In late 2018, Kelsey Baker found the courage to do something she never thought possible: escape from her emotionally abusive relationship. Afterwards, the full-time college student and single mom did something equally as courageous. She shared her story with the world.
“Maybe he doesn’t hit you, but he makes you apologize for getting upset after something he did to hurt you.
Maybe he doesn’t hit you, but you have to walk on eggshells every day to ensure he is satisfied enough to remain calm and happy.
Maybe he doesn’t hit you, but he steals your sense of comfort and security leaving you paranoid and “crazy”.
Y’all….. this is so serious.”
Kelsey goes on to describe the emotional rollercoaster her abuser created, as well as the shame, confusion, and hurt that came from being in such a toxic relationship. Brief yet powerful, she concluded her story with a message to anyone who shared her experience:
“Maybe you did everything right but he still wants to victimize himself just so he doesn’t have to put in effort to right his wrongs.
This is not okay. And you are not at fault.
Do not apologize for his mistakes. Do not let him tear you apart to build himself higher. You are worthy of love and happiness and respect.
Please don’t wait for him to change as he carelessly rips apart your soul and everything that is you. Please don’t tell yourself it’s okay or ever allow yourself to get used to it.
He is broken. Do not let him break you.”
Kelsey was indeed not alone. As of this writing, Kelsey’s post has been shared over 134,000 times, and generated over 17,000 comments of gratitude, support, empathy, and encouragement.
There’s something galvanizing about genuine moral outrage, such as the exposure of abuse. Few people could be confronted by Kelsey’s story and not experience a potent mixture of rage and sadness. We want Kelsey to be free, and we want her abuser to be punished. Virtually any other response defies the very definition of human decency. In Kelsey’s case, the abuse is obvious. We read her story, and can all immediately perceive that something awful is taking place. When we read “This is not ok,” we all agree with her assessment. Like her, we conclude that no healthy person acts the way her abuser did, and no healthy relationship exists in such an unstable and corrosive environment. We also tell ourselves that we would identify such behavior if we saw it, and protect not only ourselves, but our friends and loved ones as well. All this moral certitude, yet we turn a blind eye to it every single day.
Abusers: Goals & Strategies
What if I were to tell you that emotional abuse is not only widespread, but has become so ubiquitous, that virtually everyone in the United States is currently experiencing it in some form or another? Some of us are victims, and some of us are perpetrators. Many have unwittingly become both. To support such an outlandish assertion, let’s first look at the profile of an abuser.
First and foremost, abusers are wholly concerned with power. As such, abusers typically possess a number of character traits that fuel this obsession, including:
-insecurity
-hypersensitivity
-the need to always be “right” or feel “in control.”
-unrealistic expectations
-jealousy
-other pathologies, such as undiagnosed mental disorders
Abusers can have a history of being abused themselves, or simply have deep-seeded maladaptive behavioral patterns and cognitive distortions. Whatever the emotions or perceptions that fuel the abuse, the manifest behavior almost always points to the same goal: power and control. In pursuit of this goal (which may never even manifest itself as a consciously-stated realization), abusers employ a number of strategies in pursuit of power over their relationships. These strategies of control can be broadly categorized as methods that “discredit, isolate, and silence” their victims. Here are some examples of the strategies abusers employ, though these are not linear or exhaustive in manifestation. Abusers can begin their quest for control with any or all of these tactics, often with significant overlap.
Constant Criticism
Those who can do no right tend to remain silent
Abusers will shame, insult, critique, and second-guess everything about the victim, their life, and their choices. No amount of effort by the victim will serve to placate the abuser. As Kelsey said in her Facebook post: “Maybe you did everything right but he still wants to victimize himself just so he doesn’t have to put in effort to right his wrongs.” Attempts to engage with these criticisms as constructive and in good-faith only serve to fuel the abuser’s power. The victim has now bought into the legitimacy of the abuser’s claims.
