Author Topic: President Trump supports re-examing our definitions of abuse  (Read 1445 times)

Kerry

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 298
President Trump supports re-examing our definitions of abuse
« on: January 24, 2017, 04:08:23 AM »
This post is about defining/adding to our definition of the word abuse.

Over the generations we have been refining our definition of abuse. Within memory of most seniors teachers were allowed to hit students with a switch/ruler; one of mine sprinkeld pepper on my tongue for chewing gum. More recently child and relationship healthcare professionals are addressing yelling and spanking and its affects. Daily we are experiencing communications from President Trump that prompt us to examine our definitions of the word abuse; specifically, the validity of our experience. Does it, did it, feel good? We each have our own "definitions" of the words responsibility and abuse.

For forty plus years, as a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach, I have been adding to the existing definition of the word abuse. Here's what I've come up with so far; excerpted from The [free] Spouse Abuse Tutorial. Please post your thoughts.
 
Begin Definition:

Abuse: 1) Any interaction, any communication (verbal, non-verbal, physical, or psychic), that detracts from the aliveness, well-being, or serenity of another. 2) A way of acting, to include silence, withholding the truth or parts of it, avoiding (not answering/misdirecting) a question, frowning, pouting, smirking, stink-eye, rolling-eyes, thwarting, insulting, swearing, putting down, invalidating, condescending, raised voice, frightening, upsetting, shocking, yelling, screaming, jabbing, pushing, shoving, jerking, grabbing, yanking, pulling another's arm in upset, spanking, slapping, bringing to ones senses with a loving firm slap, hitting, punching, or kicking.

Equally important: It is abusive to create space for the above. You have an effect on others; you communicate and produce results merely by standing silently in a crowded room. "For every action [or inaction] there is an equal and opposite reaction." Just because one is unaware of how they produced a result doesn't mean they didn't cause it.

End Definition:

Note: This definition is based upon what we experience when another's communication doesn't feel good. No matter what I think, a valid test for abuse is, "How did that feel?" It's understoof that in the middle of a significant communication it often doesn't feel good; what's important is that both partners are committed to mutual satisfaction upon completion.

Most of us have no choice other than to abuse when we are abusing or being abused. What we do have is a choice to observe ourself having created abuse and to verbally (responsibly) acknowledge each abusive communication soonest.

It's not that one is abusive to another, we've been programmed to hide upsets, thoughts, and considerations until we explode at someone; what compounds the effects of any abuse, what trains a child to later abuse his/her own children, is that his/her parents failed to verbally acknowledge each and every instance of abuse to each other in front of their child.

For example:
 
Spouse to partner or child: "I get that my yelling at you earlier today didn't feel good; I know it was abusive." Notice that the acknowledgment doesn't explain, justify or apologize for the abuse—simply acknowledging each and every instance of abuse eventually puts one in choice, to abuse or not. A responsible acknowledgment creates introspection as to its source such as recalling and relating the earliest similar abuse (the day date location etc.). Something about that first incident is incompelte. Communication completes an incomplete so that one is not at effect of what used to trigger the upset.

Please help define abuse by posting your suggestions as a Reply here. (free registration required)

Last edited 2/13/17

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal