan Swan asking Trump about the mystery people that Trump kept bringing up in the conversation. But Swan's questions actually have merit. He's like saying...if you're going to vaguely bring up people who agree with your outlandish shit, you need to back it up with specifics.

In contrast, Geoff is demanding to know who, so he can either potentially harm the whistleblower OR try to manipulate Yasmeen into believing the whistleblower is untrustworthy. 

Geoff: You can't bandy those accusations around. On an illegal phone I might add.  Without telling me who you're actually talking about.

Yes. He brings up the illegal phone again.

Let's remind Yasmeen that she does bad things. 

I love how Yasmeen replies (below)

Yasmeen: Well you should know who it is. Shouldn't you? 

Geoff: Should I?

Yasmeen: Unless she's one of many. Like me. A list as long as your arm.

Geoff: You're unbelievable.

Abusive people will rarely give up attempting to get their victim to believe that the victim is the one that's problematic.  

Yasmeen: You lied to me. Didn't you? 

Geoff: About what?

Yasmeen: About those exes. And how they treated you.

Yeah. Okay. I didn't give the full story above. Geoff doesn't paint himself just as the harmless, dopey, caring man who makes corny jokes. He's also the harmless, dopey, caring, silly man who suffered abuse from his exes. Poor, Poor Geoff.

Yasmeen: How they bullied you. Belittled you. Made you feel worthless. 

Geoff: You really are quite something. Aren't you. 

Yasmeen: I believed you. And all the time, you were projecting. 

Geoff: I thought you loved me.

Yasmeen: I did.

I am so thankful she spoke in the past tense.

Yasmeen: In fact. Dear Reader. I married him.

Geoff: And yet you'll believe some random woman's word over mine.

Yasmeen: Correct!

Now I think Geoff's fighting words WOULD have merit if they were in the pre-abuse stage. If a person comes up to us and tells us our darling partner abused them, how do we know that person is telling the truth?  How do we know that it wasn't our partner that was abused and now their ex is trying to further abuse them by turning their new partner against them?  

I'm not saying we should reject warnings. But we should listen to them with an open-mind. We shouldn't dismiss them but nor should we take them as gospel.

If we've already experienced the same abuse, though? That's a totally different story. If we're already seeing it for ourselves...yes, we should definitely believe it.

Geoff: So I was right. Or...Or was I? 

Yasmeen: What are you on about now?

Geoff: No, no, no. I was wrong. Because you're actually more stupid than I thought you were.

The hoovering is officially over.

Yasmeen: You manipulated me. And I fell for it. But I shan't again.  I will never...EVER go back to you again. And even if I'm found guilty, it will be a good result. Because I shan't ever have to go to bed with you.

Yeah. I think the prison of Weatherfield is a much better place to be than at home with Geoff.

Geoff is the real prison.

Yasmeen: And if I'm not guilty, then the same.

Geoff: Well, if that's the way you want to play it. 

Yasmeen: It is.

Geoff: Your choice, bitch.

Yasmeen: Oh. How charming.

Geoff: But just remember this. 

Yasmeen: What?

Geoff: Get used to the view from your window. Because you're going to be in that prison for a very long time! 

The conversation loses a lot written down on my blog.

The actors definitely add a huge bunch to it.

Let me see...if the scene has been uploaded to YouTube.  

Well, in looking for that, I just noticed that I've been spelling Yasmeen's name wrong this whole time. I'm hoping that isn't the case for past posts. But I'm afraid it probably is. 

I'm going to go through and try to change most of those. 

Okay, did that.

I feel better now.

And apologies to Yasmeen for messing up her name so many times. If it's not bad enough, she's had to deal with Geoff. It's like I've been throwing more salt into her wounds. 

The good news is, Coronation Street has uploaded the scene to YouTube. It's much better to see and hear it than just read it. 

Well...I just started watching. Unfortunately, it's not the whole conversation. It skips the pleasantries in the beginning and begins with I had a visit today....

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

  

Crazy Women

I've been watching a lot of the YouTube channel The Take lately. I've been going through and watching all their trope videos.  Thanks to them I've been introduced to The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope. I'm not sure I love the concept, but I do love the phrase.

Today I watched their video about the crazy woman trope.

I liked it.

It fits well with my world view of mental illness—that mental illness is more often caused by society than it is by the brain.

I think society causes mental illness in two ways.

First: The parameters of mental illnesses are determined by society—What's normal and okay vs what's abnormal and not okay; What's quirky crazy, what's relatable crazy, and what's villain/disturbing crazy.

Second: I think a lot of mental illness is caused by abuse—either abuse from society in general such as the mistreatment and marginalization of women and people of color...or abuse caused by individuals.

