Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Substance Abuse
What does "enable" really mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Copabanana" data-source="post: 745832" data-attributes="member: 18958"><p>For some of us addiction is secondary to mental illness or early trauma or chronic illness or developmental disability of our kids.</p><p></p><p>So, for us, the calculus about enabling gets way more complicated.</p><p></p><p>For us, it is not so much that the drugs have caused the mental illness or vulnerability or disordered thinking of the child. It may be the other way around: because there has been early vulnerability, our child has predispositions as an adult. And we are vulnerable, because we identify with our child's vulnerability. And feel so compelled to assist, and support, and rescue--i.e. enable. And so, to deny support, is to exacerbate the problems, for the child and us. Because to support, has become essential to our identity, has become a part of us. And to withdraw support may in fact be cruel and rejecting to our child, or it may feel so, to them and to us.</p><p></p><p>The problem here is that parents' control is quite limited or non-existent, even when the child is disabled.</p><p></p><p>And the effects on the parents, of constant crisis, and the inability to really make a difference, need to be considered too. Our lives matter.</p><p></p><p>For us, constantly intervening, if not by deed, but psychologically--ruminating, worrying, suffering, not only takes a toll, but becomes a type of addictive behavior in itself, which compounds and worsens the problem. The family system becomes one of a designated "problem" with the whole family out of control and out of balance, as all of its emotional, social and financial resources come to be directed one way. How is this good for the "difficult" child?</p><p></p><p>To me, this is enabling. And I raise my hand. Both hands, actually.</p><p></p><p>There is a level of unfairness to the child, that stuns me, when I recognize it. How compassionate is this, to single out one family member, as dysfunctional, as helpless, as so incapable of making proper or correct decisions, that their mother needs to hover, to monitor, to devote life and energy to "saving" him or her?</p><p></p><p>This kind of reaction by any person to another is dysfunctional or destructive in its essence. If a creature in an eco-system took over the functions of another creature in that eco-system, not only would the eco-system become vulnerable or even die, we would call that taking over a nasty word like symbiosis, or parasitical. Which is another way of saying "free ride," or blood sucking, or invader.</p><p></p><p>That one person does this to another person is deeply disrespectful and invasive. It is also hostile and destructive in the name of "love." A nicer word to call this is "enabling."</p><p></p><p>Because of our own out-of-sync ness we scapegoat the child. We project onto him or her our with our own problems and dysfunction: lack of control over our behaviors and emotions, our inability or unwillingness to take responsibility to make ourselves and our lives our focus of control. We are the problem, people. I am the problem.</p><p></p><p>It is my addiction that is the primary problem here. My addiction to living my own life vis a vis my child. This is enabling.</p><p></p><p>Due to the patience and kind heartedness of so many people here, I see this, finally. (Which is not to say I am not prone to relapse.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Copabanana, post: 745832, member: 18958"] For some of us addiction is secondary to mental illness or early trauma or chronic illness or developmental disability of our kids. So, for us, the calculus about enabling gets way more complicated. For us, it is not so much that the drugs have caused the mental illness or vulnerability or disordered thinking of the child. It may be the other way around: because there has been early vulnerability, our child has predispositions as an adult. And we are vulnerable, because we identify with our child's vulnerability. And feel so compelled to assist, and support, and rescue--i.e. enable. And so, to deny support, is to exacerbate the problems, for the child and us. Because to support, has become essential to our identity, has become a part of us. And to withdraw support may in fact be cruel and rejecting to our child, or it may feel so, to them and to us. The problem here is that parents' control is quite limited or non-existent, even when the child is disabled. And the effects on the parents, of constant crisis, and the inability to really make a difference, need to be considered too. Our lives matter. For us, constantly intervening, if not by deed, but psychologically--ruminating, worrying, suffering, not only takes a toll, but becomes a type of addictive behavior in itself, which compounds and worsens the problem. The family system becomes one of a designated "problem" with the whole family out of control and out of balance, as all of its emotional, social and financial resources come to be directed one way. How is this good for the "difficult" child? To me, this is enabling. And I raise my hand. Both hands, actually. There is a level of unfairness to the child, that stuns me, when I recognize it. How compassionate is this, to single out one family member, as dysfunctional, as helpless, as so incapable of making proper or correct decisions, that their mother needs to hover, to monitor, to devote life and energy to "saving" him or her? This kind of reaction by any person to another is dysfunctional or destructive in its essence. If a creature in an eco-system took over the functions of another creature in that eco-system, not only would the eco-system become vulnerable or even die, we would call that taking over a nasty word like symbiosis, or parasitical. Which is another way of saying "free ride," or blood sucking, or invader. That one person does this to another person is deeply disrespectful and invasive. It is also hostile and destructive in the name of "love." A nicer word to call this is "enabling." Because of our own out-of-sync ness we scapegoat the child. We project onto him or her our with our own problems and dysfunction: lack of control over our behaviors and emotions, our inability or unwillingness to take responsibility to make ourselves and our lives our focus of control. We are the problem, people. I am the problem. It is my addiction that is the primary problem here. My addiction to living my own life vis a vis my child. This is enabling. Due to the patience and kind heartedness of so many people here, I see this, finally. (Which is not to say I am not prone to relapse.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Substance Abuse
What does "enable" really mean?
Top