Isolation
Those cut off from outside perspectives become trapped in abuse
Commanding and questioning the victim’s loyalty is a large part of an abuser’s success in long-term relationships. As the victim is confronted with a steady stream of personal attacks and criticisms, the abuser uses accusations of infidelity to prevent the victim from seeking outside information or input. All relationships are called into question, and are used to accuse the victim of disloyalty. To disprove these accusations, victims increasingly isolate themselves. Ultimately, this leaves only the abuser as the victim’s primary source of input into their life, and more importantly, their perception of reality.
Distort Reality
Those in a constant state of confusion hold a discredited perspective of reality
Abusers are often able to reinforce and maintain control by becoming the very lens with which victims understand reality. Abusers do this by strategically gaslighting the victim, causing them to perpetually doubt their understanding of reality. Gaslighting often begins subtly, with expressions of disbelief or confusion about the victim’s choices or perspectives. Assuming the abuser’s sincerity, the victim attempts to explain the situation or perspective, only to be met with defensive postures and accusations of over-sensitivity. This is fundamentally destabilizing for the victim, causing them to grow increasingly suspicious of their own ability to discern between right and wrong, friend or foe, and true from false.
Victims: Experiences & Perspectives
Now let’s look at the profile for a victim of emotional abuse. For many reasons (including some previously mentioned), victims can be unaware they are in an abusive relationship. However, once a victim has identified they are in an abusive relationship, it can still be extremely difficult for them to leave. In fact, victims of physically abusive relationships endure an average of seven attacks before leaving the relationship. With emotional abuse having so few clear-cut indicators of abuse (i.e. “they hit me”), these relationships can be even more difficult to escape from, especially if there is a perceived threat of violence that never actually manifests. Here is a checklist (again, non-linear and non-exhaustive) of indicators you might be in an abusive relationship:
-You feel as if you’re incapable of doing anything right. Any effort you make to improve is met with skepticism, critique, and a general sense that “it’ll never be good enough.” When mistakes or shortcoming are forgiven, they are often used to fuel critiques and accusations in later interactions, or used to create leverage with guilt or shame.
-You do not feel comfortable expressing disagreement or difference of opinion, even if you are confident that you’re correct. In situations where you do not know exactly how the abuser feels about something, you feel anxiety over the possibility of having the “wrong answer.” As Kelsey put it, “Maybe he doesn’t hit you, but you have to walk on eggshells every day to ensure he is satisfied enough to remain calm and happy.” The “walking on eggshells” feeling causes you to ‘go along to get along.’ When you do express disagreement (or even ask simple questions) the abuser accuses you of being “overly sensitive,” expresses hurt, or becomes angry. These responses instill in you an even greater sense of guilt and self-doubt, making disagreement more difficult in the future.
-You feel emotionally, morally, or intellectually inferior in the relationship. Unlike feeling only uncomfortable, you have lost all confidence in expressing your thoughts, feelings, or perspectives. You have a sense that you don’t (and won’t) “measure up” to the standards given to you. You have a sense of failure, remorse, and confusion at your inability to meet what ends up being an ever-changing set of standards. You don’t feel like you’re on “equal footing” in the relationship, but rather at the mercies of the abuser.
-You make excuses for bad behavior. These excuses can be rooted in guilt and shame, or a genuine delusion about the “rightness” of the abuser’s actions. Either way, you justify the abuser’s actions when they are hurtful towards you or others. You find yourself repeating their reasons back to yourself or others when seeking to explain actions you would otherwise condemn. You find it easier to accept blame or justify the abuse, rather than confront the abuser about their behavior. You may also simply lie or minimize the bad behavior, thus removing the need to excuse it.
A brief note on victims, and the “staying power” of abuse. Victims remain in abusive relationships for a myriad of reasons. If leaving abusers was a task that could be simply executed, there wouldn’t be so many resources dedicated to helping victims flee. So why do victims stay in abusive relationships? The primary reason is dependency. The lowering of their self-worth, coupled with increased isolation, causes victims to gradually become dependent upon the abuser for validation, a sense of self, security, and orientation within an ever-weakening grasp on reality. Remember, the tactics of abusers may vary, but the goals are always the same: power and control. Once abusers have obtained power and control over a victim, by definition it becomes difficult for the victim to seize back enough “control” over themselves to leave the relationship. Couple the examples listed above with other factors such as threat of violence, potential loss of finances, or the presence of children, and it can be almost impossible for many individuals to escape abuse, and that’s when there is only one abuser. What happens when there’s more than one?