As for the brain, I think there can be chemical or physiological malfunctions, such as in schizophrenia. But I think even then, the level of abuse the person endures probably determines how sick they become from their brain problems.

The Take was refreshing to me, because I feel too often society and abusers get a free pass while blame goes to the mentally ill person. I think these days, we ARE less likely to view the mentally ill with disgust and scorn. We're more likely to view them with sympathy. They can't help it. They're sick. We're told to view them in the same way we view someone with leukemia or diabetes. They can't help themselves. We shouldn't hate them. We should try to help them. But still...I think this sympathy is another way of putting blame on the victims. Something is inherently wrong with THEM rather than society...or the person who has been abusing them.

One of the challenges in determining cause and blame is abusers can be so cleverly deceptive.

On Coronation Street, Yasmeen (Shelley King) has suffered severe psychological from her manipulative husband Geoff (Ian Bartholomew).

Before Geoff, Yasmeen was outgoing and strong. Geoff changed all that. She has become weak, timid, confused, and very submissive.

One night, after a fight, they go to the local pub. Geoff has recently burned all of Yasmeen's clothes in a bonfire. He forces her to wear a red dress that he originally bought for one of his escorts. The dress is too big on her, and it's also not appropriate pub fair. She comes to the pub looking like a moody bitch who is really lost when it comes to fashion.

Yasmeen wears the red dress, and she's acts odd at the pub, because she's a very abused women. But to her neighbors, at the pub, she's.....

I can't think of a good adjective.

I'll just say they judge her.

Later Geoff and Yasmeen go home to where Geoff verbally attacks Yasmeen in a very frightening, cruel, and confrontational way.  If you're curious to what I'm trying to describe, here's a video of the scene.

Yasmeen ends up defending herself with a broken bottle. She stabs Geoff in the neck.

Unfortunately, he doesn't die.

So...for many neighbors, Yasmeen comes off as the woman who went bad-weird; then totally lost it and tried to kill her innocent and supportive husband.

Fortunately for Yasmeen, though, there ARE a few people who know the truth or suspect the truth.

Geoff has people on his side—especially his son (Joe Duttine) and granddaughter (Ellie Leach). This is understandable, because Geoff has always been good to them. He's hid his dark side when they're around.  On top of that, Geoff uses the clever manipulative ploy of showing sympathy towards Yasmeen. He paints himself as the man who despite enduring abuse from his wife; then almost being almost murdered by her, still loves her; still wants to be married to her.; forgives her, and is not going to testify against her.

What a sweetie.

This is not the first time that Coronation Street has had a storyline where the abuser pretends to be the abused. Back when I first started watching, there was a storyline where Tyrone (Alan Halsall) was accused of abuse by his physically abusive girlfriend Kirsty (Natalie Gumede). Since it's more often men that abuse women than vice versa, it was easy for Kirsty to have her lies believed. Tyrone suffered not only abuse but also being falsely accused and not believed.

In a recent, disturbing scene Tyrone and his partner Fiz (Jennie McAlpine) overhear someone giving Geoff a hard time—accusing him of being abusive.  Because of Tyrone's experiences, he immediately takes Geoff's side. He and Fiz approach Geoff with lots of TLC and tell him they're on his side. They explain that Tyrone too was an abused person falsely accused of abuse. They think they're offering kindness to a person going through what they went through, but instead they're actually offering sympathy to the person who is filling Kirsty's shoes.

So....

I think before we judge someone as being inherently defective-whether we do so with pity or scorn- we should ask ourselves what has happened in this person's life that might have made them the way they are.  And if we hear stories of someone being mistreated, we should at least briefly entertain the idea that the opposite is happening. They might be a clever manipulator who is collecting very undeserved sympathy.

With Coronation Street, I KNOW Geoff is the abuser and Yasmeen is the victim, because I watched the scenes of Yasmeen being abused. That's the great and easy thing with fiction. But if it was real life, it could be that Yasmeen is an evil-mad woman who has tortured her poor husband, tried to kill him, and is now trying to play the victim.

It's so hard to know.

The idea that we might not know—that we could get it wrong and end up vilifying the wrong people...that in itself makes me feel kind of crazy. Or...I should say even more crazy than I already am.

How would our world change if we knew for sure there was life after death, and it was easy for our dearly-beloved to talk to us via the Internet?   

The Dead are Online, a novel by Dina Roberts 

Victims Don't Have to Be Perfect or Completely Innocent

We're currently watching season 2 of The Handmaids Tale.

For those who don't know, the show is a dystopian tale where American women are raped and forced into surrogacy by infertile, Christian couples. 

The women-handmaids-are not only raped but also separated from their families, shamed, threatened with hanging, punished with cattle prods, forbidden from reading, forced to give up their names, and must speak with each other in hyper-religious phrases.

