Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    a platitude:
    
    Discretion is the better part of valor.
    
    If indeed it was a physically dangerous situation, then I would
    not accuse you of being a "wimp". I don't think your self-respect
    should suffer because you extricated yourself from a situation that
    I'm sure your SO would have regretted later (if he wouldn't regret
    it, I'd ask just how signifigant is he now?)(unless of course it
    wass you who were being dangerous to him :-) )
    Passive submission is a technique used by both sexes to escape physical
    harm. I doubt that it means that you will now be passive submissive
    permanantly or even temporarily.
    What's wrong with justifications and rationalizations if they are
    true. (you have to judge their truth)
    As for feeling like a hypocrite, one act does not make a hypocrite,
    hypocrisy is a way of life: "the feigning of beliefs, feelings,
    or virtues that one does not hold or possess". It may have been
    an hypocritical act, but I don't believe that makes you a hypocrit.
    As for cowardice, becareful to not confuse bravery with foolishness
    (the meaning of the opening platitude) "the fool rushes in where
    angels fear to tread"(or something like that.
    
    anyway, I hope I provided some comfort. please excuse my abundance
    of aphorisms, but the reason they become aphorisms is because of
    their concise statement of a "truth".
    No, actually I don't want to provide "comfort" per-say, but support,
    confidence in yourself.
    
    there's no shame in "wimping-out", *when it is appropriate*.
    
    sm

        I'd say it also depends a lot on what the situation was,
        and how you "wimped out".
        
        If you're at the point of calling someone an SO, then there
        should generally be a comittment to cooperate.  If he felt
        really strongly on something, and you finally gave in, that's
        not necessary "submission"... it may be perfectly rational
        cooperation.  For example, if you were arguing about whether
        to get a car, where the result can only be "yes" or "no",
        I wouldn't say you were submissive for letting him get it
        (or agreeing not to get it, as the case may be), when it
        obviously meant a lot to him.
        
        If the discussion was about something less absolute, and
        he was simply refusing to compromise in any way, then *he*
        was being highly unreasonable, and you were just swallowing
        a little self-respect to prevent the confrontation from
        worsening.  Again, that's not "submission".  In this case,
        it's he who needs to learn some flexibility, not you who
        needs to learn inflexibility.
        
        I've heard somewhere that a lot of arguments aren't so much "i
        want this and that's final" as a game "i'd like to convince you
        that this means more to me than it does to you", where the
        one who is finally so convinced will gracefully give in.
        
        If you were seriously concerned about your physical safety,
        it sounds like the confrontation had already gone way beyond
        that... but it may have started that way.
        
        	/dave

Your therapist is right on all three counts.

However. It can't possibly feel good to back down from a position you
beleive in due to coercion or threat of coercion. Let this anger out and
direct it at the proper target and you have a good chance of feeling better.  

Don.

Please don't be so hard on yourself!  I've been there, and I know how
badly one's self esteem can suffer, but I learned that sometimes I had
to accept those reactions of mine that I didn't like as having been
right for the situation.

Last year, during the seven months between my divorce and the sale of
my house, I found myself in "potentially physically dangerous" situations
several times, each time the result of a disagreement with my ex-husband.
I "wimped-out" and hid out for a total of two of those seven months.
I didn't like having to do it - hell, I didn't want to think that it 
was necessary - but my instinct for survival won out and caused me to do
what I've come to realize was the right thing.

What I'm trying to say is this:  theories are very nice, but sometimes
you have to scrap them and just concentrate on survival.  Sometimes the
world just isn't as well-ordered as we'd like to think it is.

Linda

Another vote for your having done the right thing. It isn't wimpishness
    to realize that the other person is so upset that they can't listen
    to reason, and also the collorlary - that no matter how right you
    believe you are you are probalby too upset to make your points clearly.
    Waiting until both parties are calm and can discuss things clearly
    is really only common sense and is a lot more productive in the
    long run. No matter what the sex of your antagonist is, finding
    a reasonable way to end an argument that is out of control is the
    best way to able to deal with it constructively when feelings are
    cooler.  
    Bonnie 

    A little story from Greek history.  Someone approached one of the great
philosophers and asked if the he thought he was a great man.  The
philosopher replied, "I don't know, I'm not dead yet." One act doesn't make
a whole life or even a whole episode.   Even if you did "wimp out" (which I
don't think you did) that doesn't invalidate all the learning, growing, and
liberation you've done over the last few years.   You have more work to do
than you thought, but you haven't "lost" what you've struggled for. 