Atmospheres of Abuse
Whenever humans group together, they inevitably develop a culture within that organization. No matter how small the group, or how informal the umbrella under which they put themselves under, organizational habits and cultures develop. Those in the military will tell you that the organizational culture of their platoon is probably very different from the organizational culture of a local group of gardening enthusiasts.
In a more formal context, one management textbook broadly explains the development of organizational cultures as such:
“Organizational cultures are created by a variety of factors, including founders’ values and preferences, industry demands, and early values, goals, and assumptions. Culture is maintained through attraction-selection-attrition, new employee onboarding, leadership, and organizational reward systems. Signs of a company’s culture include the organization’s mission statement, stories, physical layout, rules and policies, and rituals.”
In his book ‘The Power of Habit,’ Charles Duhigg explains how organizations can subconsciously develop habits and routines, some of which can end up being extraordinarily harmful. Duhigg’s examples primarily describe habit of action, rather than attitude, though the example of Rhode Island Hospital and the King’s Cross Fire clearly exemplifies the development of both, and how an organization’s cultural attitudes end up fueling their habits.
Duhigg’s book, as well as resources on changing organizational culture indicate that the genesis of most organizational cultures are the leaders of those organizations. The managers directly under the boss emulate the boss, those under the managers emulate the managers, and so on. But a top-down directing of organizational culture isn’t always these things manifest. As Founder and CEO of Firespring, Jay Wilkinson puts it:
“If you don’t intentionally build a culture by design, one will be established by default based on who is the loudest.”
Regardless of how the culture is established, once it is in place, natural selection weeds out those who don’t fit, insulating the organizational culture into a veritable echo chamber.
For example, consider the toxic work environment former New York Times writer Bari Weiss described in her scathing resignation letter:
“…a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else…My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.”
Weiss describes her daily work situation with this damning recognition of the obvious:
“Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.”
And yet, it did require bravery. Why? Well, when does one need to be brave? When you’re threatened, that’s when. In Bari’s case, these threats manifested socially- with the occasional violent innuendo on her work slack channels. The organizational culture Weiss described at The New York Times was one seemingly created by an amalgam of the loudest voices (she credits Progressive Twitter), and a few de facto leaders (my assumption being The 1619 Project czar, Nikole Hannah-Jones, though Weiss is savvy enough to not mention anyone specifically).
Practically speaking, how did this environment impact those who were within it? Again, Weiss paints a clear, but bleak picture:
“Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking — is now a liability at The Times…And so self-censorship has become the norm. What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”
Self-censorship. Fear of stepping out of line. Bullying. Shaming unapproved or heterodox ideas. Sound familiar? “Maybe he doesn’t hit you, but you have to walk on eggshells every day to ensure he is satisfied enough to remain calm and happy.”
Kelsey’s story of escaping an emotionally abusive relationship should not bear such striking parallels to an accomplished writer’s resignation letter, but it does. Moreover, very few of us are unable to relate to Bari’s experience. As just one of many examples, a July 2020 Cato Institute poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans are afraid to express their political views for fear of offending someone. To borrow from Andrew Sullivan’s fantastic 2018 piece: “We all work at The New York Times now.”
There is much, much more that can be said on this topic, and I’ve opened many doors that have yet to be closed. However, this seems like a good place to leave it for now. I’ll end with this: many say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I believe in many cases, this is true. That said, with our current social situation, I’d like to offer a different picture. Those living in constant fear of saying the wrong thing, expressing doubt in the unapproved direction, or being found to hold any of the latest forms of wrongthink, their road looks different. For the weary individuals being compelled by a social zeitgeist they didn’t ask for, under a vague (but very real) rubric of pressures to obey ever-changing rules they never agreed to, for those exhausted and fearful souls, the road they walk is paved with eggshells.