In the first thirteen episodes of the series, June Osborne (Elizabeth Moss), one of the victims of the dystopia, is resourceful, brave, and defiant.

She knows all this shouldn't be happening to her or the other women. She knows the people who are doing this are the villains. She knows she needs to fight back the best that she can.

In the 14th episode, "Other Women" that changes.

In most episodes, we get flashbacks of what life was like for June in the Before Times.  It shows how her world went from normal to things-are-getting-a-bit-crazy to shit-we-are-now-running-for-our-lives. The main thing in all this, though, was that June, her partner/husband? Luke (O-T Fagbenle) and their daughter Hannah (Jordana Blake) were happy together and loved each other.

In "Other Women" we are reminded of something we've been told before in small doses. Luke was a married man. June was the other women. We meet Luke's wife (Kelly Jenrette) for the first time  and she is far from happy. We see her hurt and anger.

Whether we can have sympathy and understanding for the other women or despise them...I hope most of us would not believe they deserve to be kidnapped, raped, and emotionally and physically abused.

June remembers this transgression as her escape from hell fails.

This memory alone doesn't break her. It's a more recent transgression that throws her over the edge.

During her complicated almost-escape, one of the helpers, Omar (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), gets news that makes him try to break away from the plan. He tries to leave June.

June insists on him helping her. And by insist, I mean she stands in front of his truck and refuses to let him drive away.

He reluctantly brings her home to his unwelcoming wife (Joanna Douglas). Why is she not welcoming? She doesn't want to risk her own family.

And it turns out it was quite a risk.

June later learns that Omar was murdered by hanging.  And his wife now faces the same fate as June. She's been separated from her son and is now a handmaid.

The evil Aunt Lydia (Ann Dowd) a sort of headmistress of the handmaids, uses the news of the family's fate to get June to finally swallow the message that Aunt Lydia has been pushing thus far.  This is that June is a bad person and what's happening to her is NOT abuse. It's a path to redemption.

At the end of the episode, we see June is no longer strong-willed and rightfully angry about her situation. Instead, she's completely meek.

I think in our own minds and within society that in order to be deserving of sympathy, we need to be perfectly innocent. We have to be 100% good...or at least 90% good in order to not deserve shit being done to us. 

Another show I've been thinking about is Big Little Lies.  Celeste Wright (Nicole Kidman) doesn't believe she's the victim of abuse. Why? Because she has hit her husband back. She has fought back.

That was actually eye-opening for me, because I don't think I had ever seen an abuse victim presented that way.  I think, because of what I've seen in movies/TV/books, etc. the abuse victim is like June at the end of "Other Women". They're shown to be meek. 

What happens in the media and the courts when a person becomes a victim of rape or another crime? Their past is brought up to show how they haven't always been so innocent.

The idea is if they've smoked pot maybe they're kind of deserving of being shot.

If they have a lot of sexual experience, maybe they deserved to be rape.

Or if we're not going to go as far as saying they deserve being shot or raped...maybe we're just going to give them a little or a lot less sympathy. 

It's horrible for society to withhold sympathy and justice because the victim isn't perfect or completely innocent from wrongdoings. 

Note here: I am NOT trying to say that being sexually experienced or smoking pot is a wrongdoing.

But we all have our morals and our own moral judgements.

Anyway....

What I was trying to say, before I interrupted myself, is that although it's horrible for society to withhold sympathy, I think what is worse and more dangerous is when the victims themselves internalize the blame and shaming. 

It's often questioned why people stay in abusive situations. If it's not a matter of there being physical danger in escaping, why don't they walk away?

Well, I think "Other Women" provides one of the main answers. They stay, because the abuser brainwashes their victim to believe what they are experiencing is NOT abuse but instead rightful, needed punishment. 

If you confront a toxic person about something they've done to hurt you, instead of apologizing...or ALONG with apologizing, they will point out the wrong that you have done. Sometimes they lie. They say you did things you never did. But other times, they tell the truth. You did do something wrong.

A strong-willed person would reply with something strong and clever like, Yeah. I did do that. But we're not talking about all that right now. We're talking about this. Let's stick to the subject and we can discuss your grievances against me later.

But instead what sometimes happens is the hurt person is successfully distracted. Their anger is replaced with guilt and self-doubt. They feel this guilt and self-doubt about the mistakes THEY made in the past, and they also feel guilt and self-doubt for bringing up what had bothered them. 

Now, of course, if the so-called victim IS equally bad...or WORSE, that's a whole different story.

Like if June herself kidnapped women, separated them from their child, raped them, abused them, etc....would she be deserving of the same or equal fate?  I'd say...yeah.

But she doesn't deserve that fate for having an affair with an unhappily married man or for wanting a family to help her escape extreme atrocities. 

