I Am Not 'they'

[shimmerz]

I am seeing a disturbing trend when it comes to some supporters speaking about 'us' (sufferers). When I see questions like 'why do they..... scream, be aggressive, flip out etc', I have to admit that I recoil. I feel that this type of speak actually perpetuates a misconception that PTSD'ers are violent by nature.

I am never aggressive in my reactions. Many of us are not. Any type of abusive behaviour is abhorrent to so many of us. I would appreciate, when posting about issues that some have with their sufferers that it would be better to say 'Why does he or she' follow whatever behaviour pattern they are encountering with their sufferer.

I am not 'they' just because I have PTSD. I am me. And 'they' are he or she. Please be respectful of sufferers individuality.

Respectfully,
Shimmerz

 

[deer_in_headlights]

Beautifully said, @shimmerz !

Thank you!:tup::hug:

 

[Friday]

Also respectfully... They aren't dating you. They're dating someone who does get aggressive and/or flip out.

Is that a PTSD thing? I'd solidly say, yes.

Blow-Up, Freak-Out, Shut-Down... Fight, Flight, Freeze...One of those three, in response to stress? Yeah. As a whole, we do that. Have to learn how not to. Even then I don't know anyone who's 100% never gonna respond badly.

Whether it's

- Screaming and running away to hide in a corner/closet/car in terror... cannot be talked to, touched, reasoned with... Even to the point of injuring people on accident (shoving out of the way, throwing things at, flailing, slamming doors in faces, kicking, biting, fear fear fear, get away get away get away)

- Or rage storm rising, and Kapow! Blam! Crash! and cannot be talked to, touched, reasoned with, simply oozing violence... (Even if they've never hurt a single person ever, no matter how blind rage they get)

That's more of a fear response v fight response / matter of individuality... But yeah. Both happen. With untreated PTSD, or in a bad cycle &/or under stress? A whole lot.

It's not like every supporter is married to/dating FreezeResponse with those accompanying problems.

If a supporter is married to/dating someone who responds violently? Whether out of fear or rage? Are they just supposed to STFU & not talk about those very real challenges? Or be confined to impossible questions? (Why do they do this? Why does John Q do this? // Um. No idea, don't know the bloke. XYZ is common with PTSD ).

 

[shimmerz]

Are they just supposed to STFU & not talk about those very real challenges?

Nope, don't think I ever said that. I don't really ever tell anyone to STFU and have absolutely no idea where that one came from. Am I misreading your post? Are you saying I am suggesting that? And if so, would you mind letting me know what part of my post alludes to that type of attitude?

 

[greenleaf]

It's true that a lot of us have never done the "fight" reflex sorts of things. For me, seeing the result of my brother physically attacking everyone in the family at one time or another provided strong motivation to try to figure him out and not repeat that. Also violence was counter-productive for me in dealings with him, as he was older and stronger -- so I learned very good control (and dissociation.) It just happened that way, I didn't set the situation up.

However (my perception of?) societal attitudes and specific statements that lump abuse survivors together as violent nutcases, damaged goods, different and untrustworthy or whatever have been harmful to me; it became very strongly ingrained in me to not tell people in the "real world" about those events or my issues. (It's hard to even remember the details of what happened to make me feel this, 40 years ago...)

I have for decades had a weird separation where I can talk to people like a T or a couple of friends about the stuff but it's all been separate from the "real world". Compartmentalization? Structural dissociation? very separate worlds for me though and I'm finally integrating the worlds, it's a really bizarre experience that I just didn't "get" some really basic things. On the plus side, a great trauma T and some "real world" people accepting me and I guess being concerned is proving amazing.

Everyone has different issues and perspectives in dealing with abuse whether as a survivor or supporter or whatever, but I'm personally glad for @shimmerz' post. The "lumping" can be very harmful to people though I guess it's human nature.

 

[Weemie]

My initial response was a bit like Friday's. I think it's important for Supporters to have a space to vent, and to be exposed to real people with PTSD.

Having a Supporter section on this forum must be pretty controversial sometimes since the issues are so inverse to what we experience. Like, it annoys me to no end when Supporters come on here and talk about how Johnny Q beats the shit out of them, "is that just their PTSD?" Like, of f*cking course not, the guy's just a psycho. This discussion is important to have, considering half of this community is comprised of Supporters.