This article was originally published by Return to Reason.
31 comments
THANK YOU! This has been my analysis. I feel I was an early adopter of getting out of the cult because I recognized the abuse, because I was abused. It was an early warning system. Where have I heard this language before? At times verbatim. Being on a “dark path.” Being viewed w suspicion. Not believed. And yes, people are becoming abusers, it is becoming normalized, but they do not see it due to “oppression.” Seeing people I want to like and respect breaking bad in real time is very disturbing. Only now do I truly get how the Holocaust or Cultural Revolution happened. Human nature. OH, there is so much I could write on this. So much.
I hope you do write it out, and find a venue to publish it somewhere.
There are sites that do appreciate a variety of POV’s as long as it’s well written.
This is exactly the methodology of trans activists. They use methods of emotional abuse to get people to believe the complete irrational nonsense at the heart of trans delusion – that your sex can be changed, that your gender and sex are separable. They are hypersensitive. They use emotional language. They use the irrational notion of “lived experience”. The method is bullying at its most extreme.
I’m a freelance editor and I take what jobs I get. The latest for a black website, the epidemic of black trans murders. How many in 2020? 19. So they don’t even bother to fudge numbers . In a nation of 340 million, 19 is an epidemic and proof of America’s intolerance. Even OAC said so. The fact that ALL were murdered by someone they knew is not even relevant to the Left. I knew 30 years ago blind anti-Americanism would lead to such cult like idiocy.
Aren’t most Americans college-age and above alive today products of early-divorced parents? Who among those of us would not want more power and control over others than they had in their divorcing families? Can those of you who are mental health professionals comment on this, and maybe cite some research?
Excellent piece.
I’ll take a weirdly contrarian view here, for reasons that will (hopefully) be clear shortly.
Isn’t taking Kelsey’s word uncritically the same mechanism driving CT?
By leveling an accusation at Kelsey’s abuser in terms it would seem unempathetic to question (Gosh, why wouldn’t you want to be an anti-racist?), Kelsey has now captured the hearts of her readers. Who cares about the veracity of her story? The power of her personal narrative trumps objectivity. Is Kelsey simply manipulating her readers to gain favor with a desired in-group? Does she know all the buzzwords and key phrases to trigger sympathies? She certainly wouldn’t be the first.
My point is that, regardless of whose side is more accurate in this scenario, both sides might very well be engaging in the sort of emotional manipulation through narrative that drives CT. And hoo boy is it supremely effective! As victimhood becomes more celebrated in our culture, so do instances of victimization, even if they have to be exaggerated or even faked. The audience for emotional or psychological abuse is ready-made, eager to find and express solidarity with their fellow victims. The whole narrative is overwhelming and the accusations damning, because they are so emotionally charged.
In short, the accusation is enough to convict.
Sound familiar?
Patterns of Narcissistic abuse are well documented in the mental health community, as are diagnoses of abusers. She’s merely quoting well established literature, and uncounted thousands of testimonials taken from abuse recovery treatment. It’s not circulated as much outside the community by those who aren’t mental health professionals, but she’s definitely not making this stuff up.
Thank you!! This is 100% how I feel reading my text books and listening to my lectures. I think I referred to it as mind twisting in a class post.
Many salient points are made in this article.
The dysfunction described in both the personal and organizational realms is spot on.
I have experienced the personal abuse described ( fortunately escaped from that, and learned some valuable lessons ), and I quickly recognized the same symptoms creeping into the nonprofit organization I have supported for two decades and worked directly with for six years.
The problems started when our recently promoted ED grasped onto the Diversity/Inclusion/Equity ideology being pushed onto and accepted by nonprofits, city governments, big/small businesses, and of course universities.
The conditions are nearing unbearable at our organization, a chilling effect is most definitely in place, and many of the employees have expressed in hushed tones that they feel like they are always
“walking on eggshells” and “waiting for the next shoe to drop.”