And maybe that's another thing to remember. It's not June who hanged the father and forced the mother to be a handmaid. She's not the one who committed these crimes, but Aunt Lydia convinces June to blame herself.   

That's another tactic of toxic and abusive people. They'll admit to a wrongdoing but then put the blame on you. 

I'm sorry I got so angry. You bring that out in me.

I'm sorry I'm so controlling. It's just that you.....

I'm sorry I hit you. It's just because.....

Yeah. We hanged that man, but it's because he was helping you. So it's your fault and you should now hate yourself and be eternally grateful to us. 

It IS okay to feel guilt and regret...even if it's for small things and even if it's for things that are not actually our fault.  This keeps us from being shitty people. But if we start to believe we deserve punishments that don't fit the crime or punishment for things that are not our fault, then....

Well, hopefully we'll soon come to our senses and regain our inner strength. 

He Kills His Wife's Chicken and Offers to Pay for His Son's Wedding

The Geoff and Yasmeen drama on Coronation Street continues. Although eventually it's going to pause because of Covid 19. But that's a whole other story.

So....

One evening, Yasmeen (Shelley King) angers Geoff (Ian Bartholomew) by making a meatless dinner. Her reason?  She ran out of the strict allowance he has given her.

He takes on the task of making dinner while Yasmeen does something else. I forget what.

When it comes time for eating, Yasmeen heavily praises the chicken dish Geoff has prepared. With joyful sadism, Geoff finds a way to casually let it be known that the chicken Yasmeen is eating is the egg-laying hen she adored.

Yasmeen is angry, horrified, disgusted, and traumatized. 

Geoff reacts in various stages. At first he's defensive: The hen was no longer laying eggs. Yasmeen herself had said the chicken aren't pets. 

Then later he switches to hoovering mode. He goes from super-asshole husband to sweet, apologetic husband. Why? Well, probably to keep Yasmeen confused and trapped. If a person is 100% horrible all the time, it would probably be easier to leave them....at least in a psychological sense. It's harder, though, when the toxic person is horrible only 80% of time or 40% of the time. Or whatever percentage. And the rest of the time, they're benign. Or even more confusing...sometimes they may put on a mask of wonderfulness.  

The toxic person doesn't just put on the mask of wonderfulness for their victim. They'll do it for others as well.

Around the same time that Geoff murders Yasmeen'ss chicken, he talks to his son Tim (Joe Duttine). . He learns Tim is stressed about paying for his upcoming wedding. Geoff responds by offering to pay for the whole thing. Tim is extremely grateful.

It seems to me that when the toxic person is treating their victim the worse, they up their wonderfulness towards the other people.

They become even more charming.

They become more generous. They'll buy expensive gifts for others.  

They'll become more helpful. They'll do huge favors for others.

They'll show of their talents to impress others.  

I think there are two reasons behind this.

A) To maintain their high self-esteem.  I think some people imagine that narcissists, and other very toxic people, LIKE being evil; that they do evil things and then rub their hands together and laugh their villain laugh.  

That might be the case for some.  But I think most narcissists actually want to be the heroes of the story, not the villain.  They want to be the main character, and they want to be the favorite character. 

A lot of their toxic behavior comes from the manipulations they employ to keep themselves on their high pedestal. 

Then with some toxic people, like Geoff, sadism is also part of the picture. 

I guess it's like they have to balance their love of hurting others with their love of adoration.  

One thing I suspect is that if a narcissist has a lot of adoration, their acts of sadism will be less frequent and more mild.  They get their kicks out of the adoration, so the thrill they'd get from sadism is less needed. Also, they have more to lose if the truth comes out. Therefore, they're more careful.  

But Geoff on Coronation Street is not very popular in the community. I mean he's not a pariah, but I don't think anyone really loves or likes him much besides Yasmeen  

He's not in danger of losing a huge fan-base. 

Okay...and onto the other reason.

B) To build up a defense against their target/scapegoat.  The toxic person collects flying monkeys, enablers, fans, etc.  Then when the victim of their shit seeks out support, it's very hard for the victim to find anyone who will listen, believe them, and take their grievances seriously.

Fortunately for Yasmeen, Geoff is actually not great at collecting flying monkeys. I think most people in the community prefer her to Geoff. And Yasmeen'ss granddaughter Ayla (Sair Khan) actually hates Geoff and suspects that bad things are happening in the marriage.

Will Geoff be able to turn Tim into a flying monkey by paying for the wedding? I think it's quite possible, although it was Tim who found Yasmeen locked in Geoff's magician box a few weeks ago. And I think he got a bit suspicious.  

Actually, now that I think of it...MAYBE that's why Geoff is working to get on Tim's good side. Maybe he understands that Tim is likely to start suspecting that things are very wrong in the marriage. So Geoff is taking strong action to mitigate that. 

