Lisa wrote:

> Can you explain to me why YOU think she posted it?

Because many of us are trying to understand our survivors and why they do what
they do and how they
see the world. If I'm not mistaken, Mrs. Frog didn't write that but it expressed
how she and many
other survivors feel and why. She shared it to help us understand survivors.

> but I think that a survivor who posts on this particular website that she
knows is her ex's
> support, has crossed a line, especially when she is reading his posts,
knowing his pain, and
> then just posting "just listen" without introduction.

First, Simon asked Mrs. Frog to join this board. And she has, for the most part,
kept quiet and
simply read. I don't know why she would need an introduction to "Just Listen" if
it's good advice
and it's helpful to partners. If a stranger handed you a piece of paper with
instructions on how to
make your life easier, would you throw the paper away simply because you didn't
know the person who
handed it to you? That would be a foolish action.

> When I read it, I thought it was directed at him. It was cruel to hold
something
> out that he might misconstrue as asking HIM to just listen.

Then rather than assume it was directed at him and that she was being cruel, why
not ask if that was
her intention before getting all "up in arms" and mad?

> This particular group is primarily for partners, not survivors. My anger is
not misdirected.

If I had posted "Just Listen", would it have made you just as mad? If not, then
your anger is
misdirected.

> Whether what she said is true or not, this is not the forum to post it without
invitation
> because of her ex's active participation in this group.

She had an invitation to join: from Simon. And the rest of us welcomed her.
Maybe you weren't on
this board then, but she is not here as a "sneak" or a "lurker" but by Simon's
own invitation.

> Just as all partners do not see things the same, survivors also do
> not, although you state that what Ms. Frog posted IS how survivors
> see things.

Nope, they don't all see things the same way, but there's enough common ground
in Mrs. Frog's post
that it fits what I would consider the vast majority of survivors. It also
follows the teachings
that I learned while in training for working in a DV shelter. Empowering means
listening and giving
options, NOT giving advice or doing for someone else. And becoming empowered is
the way someone will
heal from abuse.

> Hopefully part of the healing process will help the survivor learn to see
things differently
> and try to give as much as they expect to receive. It is the only way an
intimate relationship
> will grow.

I would tend to disagree. Love, IMHO, isn't about what you get but about what
you give. Expecting to
receive anything is placing conditions on one's love and it stops being
unconditional Love. Now,
that doesn't mean one has to be a doormat because the first person you have to
show unconditional
Love to is yourself. And when you Love yourself, you won't allow yourself to be
used as a doormat.
Of course, that means different things to different people. To some, it means
they leave when they
are treated in ways they don't like. To others, myself included, it means we try
to understand why
someone would treat us that way and we learn that it's nothing personal against
us: that this is a
tool learned by a survivor to do that: survive. We set up boundaries to protect
ourselves and follow
through with consequences and hope that by the way we live our life, we are an
example to our
survivor that Love isn't about hurting someone else. For me, it worked. My wife
dove into her
healing process this past year after her abuser died and made great leaps and
bounds. So much so
that she's now begun to physically heal herself of the ailments that the abuse
brought on. She once
had multiple kidney stones in each kidney: now she's down to her last stone and
her body isn't
producing any more. Her migraine headaches have disappeared. She's even been
able to go off her
medication for bipolar disorder without any negative side effects. (Mind you, I
don't recommend this
without talking to your doctor first, which she did.)

> Life is not JUST about the survivor and a partner can not possibly put every
single need behind
> and hope that the survivor will move forward on their own.

See, herein lies what I consider the biggest problem with relationships of all
kinds. We enter into
them wondering "how can this make me feel better about myself?"-- although most
people only get so
far as asking "How can this make me feel better?" because they don't realize the
underlying
motivation is to help them feel better about themselves. Relationships are in
our lives so we can
learn about OURSELVES. So we can become better people through learning what
makes us tick and why we
act the way we do. It has nothing to do with anyone else, although without
someone else we couldn't
have a relationship. The question we need to ask ourselves in relationships is
"How can this make me
a better person?" And relationships with survivors are great opportunities to
learn how to become a
better person.

> I certainly have not sat back silently. With therapy and my addressing her
actions in a gentle
> way, my wife is moving forward and learning to actually take me and my
feelings into account.

And I accomplished the same thing not by addressing her issues, but by
addressing mine. I also went
to therapy and I frustrated the hell out of my therapist because I utterly
refused to force my wife
to deal with something before she was ready to deal with it. I went to therapy
to learn coping
skills for myself, NOT to find out how to change my wife into who I wanted her
to be. (And I'm NOT
saying that's what you are doing-- but only that that's a common goal in
couple's therapy: each
wants to go to therapy to help the other one fix what's wrong with them.)

> JUST listening doesn't work for me, but witness sharing where we take turns
listening so that she
> is not silenced and neither am I, has made a huge difference. Its a
communication technique we
> learned in our couples therapy.

And that's wonderful. I'm glad it's working for you. But it's not going to work
for others. There
are survivors out there who are nowhere near ready to go to couple's counseling.
To whom
"communication" is a scary word.

> I think your post suggests that a partner has to learn how a survivor sees
things,

If the partner wants to not be frustrated so much and hurt so much by how a
survivor sees things, it
would behoove them to put themselves in the survivors shoews for a while. (Ie,
to learn how they see
things.)

> and I think we can agree that the way a survivor sees things is not always
healthy or conducive
> to a loving relationship.

Agreed.

> Along with how the survivor sees things is how the partner sees things. It
really needs to be
> mutual respect or at least working towards a mutual respect. Not always
50/50, but
> hopefully a balance.

In time, yes, it is possible for most survivors to acheive that balance. But in
the beginning, a
survivor won't be able to see how a partner sees things. And, in truth, before
either can teach the
other how they see things, they need to know what it is they see and why. And
they do that by
working on their own issues.

> A partners role is not to just sit back and wait it out.

Hell no! A partner's role is to learn about themselves and how to make
themselves a better person
and let the survivor heal the way the survivor needs to heal. If they can do
that while remaining a
couple, more power to them. But sometimes it's just not possible and they have
to part ways.

Love and Light,
Shelly

--
The Purple Hat Project: http://rainbowsendpress.com/php/

Exposed: Unmasking the Agenda of the Radical Religious Right: Dismantling the
Constitution of the
United States of America:
http://rainbowsendpress.com/exposed/

"If you refuse an active role in stopping injustice, you accept an
active role in perpetuating it."

"There is no nation, by God exempted, lay down your weapons and Love
your neighbor as yourself." --
Indigo Girls, "Our Deliverance"

"Our brave young men are dying....Which of them might have written a
poem? Which of them might have cured cancer? Which of them might have
played in a World Series or given us the gift of laughter from the
stage or helped build a bridge or a university? Which of them would
have taught a child to read? It is our responsibility to let these
men live....It is indecent if they die because of the empty vanity of
their country.

Do you suppose that ten years from now we will all look back and
wonder how the American people ever went so far with something so
terrible?" --Robert F. Kennedy, 1968