One long-term and dedicated employee recently made the deadly mistake of openly questioning an inflammatory “culture-war” type statement made by the ED in a staff meeting and was immediately verbally shut down, written up, accused of being a “racist sympathizer”, and eventually sh*t-canned….for asking ONE question that didn’t fit the narrative. After terminating the employee the ED, in what has unfortunately become her MO, stated “ this will be an example to the rest of the staff what will and will not be tolerated here. “ She said it with a smile. I was half-expecting a Kamala Harris or Hillary cackle.
This is just the most recent example of why I have been referring to the US as
“BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) Nation” for about a decade now.
This sounds like a lawsuit of some kind waiting to happen. Or you could always use their techniques against them. The ED’s microaggressions are triggering based on your lived experience. She’s creating a hostile, privilege-based workspace and gleefully entering into the role of oppressor. You feel threatened, diminished, and assaulted by the constant barrage of triggering microaggressions. Note the burden of proof immediately shifts to the ED based on their own framework.
And document, document, document. Much as I dislike lawyers, lawsuits might be the quickest way to at least check the onslaught.
Absolutely document! Ideally on paper, and as soon as it happens. In court, the person who wrote it down is always in a strengthened position compared to the person who didn’t.
Wow, that’s awful. I wish it was also surprising, but those stories have become the norm where this ideology is absorbed and implemented. Sadly, as Bonnie mentioned above, the same types of reactions and destruction of relationships can occur in family units, with similar outcomes (shunned, pariah, ousted from the family). Medium.com is replete with articles about how people had to “sever ties” with family members over political disagreements. It’s evil, plain and simple. “Agree or face the consequences” is the framework of an abusive relationship, not a healthy one.
Return to Reason-
In order to better cope with the affects and effects of others’ behavior on us, it is useful sometimes to understand their drivers.
Abusers, people with NPD, BPD, APD (Antisocial), and HPD (Histrionic), and a variety of other disorders tend to have:
Unstable sense of self
Feelings of Boredom and Emptiness
Feelings of Envy
A Reliance on the Approval of Others
Unstable Relationships
Lack of Regard for Others
There are other symptoms as well as diagnosis specific symptoms.
Here’s a good link for non-clinicians: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/personality-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20354463
Cult psychology is not my areas of expertise. I agree there are many similarities between woke people and cult members. What would you identify as a/the cult ritual? Rioting? Organizing? Cults have rituals.
Any relationship where a power imbalance exists and is exploited is abusive.
I would say the initial bonding ritual would be protesting of some kind, which can be used to screen those who are more open to more direct/violent tactics. Organization is the initial step, followed by an invitation to a protest. At the protest it’s easier for the ‘true believers’ to see if the new initiate is a good candidate for increased habituation to violence (since the Woke seem to subscribe to Mao’s dictum about the source of power). If not, they still have value for show and agitation. As you’ve mentioned before, Cal, most people want to be liked, and protesting with a large number of ‘friends’ is certain to make someone who’s unsure or otherwise troubled feel liked, valued, and part of something ‘good.’ I think there’s some factionalism at this point, with the more violent members forming their own “sub-cult” if you will with different goals and objectives than the more passive mass marchers. The overall goal (achieving power) remains, but the paths may become different.
You see this same sort of amorphous goal-setting with terrorist groups as well, especially once they become enmeshed in the cycle of violence and retribution. As they become more violent, the goals expand some something specific to something that’s almost impossible to clearly define. And both tend to prey on people who feel that sense of emptiness (fun fact – most of the West German terrorist leaders in the 1970s and 1980s were of solidly upper- or middle-class origins).
GenXer-Thanks for the fact about West German terrorists. American terrorists were the same. Bill Ayers of The Weathermen fame comes to mind. His father, Thomas was a president and CEO of GE.
This is exact he relationship I now have with my two SJW daughters.
I’m really sorry to hear that. I hate how common this type of response is whenever someone hears me describe these similarities. This ideology is destroys virtually everything it touches, especially our ability to have healthy relationships with one another.
As the old saying goes. “The left destroys everything it touches.