Anyway, we shall see what happens. Eventually.

From the brief glimpses of spoilers I've seen....it seems Geoff is going to be the winner.  It's horrible. But it unfortunately matches what too often happens in real life.

The victim ends up either dead, injured....or disbelieved, unsupported, and psychologically traumatized. 

Knowing

Ignorance may be bliss but sometimes knowing can be fun.

Long long time ago....

For my 30th birthday, Tim had a surprise party for me.

For some unexplained reason, my friend revealed to me what was happening. She made it sound like it was an oops, but I got the feeling there was some kind of covert-aggression there.  But that's a whole other story.

Since I'm not really into surprises, it was not a huge loss for me. And I actually had FUN knowing that there was a surprise. I can't remember the details of that, but I do remember enjoying seeing my dad fumble around the whole thing. I think maybe he was the one who drove me to the party?

And with TV shows, it's fun trying to guess the who-did-it. But it's also a lot of fun when we know who did it, and we get to watch them try to hide it. Although it can also be extremely frustrating.

Maybe fun is the wrong word. Suspense might be better. Although suspense IS often fun when it's fictional. It's not fun when you're in suspense about whether your loved one is going to survive surgery or not or whether your house is going to be destroyed in a fire.

So anyway...the other thing I was thinking about in terms of losing ignorance is toxic behavior/psychological manipulation.

I don't want to say I enjoy getting toxic, manipulative texts and emails or that I enjoy encountering manipulation toxicity and manipulation in person.

For the most part, I hate it. I get angry, frustrated, disgusted, and hurt.  My tremor starts acting up....

I wish there'd be much less toxic behavior/psychological manipulation.

BUT....now that I know about these toxic things, there is a bit of fun in getting examples of it.

Shit. Fun really is the wrong word.

Maybe I should say...I find it fascinating?

Maybe it's like getting your arm bit off by a Great White Shark. You'd be screaming, terrified and in pain. But maybe you'd also sit there and think, Wow. I'm having a shark encounter.  I mean people pay a lot of money for those things. Or at least I assume they do.

In a previous post, I talked about how I've gotten into the habit of journaling and taking screenshots of texts and emails to prevent me from gaslighting myself.  Thinking about it, though, I think I also do it as a way of sort of collecting.

Some people collect photographs of birds. I collect screenshots of toxic behavior/manipulation.  

What I look forward to, though, is when the majority of people are knowledgeable about narcissism, toxic behavior, psychological manipulation, covert-aggression, etc. Well, first of all...I think it will reduce these behaviors, because some people use them only out of ignorance. They say and do things to gain the upper hand, preserve their self-esteem, or to preserve their reputation. But they don't realize it hurts other people, and once they do know...they will try to stop. Because they are mostly-good people who are simply misguided.

Then there are others who don't mind hurting people and would continue using these behaviors...BUT if the majority of people can recognize the various methods and tricks, then these methods and tricks will be much less effective. 

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

Tim warns Sally on Coronation Street

In a recent post, I said a lot of bad things about Geoff (Ian Bartholomew) from Coronation Street.

One of the things I wrote is:

AND he changes the narrative about the box.  It's no longer an accident. It was a trick. Why did he do this trick?  It's in his nature. He's a magician. In other words, I can't help myself. It's your duty to accept me the way I am.

Then yesterday, I was watching the 10,000th episode special. This one had Sally (Sally Dynevor) and Tim (Joe Duttine) reconciling.

Tim achieves this with a heartfelt video chat. He once again tells Sally how important she is to him. He talks about how he messed up but that he didn't realize he was messing up. He also says he's going to mess up again, because that's who he is.

I hate Geoff.

I like Tim a lot.  I think he's a great guy.

Now I'm wondering, what's the difference between what the two men have said?

Oh, and I should note that Tim is actually Geoff's son. I could assume then that Tim, despite being not-so-toxic, picked up some dirty tricks from his father.

But I don't think so.

Or I don't FEEL so.

When Tim said his thing, it sounded very sweet.

When Geoff said his, it sounded very sinister.

Could it just be about character and delivery?  We know Geoff is one of the bad guys and that Tim is a good guy. 

Yeah. Maybe it's just about context?

It could also be about the actual deed. Geoff was excusing himself for locking his claustrophobic wife into a small box. Tim's misdeed was not understanding that weddings taking place in Vegas are actually true marriages.

There's a big difference between cruelty and ignorance.

By the way, I'm not writing this post to give answers.

I'm more writing it to ask questions...kind of wrap my head around things.

But now, I think I'm getting the answers.

I would say the difference between lovely, sweet (or at least tolerable) self-deprecation and manipulative self-deprecation lies mostly in the deed.

There's a difference between, I'm horrible at remembering names and I like to terrify the young children of my friends; give them nightmares.

Also, with manipulative self-deprecation, there's often twisting and exaggeration; attempts to bring on a pity party.

You tell someone they hurt your feelings with what they said. They respond with, I can never say anything right, can I?  I'm totally worthless. No wonder you hate me so much.

Then instead of RECEIVING an apology, the person with the original grievance is GIVING out comfort to the person who has hurt them. 

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

Woe is Me but Woe is Not You

The Geoff and Yasmeen storyline on Coronation Street continues.

In an episode I recently watched, Yasmeen (Shelly King) tones down her subservient behavior and began speaking up for herself.  She confronts Geoff (Ian Bartholomew) about his lying and his cruelty.

His son Tim (Joe Duttine) had rescued Yasmeen from the scary, locked, claustrophobic magician's box. Tim expresses concern, and Geoff blatantly lies to him.  He says Yasmeen had put herself in the box to practice the magic stuff. He hadn't purposely locked it. Something went wrong with the latch.

This all is far from the truth. In reality, Geoff had bullied Yasmeen into going into the box. He refused to let her out when she begged. Then he left her in the box and went to the pub.

Prior to the episode I watched yesterday, the dynamic between Geoff and Yasmeen had Geoff belittling, blaming, and shaming Yasmeen, while Yasmeen acted very apologetic. But now, it seems, Yasmeen is realizing the fault in their relationship does not lie with her.

So, Geoff changes his tactic.

Well, I went to re-watch the scene, because I want to make sure I remembered things correctly.

It's a brilliant scene.

But anyway, I'm thinking I'll go through the dialogue step by step and examine Geoff's various escalating tactics.

He starts by bringing up the song "Everything I Do I Do For You". He tells Yasmeen he'd like to play the song for her, because it's true.  He does everything for her.

Really?!

I think it's the most self-centered, egotistical people who make that sort of claim. It's like the celebrity who works long hours, is rarely present, buys extravagant stuff for themselves, wins prestigious awards that they proudly display; then tells their kids, It's all been for you.

Yasmeen has suddenly become less accepting of his bullshit. She tells him this doesn't feel like love and if her mother were alive, she'd tell Yasmeen to run.

Geoff leaves behind the Super Husband angle and jumps to the victim angle. AND he changes the narrative about the box.  It's no longer an accident. It was a trick. Why did he do this trick?  It's in his nature. He's a magician. In other words, I can't help myself. It's your duty to accept me the way I am.

And once again, he brings up the failed magic trick—the one he blames Yasmeen for.

She says, But I didn't do that on purpose. What you did WAS, and it was so calculated.

It's such a relief to see her fighting back. BUT...she still has a lot of fighting left to do.

The next step in Geoff's manipulative defense tactics is crying.

He cries. Then he brings up the abuse from he endured from his former wife.  Now I'm not sure if this abuse really happened or not. It might have. Or it might be completely invented. Or it could be that Geoff was the abusive one in that relationship as well.

Anyway, Geoff's main goal here is to turn Yasmeen's anger into pity.

Tears can work wonders with that.

But he also adds on verbal self-flagellation.

Oh and along with this is a seemingly sincere apology. He says the right words.  He says, I'm sorry I scared you so much, and a little later, please, forgive me.

I'm very glad the Corrie writers had him give an apology. I've too often seen claims that toxic and/or narcissistic people never say the word sorry.  I think they're actually very often capable of saying those words. But their apologies are much more manipulative and self-serving than they are compassionate and redemptive. I wrote about this in my part one and part two posts about apologies. Speaking of self-serving, that's what I'm doing here. I really love those posts that I wrote and hardly anyone has read them. So...

Anyway.....

Really, there are a lot of posts I wish more people would read.

Back to Yasmeen and Geoff.

Yasmeen watches Geoff crying.

I've been in that place before. I sit there thinking, should I continue being angry? Do I have the right to be angry? Am I being unfair? Should I drop the anger and comfort this wounded person? If I choose anger over compassion, am I a cold-hearted person?

It's a horrible feeling.

Okay...had to skip through some scenes of other storylines....

Now I'm seeing that Geoff actually apologizes again.

Yasmeen tells Geoff that she's scared of him.

His response?

He tells her he'd never hit her. He says cowards only hit women.

Yes, and the decent, brave men just ridicule, manipulate, and criticize their partners...and play terrifying tricks on them.

Geoff goes on to talk about his ex-wife. He tries to push the narrative that he's the real victim. He says, She scared me. Physically. That's real abuse.

Fuck him.

So basically, Geoff's message is I'm sorry BUT....What you endured wasn't that bad. It wasn't malicious. I'm the real victim here. And I know what real abuse looks like.