Yet, a Supporter with a military spouse might see things differently than a husband who's wife experienced sexual abuse, for example. Military training adds an additional component to PTSD that sexual abuse victims normally don't have; namely aggression. Even so, I wasn't in the military like Friday but I sure as f*ck go into blinding rages sometimes. I feel crazy, and terrified and confused. Little things set me off. That's a real component of my PTSD so I am sure it exists for people who are in relationships as well. I don't Do relationships so it's not relevant to my life, but if I did, I'd think my Person would want to be able to come somewhere to be understood, that it's not about blaming me, just about understanding me.

Sometimes? I don't think those two can exist peacefully in the same space. Supporters talking about feeling scared of their spouses (which is a real thing for my life, feeling people being afraid of me, walking on eggshells around me) might trigger people like you (not such a real thing, equates this behavior to abuse/trigger). There's a delicate balance to be had, somewere...

Once while I was at work, my computer Bluescreened and I legitimately just got up and straight up punched a garbage can. Hand bleeding everywhere. People looking at me like I'm a f*ckin' alien. I'd like to hope that I'm not just a maniac, that I was just neurally overloaded by Angry Impulses and in that moment I failed to override my neurology? Recognizing that helps build contradictory pathways. Soothing pathways. "Yep. Ya done f*cked Up. Next time, try Not Punching Stuff."

I don't know if I am confident to say that I would be able to be in control of myself 100% of the time. They might leave dirty dishes on the sink and I see them and snap, "for f*ck's sake! What the f*ck is wrong with you!" and, you know? Just a silly little "bleep! Brain has experienced an error." Yes, I am an asshole in that moment, but also: yes, that's because my neurology can't adapt to noveltystress like regular Branes. A lot of this stuff is behavioral. Like, blindingpanicfreakoutrages are common with PTSD, but to a certain degree, you have to get your neurology under control. Some people are better at that than others.

(And, yeah: reasons are not excuses. I'm working on it! Understanding why something happens helps us overcome it.)

 

[Tinyflame]

I agree with @shimmerz . It's semantics, but an individual. Like saying if you know one person with (x) you know one person with (x). Now add in individual characteristics, individual personalities, histories, trustworthiness, commitment, level of honesty, dyadic relations etc etc -> = unique dynamic between people.

[And are they saying 'they' to not disclose gender (he/ she) or 'they' as in 'everyone with ptsd' (because 'everyone' would be an over-generalization = a fallacy anyway. ) ]

Maybe what would be more useful is figuring out if there's something that can be done differently or in a different way? And/ or also, to say/ think "with ptsd (..it is common..), etc" , versus = the person= only ptsd.

I do a lot of care with people with Alzheimer's disease, for example (& many other conditions); it only makes any sense to me to say (even to myself), for eg "With Alzheimer's disease you often find people will do (x)", or such. (But better is, for eg to help/ explain, "In getting to know Bill (eg) I think he may do (x) because from what's he's told me/ I see/ and/ or such-&-such, he may fear (y). What might work better, if that is indeed some of the basis for the behaviour/ feelings/ actions/ reactions, or affects it?".

Don't get me wrong, I don't care if I would be called a "PTSD'er" , I don't feel offended (if the shoe fits..), but even my rage-stage was variable/ not a never-ending or uncontrolable/ can't be managed feature of my ptsd thru the lifespan.

 

[Ed Norton]

Although, I admit that I really can't read the supporter's forum I'm glad it exists. Although 'they' do seem to all have the same story that may be indicative of a lot of 'us' not all and I agree that there must be something there for that to be so. I also, agree that the pronouns 'he' and 'she' are better but I don't or rarely have read those forums. And also maybe they are dating/married to several people who have PTSD so 'they' is appropriate' :rolleyes:

 

[Friday]

Are you saying I am suggesting that? And if so, would you mind letting me know what part of my post alludes to that type of attitude?

It was honestly a very real question. The solution you provided doesn't work. Because it literally cannot be answered. No one here can say why he or she does anything. We can talk about trends, & what's common with PTSD... But that's doing exactly what you're asking not to be done; don't generalize. At all. Not even a smidge. So what are they supposed to do? It's like saying "You can eat, as long as you don't swallow." Um. So you're saying don't eat? "Where did I imply they couldn't eat?" Ummmmm...:confused:

***

The only other possible solution I see to that same problem is asking that we hold supporters to some kind of grammar code that sufferers aren't held to? Or are we both to be held to such a code? Because not all sufferers experience all symptoms, never use the plural? As a supporter never say They, as a sufferer never say We. Not in a question, in a vent, casual conversation, or deep in thread talking to other people dealing with the same issue. Using the term "we" means you could offend someone who doesn't XYZ (have DID, nightmares, memory loss, lashing out, et cetera) with being lumped into a group of people they're horrified to even be thought a part of in passing. :meh:

I just can't see that working. Published paper perfect diction whilst walking on eggshells?

Is there some other solution I'm not seeing beyond impossible standards, and dare thee not to offend?

***

IDK... I generally see peeps on both side of the fence working towards the middle in threads. Basic generalizations we/they stand as normal conversation trying to get a general feel for a symptom or behavior that individual or group is dealing with (including people who disagree; I don't / my sufferer doesn't); meanwhile sweeping generalizations (all, every) tend to get nipped pretty fast. Shrug. If something we/they doesn't apply to me? I may durn well pipe in (Not it! I do this other thing!), or I simply ignore it as people thrashing out something I don't have to deal with & count my lucky stars. Hey, afterall, it could always be worse! I could have that symptom or behavior, too! It's not like people are trying to offend me, or cast PTSD in this negative light, by talking about symptoms or expressions I don't have (or look down upon). They're talking about their lives, and their challenges.

 

[Tinyflame]

Could I add something here? (I don't want to go off topic & I can delete if @shimmerz wants- that's ok :tup: ). It does remind me of dealing with Alzheimer's disease. You know what no one ever says but should- Be your self. Be 100 % trustworthy. Don't bring your 'feelings' (eg anxiety), because the person will sense it & equate it to themself. Be honest (I have one person says they're bored to tears in the environment, I agree- me too! :hungover: :spitdummy: . They are the best group of people to work with because they'll tell you the truth, no BS by-&-large). And know that trust is greater but so is expectation the closer the relationship. To me those parallels exist in all areas of life, including being with someone with ptsd. Some 'better ways' would be potentially helpful in any relationships, ptsd or not. Yes ptsd does impose unique challenges, but it can't be fixed & it's not healthy to not love & respect one another (both people, with equality & gratitude, in words & behaviours).

 

[Sweetpea76]

Honestly, how are people going to know if "all PTSD" sufferers do or don't do XYZ if they don't ask?

The supporter section is a place to learn.

Most of us will respond to questions like this with "no", "everybody is different", or "my vet/sufferer does xyz because they say it makes them feel xyz", etc. It's part of the learning process.

Also, newer supporters aren't on here because their partner is acting kind and wonderful. I'd be willing to bet like 99% of us start here because something is going bad in the relationship.

I started here after my vet had a few rage episodes. One, as I was folding my kids' old clothes for a yard sale. Something about Iraqi kids wearing old hand-me-down looking clothes triggered him. Next thing I know I have a very large, angry man standing over me yelling about how I'm ruining his life until I cried, then he yells at me for crying. It scared the shit out of me. I didn't know if he was going to hit me or hurt me. All I could think was "wtf did I do??? That wasn't him! He doesn't usually act like that... Was that his PTSD? Does everybody with PTSD do that? Is that common, or is it him being abusive? Will he do it again? Do I need to be worried for my safety.?"

Unfortunately, as @lightraze was saying, rages and aggression can be common with combat PTSD, and supporters need to learn to respond to it in a healthy and safe way. This is one of the places where we learn to do that. I can see how discussion like that would be upsetting to an abuse survivor though. There have been a few times where sufferers have gotten very upset with our posts.

 

[Tinyflame]

I agree too with @FridayJones & @Sweetpea76 . I think the most important part is avoiding generalizing, or attitudes of parent-child dynamic or the blame game (sole responsibility/ demonizing, etc). Work for understanding, solutions/ change, support for the supporter (including exit strategy if necessary). (PS I've been on both sides of the fence.)