This article accurately captures what it is like to be on the receiving end of an abusive relationship. In the case of the author, it was a one-on-one relationship. In my case, I was in a religious cult called the Church of Bible Understanding, in which all these dynamics took place on a group basis. Those dynamics included gaslighting, isolation, guilt-tripping, alternating praise with condemnation so that you never knew what ground you stood on, group criticism sessions (struggle sessions that were like being in a courtroom) and so much more.
How this relates to wokeness and critical social justice is that there is a group who is the source of all of society’s woes and these people must live in a constant confession and repentance mode, which is never good enough. Our cult leader was like one of the authors of the books on anti-racism or white privilege that are mentioned here frequently, in the sense that he set the terms and conditions, wrote the entire screenplay, if you will, and once you accepted and internalized that as your reality, you lived your entire life according to these terms. I suppose this is why I’m so interested in reading this blog, because the techniques are all so familiar.
Far-Left Orthodoxy (FLO) operates as a cult for those who are caught up in it, and individual abusive relationships for those on the *outside* who have to interact with those on the *inside.* In other words, I agree with the cult lens because cults are simply abusive relationships expanded out to a macro level. Virtually all the same principles and warning signs apply to both.
Yes, the frustratingly impossible behaviors at the center of so much of today’s cultural breakdown match what used to be called the Axis II: Cluster B diagnostic criteria (dramatic PDs.)
Agree Bonnie-Borderline, Antisocial, and Narcissistic PDs features are indeed present. By the way, I still miss the axial classification system that was abandoned when DSM was revised in 2013.
I suggest that many of the CT/SJW adherents have the dark triad/dark tetrad personality traits. Research bears this out. Go to ncbi.gov to find many pieces on it.
The DSM was revised, and continues to be revised, for reasons of ideology. They wanted to be able to say that the unwoke are mentally ill, and to claim in the same breath that transgender persons are not mentally ill.
I agree with your assessment of DSM-it reflects societal mores. I find the Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD) to be one of the more inane ones. DMDD was, of course, once called temper tantrums.
The fact that more behaviors are pathologized is disturbing. Let’s please never forget that diagnosis is subjective. So, different clinicians can render different diagnoses based on the same symptomology.
Trans people in DSM are recognized as having a mental disorder. It’s rightly called Gender Dysphoria (302.85). In order to medically transition, a person has to have been given this diagnosis.
That was exactly the methodology used in the Soviet Union primarily in the use of the infamous Serbsky Institute for forensic psychology
Pedant alert: the writer refers to the “subconscious” mind-this is incorrect.
Psychology (the writer is heavy on a psych analogy or cycle of abuse) only refers to the “unconscious” mind.
The mistake is a common one.
Much obliged, and I appreciate the feedback.
I’d say it’s an ok use of the term, but that ‘unwitting’ might be better here. (Psychologists do sometimes use ‘subconscious’, not just when translating Pierre Janet; psychoanalytic psychologists tend to use ‘unconscious’ to talk of what’s unknown because defended against; and ‘preconscious’ when referring to e.g. memories not currently being recalled. Today many psychologists don’t use ‘subconscious, and instead use ‘unconscious’ to cover both repressed and non-repressed (e.g. automatic, subliminal, etc.) mental processes. But ‘subconscious’ isn’t wrong.) More importantly: bloody good article.
Sarcasm aside, a good concise article describing the abuser-abused relationship and why it is so difficult to get out of. And a good segue to abuser organizations as well. CRT and CSJ seemed to be designed to establish and perpetuate this sort of relationship on a group scale.
Thanks. The organizational adoption of these ideas, and how that manifests in people unwittingly internalizing abusive behavior, is one of the most pernicious aspects of this ideology. Most people can make good-faith arguments justifying their actions and rhetoric, convinced by the purity of their intentions, while simultaneously blinded to the corrosive nature of their actual behavior.
Have to disagree. Woke companies and institutions are the bravest, freest, most tolerant and most loving and wonderful places to work that ever could exist. Just ask them! And if you disagree, you will be social-mobbed, doxxed, threatened, ostracized, etc. etc. All in the name of diversity and Social Justice. Which proves their point, because one can’t be equitable and tolerant and caring while allowing alternative (i.e. evil) viewpoints to exist.