Angel, I want you to know how terribly sorry I am that your parents failed you so badly.:cry: And how much I admire your tenacity in hanging on to reality and trying to relearn how to be in the world and trust that which is actually trustworthy. You go girl!
I thought gaslighting referred to a deliberate tactic by someone to abuse or control someone else.
Yup - and IMHO your parents were deliberately (it wasn't accidental was it?) rewriting history and denying your perceptions and knowledge and experience, specifically minimizing your pain and concern, so that you would not treat their abuse as abuse and would not rebel against their deranged treatment of you and each other. The question of moral culpability for that is slightly, but importantly different. (see below.)
With my mom- it was more like, anything she didn't want to acknowledge just "disappeared!" Reality became what she needed it to be at the moment. And evidence was to no avail. I could have showed her a document she wrote and signed and she would have said I forged it. She would have been ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN she had never written it, so I must have forged it.
Ok, so she didn't set out to abuse you in particular, it was just reality as a whole that she was intending to do violence to. I have to say, I am a bit stumped as to which is worse.:confused::eek: Her willingness to turn her daughter into a liar is stunning. Her willingness to simply abandon truth is terrifying. I don't know if this is psychosis - but its kissing cousins anyhow.
I guess with my dad there was more controlling intent. (It makes me so crazy even trying to think about it, I almost can't!) With my dad, I was always "misunderstanding" what had happened. It happened, but I warped and twisted it. I was stupid or diseased in the brain any time I disagreed with his version of anything.
Ok, so this doesn't sound accidental. This sure seems like classic gaslighting to me. Sounds like you were collateral damage here too - but maybe not - how much was he responsible for your mothers delusional thinking? Is it worse to try to make a child believe she is a liar when she is not, or crazy when she is not? Is it worth worrying about which is worse? Probably not. Both are plenty bad.
But I don't think they were deliberately toying with my sense of reality. They were always telling the truth, were totally convinced that they were correct and I was an idiot at all times... it really made me doubt everything. I still feel totally and completely stupid all of the time because I feel like I can't understand or perceive or communicate anything correctly.
Lets be clear; they were not "telling the truth". They may have been telling you what they were committed to espousing at the moment - but neither had a sufficient commitment to either evidence or rational coherence to be properly said to have any relationship with the "truth" whatsoever. (I get a little huffy about the issue of truth. I kind of think it is sacred, so pardon the "tone" please.:alien: ) So long as you DIDN'T buy into their little make-believe world there is likely nothing at all wrong (and quite a little bit right, as you have survived the whole ordeal) with your perception or understanding of reality.:tup:
The unfortunate fact is that most people have a pretty ambivalent relationship with reality, and are more than willing to just dismiss or abuse those who don't want to support their own personal delusions. I am quite strict about how I treat disagreements - I don't automatically judge in my own favor - I investigate and reflect and am partly wrong very often and mostly wrong about as often as I am mostly right, which is not very often. That they would habitually "make" you wrong is the worst sort of abuse you have described IMHO. This is what torturers do. The fact that they could do it in good conscience makes them... what? Nuts. Bad Parents. Dangerous people. Are they morally culpable? Depends on what their intentions were - and without the mythical "intention-o-meter" we will not know. Likely THEY don't/didn't know. They couldn't or wouldn't track simple facts - how could they track something as ephemeral as intentions?
Would it help you to make a distinction between your perception/experiences, and your understanding, and your ability to effectively communicate the two to others? Your perceptions are just facts : "I saw you take the file" Your understanding includes your interpretations of the facts: "I think the file is not yours, and I don't know that you had permission to take it, so I think you stole it." You ability to communicate about this effectively is always relative to the person you are communicating to's ability to hear what you are saying. So saying "Mr X stole the Blackbox file" is a lot easier to the head of security who has always thought Mr. X a rather shady character, than it is to say to his colleague who is having an affair with him and thinks he is a super guy. See what I mean? In order to survive you had to see EVERYTHING - much more than normal people. I suspect you still do. This makes your world harder than average to navigate. Just a guess, but you'd know which it is.
I don't know how to start trusting my own perception of things.
Test them against the other evidence. Use the distinctions between perception/experience and understanding. I'm guessing you are right way more often than not.;)
Like like like like like freakofnature's comment "Everything that hurts does count." You Count!