The lines at the end of the episode are brilliant.

Yasmeen tries to steer the conversation back to reducing Geoff's abusive behavior.

She starts to say, I love you too, my darling. But at the end of the day—

Geoff interrupts and asks her to hold him.

She does what he asks her to do. She embraces him and pats him on the back as if he's a young child. She says, I got you. I got you.

And he says. And I've got you. Haven't I?

In a healthy relationship, this could simply mean we have each other's back. But I think the underlying message, when Geoff says it, is that he has her trapped. She's his prisoner.

There's hope, though. Because Yasmeen doesn't say. Yes, you do. Or, Of course you do.

Instead she says, It certainly would appear so.

Did Geoff's tactics work on Yasmeen?

I think to some degree they did.

I think she's better aware now that something is not right in their relationship, and that the blame doesn't lie with her.

I think she's frustrated that the conversation became more about him and his woes and very little about her own woes.

But I think he did manage to tug at her heart strings.  I don't think she'll be ready to pack up and leave just yet. She'll probably have a mixture of anger and pity towards him.

Unfortunately, if she does realize the cruelty in the relationship greatly outweighs the love, fun, and happiness, she won't find it easy to escape.  In the past, Geoff used his manipulation skills to take control of Yasmeen's finances, and he also manipulated himself into buying part of the family business.

So he definitely HAS her.

Another thing I want to say about Geoff's psychological manipulation, in this scene, is that the initial act didn't have to terrifying for his apology to be toxic.

Let's take something more benign.

Let's say.....

Friday is Julia's birthday.  She and her husband Mike talk on Wednesday about going out for a nice birthday dinner.

Friday comes along. Julie gets a text from Mike at 6:00, saying he needs to talk to some coworkers, so he'll be a little late.

Julie doesn't complain. She doesn't want to interfere with her husband's job.

She waits for him to get home.

And waits, and waits, and waits.

He comes home at 9:00. He casually tells her they got to talking and decided to go out for some drinks.

She bottles up her anger but does remind him that they had planned to go out.

He says,  Sorry. I didn't know we had to go out on your exact birthday. Could we go out for Saturday instead?  How about we go for lunch AND dinner?

Julie decides to agree with this. She doesn't want to turn her birthday weekend into a drama.

Saturday comes along and Mike tells Julie his cousin called. She needs help moving into her new apartment.

Julie reminds him about the birthday lunch.

Mike reminds Julie that his aunt has cancer, and things are really hard for his cousin.

She doesn't fight this, because she doesn't want to be the person who doesn't seem to have sympathy for families dealing with cancer.

Julia doesn't hear from Mike for hours.

He returns home close to dinner and says he has a birthday treat for Julie. He and his cousin and some of her friends went to a street fair near her neighborhood. While they were there, they picked something up for Julia.

Mike presents Julia the treat. It's a double chocolate chip muffin.  Julie has told Mike multiple times, in the past, that she likes chocolate baked goods, and she likes baked goods with chocolate chips. BUT she doesn't like chocolate over chocolate.  It's one of the quirky things about her.

This is Julia's breaking point. With her voice-raised, she tells him she doesn't like chocolate chips. She also complains about his going out on her birthday night and breaking the lunch plus dinner plans.

Mike tells Julia he's sorry. He would never ever purposely hurt her. He loves her more than anything in the world and nothing is more important to him than her. 

She says, You say that but it's not how you act. Actions speak louder than words.

Mike starts tearing up.  He says, I guess my parents were right about me. I'm careless and stupid. They would punish me by taking away my birthday. Every year. No gifts. No special dinner. No cake. Now THAT is a true bad birthday. He starts sobbing.  Julie comforts him.  Instead of having a Julia's-birthday weekend, they have a poor-dear-Mike weekend.

Being birthday-neglectful is much less evil than locking someone in a claustrophobic box. But the manipulation is still hard to deal with. It's still toxic.

The message Julia gets is that she shouldn't speak up. She should keep her grievances to herself. She should let things slide.  In a relationship like this, confrontation doesn't bring resolution or compromise. It just brings more drama to the table. It just makes things worse.

Read my novel: The Dead are Online

Thinking More Thoughts about the Geoff and Yasmeen Storyline.

Yesterday I wrote about how the Geoff and Yasmeen storyline on Coronation Street makes me uncomfortable.

One of the reasons is, I worried I was like Geoff (Ian Bartholomew) in some ways. Geoff is an emotionally abusive husband, so he is not someone most of us would want to relate to.

Today I watched another episode and got some more insight into why I feel that way.

It's because Geoff (falsely) accuses Yasmeen (Shelley King) of doing things that people, in my life, have done that annoy and/or hurt me.

I've complained about these things—sometimes directly to the person, sometimes venting to someone else, sometimes in this blog, and sometimes in my private journal.

In today's episode, Geoff accuses her of being out too long—fifteen minutes instead of the five she said it would take. Now I can't imagine expecting anyone to be gone for five minutes only. And if we had no where we needed to be, I don't think I'd be angry at anyone for being ten minutes late.

BUT I have noticed when someone is gone for much longer than I would expect them to be—like two hours instead of thirty minutes. Or four hours instead of one hour. Stuff like that.

I'm left wondering. Where did they disappear to?

Is it abusive and controlling to wonder that? I don't think so.

But then I see Geoff getting angry at Yasmeen for being gone fifteen minutes instead of five, and I find myself feeling like I'm him.

Yasmeen tries to convince Geoff that his magic show being accidentally turning into a viral comedy video is actually a good thing.  Well, because he blames her for getting stuck in his magician box and has been punishing her since the performance.

Geoff accuses Yasmeen of purposely pushing his buttons. She's the one being emotionally abused; yet he's doing a pretty good job of convincing her it's the reverse situation.

But here we go again. I'VE accused people of pushing my buttons. I don't usually do it to their face, because when you have someone who truly is probably trying to push your buttons, sharing your hurt feelings with them doesn't really help. It just provides them with ammunition for future teasing and/or manipulation.

It's unnerving, though, to hear an abusive person make the same accusations I've made against others.

The third thing is, Yasmeen reaction to Geoff's behavior. She acts very wounded and eager to please She acts like someone who desperately wants there to be peace and no drama. I've seen similar behavior when I've cornered people about their gaslighting or other things that have hurt me. Well, I don't think there's been an eager-to-please attitude. But sometimes there is that wounded look. There's the attitude of, can't you just drop this. Can't we just get along and be happy and peaceful?

So yeah. I think all these things are confusing for me.

There's a term in pop psychology regarding toxic people. It's walking-on-eggshells. This is when it's terrifying to be with an abusive person, because you don't know what little thing is going to trigger an outrageous, abusive reaction.

Well, I actually heard that term first from my dad. He would use it to describe the fact that I'm sensitive. He would purposely push my buttons or say something insensitive. I would be hurt, and he would say he's tired of walking on eggshells.

So I'm weary of that term, actually. Because who gets to decide what the eggshells are and who gets to decide what constitutes walking on them?

Is Yasmeen walking on eggshells when she decides to accept her daughter's invitation for a two hour spa visit?  She wants to keep it from Geoff, because she imagines he won't like her doing a social thing like that.

In the episode I watched today, Geoff threw away Yasmeen's breakfast. When she meekly told him she hadn't finished eating, he told her she could lose stand to lose some weight.  If Yasmeen had the strength to express hurt over his comments, would Geoff be the one who is walking on eggshells?  Could he say, I can't even make a simple observation or give you constructive criticism. I'm tired of walking on eggshells!

Yes, he could say it.  Though I would disagree strongly with where he's coming from. For me, it's definitely Yasmeen who is walking on the eggshells. She should definitely be allowed and encouraged to spend an afternoon with her granddaughter.  The fact that she feels she needs to hide that from her husband definitely seems like someone walking on eggshells.

Yet, what if Yasmeen actually didn't do her share of work? What if she was very frequently going out to bars and spas. What if Geoff was left to do most of everything?  What if he found out about the spa visit and got angry? And then, what if Yasmeen complained that she felt like she was walking on eggshells?

Is my dad walking on eggshells, because I sometimes become hurt and angry when he pushes my buttons and/or says ignorant, offensive things. Or am I walking on eggshells, because I fear if I express my hurt feelings, I might be facing manipulation, gaslighting, punishment, etc?

One thing that calmed some of my mental confusion, about all this, was Sally (Sally Dynevor) and Tim (Joe Duttine) on Coronation Street. Neither of them are close to perfect, but they're not toxic.

Yet they're having major relationship drama right now. Because Tim is an accidental bigamist. Sally is having a hard time forgiving him for the fact that it turns out their marriage is illegitimate.

Now I personally feel she's being a bit unfair. It was an accident. Tim didn't become a bigamist on purpose. It was a matter of stupidity rather than maliciousness or selfishness. He's working to get back on Sally's good side, and she's refusing to make it easy.

This helped me remember, though, that anger doesn't just exist within toxic relationships.

It's not always an anger we can relate to. It might seem silly or invalid to us, but that doesn't mean the angry person is a toxic one. Or even if the anger IS toxic, it doesn't mean the person is a chronically and pervasively abusive person like Geoff.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can be sensitive and get angry, and that doesn't mean we're abusive shitheads like Geoff.

Read my novel: The Dead are Online