    My wife and I have found in (or well after) our worst fights that we really
love each other, but it takes some time and distance to remember we do and 
why. Backing out of a fruitless "discussion" (whether by "submission" or getting
out of the house or whatever) while it may not conform to some theoretical
correctness might well have been the only appropriate response.  It may give
you the time and space you need to really look at the situation and do whatever
needs doing.

Take heart.

    I have to respond to this one.....  Aside from the self-survival
    issues and all of that, and your need to protect yourself AND your
    desire to do right by yourself and your therapist.... there's another
    issue here...
    
    You can't undo thirty years (I'm guessing) of previous habits in
    3 years of therapy... you can start to learn and pick up some pointers
    and start to feel strong, but as your therapist said, you were
    threatened and reverted to patterns that were, at that moment,
    ingrained far more deeply than the new ones you are just now starting
    to use.
    
    The best analogy I've ever heard, and one that was used on me during
    such a personal crisis lo these 4 years hence, was that you are
    very much like a merry-go-round, turning slowly and joyfully, musically
    lilting forward... a bump underneath you rises and makes you slowly
    grind to a halt.  You work in your therapy to get rid of the bump
    and soon you start to move again.... but as you turn, you pass by
    where that bump was and the merry-go-round wobbles a bit... it might
    stop, or it might just go on and wobble a little... and as it passes
    over that rough spot again, it wobbles a little less.... until passing
    over that rough spot is no longer of consequence.  After awhile,
    the rough spot is gone.....
    
    You know the work involved in what you're doing.... you are trying
    the monumentous task of trying to fix yourself.... and by that I
    don't mean to say that something is broken -- but you NEED to fix
    it....  
    
    You cannot take each digression as a failure... and you certainly
    cannot assume that because you handled it this way THIS time that
    it guarantees you'll handle it this way NEXT time....  
    
    I have a hunch that NEXT time you'll be more prepared simply due
    to the grief you're giving yourself right now!!!
    
    I hope you didn't find the analogy condescending or patronizing...
    I have just never found a better way of presenting it than the way
    it was actually presented to me....
    
    Be a little more forgiving of yourself, kiddo.... understand that
    each weakness now builds a strength further up the line....
    
    And, point of fact, YOU'RE the only one who sees it as a weakness....
    
    Bugsy

    If I read the base note correctly I think your "so" needs some help.
    I may be out of line here but there is something here that bothers
    me. In the 19 years I have been married and before I never put
    my wife nor her me in a situation where we had a reason to fear
    physical harm, and we've had some good disagrements. If you
    had reason to feel threatened, I would think that that you and
    your "so" better have a little talk. I would think twice about
    being with someone who I felt would/could physically threaten
    me into submisson to get  their way.
             
    dave
    

    Thank you all for your responses. It's funny, the whole thing was
    so scary - the situation and my response to it - that I was even
    afraid to see what kind of responses I would get! I'm glad I was
    brave enough to check. Yes, my so *does* need help, yes I am
    re-evaluating our relationship, but mostly, yes, yes, yes, it is
    a merry-go-round that I am most like, right now. I really like that
    analogy. 
    
    It's good to realize yet again what thoughtful, caring, and perspicious
    folks I work with...
    
    Stel

    A point rased in this topic is fear of physical harm.  Maybe this
    deserves its own note but ...
         
    I can't believe anyone would continue in a relationship where there
    is a possibility of physical harm.  What could be a stronger statement
    of domination, lack of love, etc.?

    (partly from my own experience)
    People stay in a physically-dangerous situation for lots of reasons:
    fear of failure, lack of money, not wanting to admit that it can't
    be made to work, religion won't permit divorce, children, pressure
    from in-laws and family, inertia, low self-esteem, ...

    This would go nicely in QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS Conference.
    
    May I add, though, that some people stay within "hurtful" relationships
    'cause, and I quote, "It's better than none at all", "I don't know
    what I would do without him/her", and "I don't think anyone else
    cares for me as much as <insert name here) does". 
    
    I think these statements (coming from a close friend of mine) indicate
    very low self-esteem and low confidence level.  
    
    Speaking from personal experience, one guy I dated for a bit who
    got a little too drunk, laid a hand on me and left 5 bruises from
    his hand on my arm.  Those marks didn't go away for weeks.
    Good thing it was winter and I wore long sleeved shirts.  I didn't
    see this person after that 'cause I don't have to put up with that.
    
    One for the road: "ever hear of EMOTIONAL beatings".  They can be
    far worse (and with lasting damage) than physical beatings.  My
    bruises healed but not the feelings I have for this guy.  
    

Guilt, and the opportunity to do penance... 

CQ