Discussion of the Stay-At-Home-Daughter lifestyle and the long term effects of growing up in the Patriarchy/Quiverfull Movement associated with Christian Homeschooling in the US
Part of the problem with patriarchy involves the idea that by living a certain way, that behavior will have a controlling effect on other people. If the wife behaves properly, her husband will become more “godly,” and this will not only give her the kind of husband she wants but will provide her with self-worth and identity.
Much of the book by the Botkin Sisters, “So Much More,” promotes this idea, suggesting that men can’t be the men God wants them to be without intervention on behalf the women in their lives. Women need to prop up their men, be they daughters or wives, but this idea sells so well in the book because the mindset and theology strip women of much independent identity, authority, and worth. Everyone needs to feel significant and valued, and patriarchy encourages followers to find these things in performance, outcome, and outward appearance. I suppose this system works well for people who are very physically healthy and are enjoying pleasant seasons in life. Things work well during fair weather.
On a more basic level, these beliefs suggest that we can have control over events in our lives if we follow “THE” formula, and assumption that life tends to be fair (if you do all of the right things). Life is even more “fair” for those who are elite among the elect like the leaders and model citizens. Under patriarchy, following a particular “law” yields particular results when those results have been properly merited, especially concerning spiritual things according to patriarchy’s mindset.
I recently spoke with a wife whose husband has a problem with a particular sin. She admitted that she became involved with patriarchy because she believed that it would somehow make him stop engaging in this sin. Her husband didn’t like the ideology, as many men don’t at first, but he definitely enjoyed the benefits that came with his dutiful wife’s submission after awhile. Soon, he felt entitled to those benefits, just as he felt entitled to his particular sin. Ahhhh. There is that “entitlement” word again.
In the previous posts, I presented some similarities that borderline personalities share with abusive patriarchy, and I only alluded briefly to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Everyone has healthy self-interest, and some of us have more of a problem balancing that healthy self-interest with interest and empathy for others. Young people are narcissistic, and because of how we are constructed as human beings, we do start out with awareness of ourselves.
As we grow and as life “puts us in our place,” we quite naturally grow out of our own extreme of self-interest because of perspective and into a balance with responsible and kind care for the interests of others. NPD, like all other personality disorders, emerges as a stable personality pattern in mature adults that is to enough of an extreme that it creates significant problems for affected person in their both their personal relationships and in their own emotional and thought life. Though we all can be narcissistic from time to time as a function of our personality, those with NPD have a consistent (or stable) problem with the core elements of the diagnosis.
Patriarchy and NPD: A Matter of Extremes
In a way, NPD is “too much of a good thing.” This is something that is very true of patriarchy: It starts with very desirable and good things, and it takes those good things too far with too much zeal and ambition, and soon the end justifies the means. Perhaps that is something that makes patriarchy so misunderstood. It starts from a very good place with very good intentions, but it is not balanced and it does seek intensity and drama.
We live in a world that has serious problems, and it can be so appealing to go out and sacrifice everything to make a difference, setting the world on fire with passion for the things that should matter most and changing it for the better. My college days and shortly thereafter were full of these kinds of social efforts from “Hands Across America,” to “Live Aid,” and into later Christian causes like “Operation Rescue.” Those things can be very exciting and rewarding, but most people cannot achieve that “high” on a regular basis. Much of life is about the matters of “every day” life which are not so exciting, and I see patriarchy, among other things, appealing to the desire for excitement and significance by celebrating the every day things. I think it goes off track because at some point, the creature concerns replaced the Creator as a focus, and elements of daily living became sacraments. Gender became a sacrament that imparts holiness and spiritual merit, for example. I think that this is something that NPD and patriarchy share in common in that they make too much of a good thing. It lacks balance in its means and in its kind respect and consideration for others who differ from them.
What is NPD?
If you read the posts about Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), you likely already understand much about NPD. I have heard others refer to NPD without the memory problems and other hallmark behaviors that are unique to BPD because both disorders share the same core problems. In a most basic sense, narcissists with NPD display exaggerated self-interest because they are compensating for fear and high sensitivity to criticism. This exaggeration is a means of coping with and resisting the disturbing emotions that they feel deep inside, emotions that they deny feeling, even to themselves. Some of the hallmark features of NPD include personal grandiosity, an excessive need for admiration/attention, a sense of entitlement, and a diminished capacity for empathy. When a person with NPD feels threatened or becomes uncomfortably aware of their internal sense of shame and inferiority, they behave in a number of predictable ways which creates problems for those with whom they interact.
On a practical level, narcissists create a great deal of drama in relationships, and they manipulate others to get attention and affirmation. Because of their diminished capacity for empathy (those areas of their brains do not work well), they use other people like objects that are provided for their use. The “Golden Rule” does not come naturally or at all to the narcissist because they are preoccupied with their own survival and emotional distress than they are with the experience of others. It is difficult to work with a narcissist, because empathy is seen as a matter of the will. The non-compliant narcissist can be seen as merely willful and lacking integrity, but they cannot easily correct their perspective. (I believe that much of it is physiologic, based on new advances in the study of the brain.
Dr. Daniel Amen refers to this as the “hardware of the soul.” A software program [e.g., good training, Bible Study, good morals] cannot work properly if the hard drive is broken through a stroke or another disease, one of which is NPD.) Because of the nature of the problem, the narcissist has little motivation to change their behavior. They are, by nature, not interested in balancing power and respect in relationships, so they have difficult setbacks to overcome in order to mature beyond their tendencies with little if any motivation to work toward change.
Another consequence of diminished empathy involves what is thought to be an impaired ability to observe or notice the emotional responses of other people, something that adds to their impaired ability to understand the emotions of others. This is also a feature of many disorders “in the autistic spectrum” of diagnoses such as Attention Deficit Disorder. Just as research continues to show in people with BPD, those with NPD also have very limited faculties when it comes to comprehending how other people feel. The areas of the brain that govern some of these functions are small and atrophied, and functional studies such as SPECT andf PET diagnostic testing show that these brain areas do not show the same levels of activity when their findings are compared with the normal population.
(Plasticity of the brain – the ability of the brain to adapt through rewiring and growth through behavioral and cognitive change – does offer great hope for recovery, but the mindset of the disorder itself does not give the affected person much motivation to change at all. The brain does not have to stay in its original condition, but it is difficult to get the narcissist to make the first step toward healing because they deny that they have a problem that needs healing. That is a feature of the disorder.)
More practical information discussing the traits of a narcissist with NPD:
Living with a Narcissist (Coping as an Adult Child of Narcissistic Patriarchy)
If you are a child or partner of someone with NPD, you will find them unable to handle any kind of criticism, resorting to demeaning tactics and intense anger when they feel threatened (though they will never let you see that they feel threatened because of their grandiosity). They NEVER admit to wrongdoing, and when consequences force them to realize that they have failed to be perfect, they will become even more dramatic, emotional, and aggressive. Life is all about blaming other people for their shortcomings, because they are really just terrified inside. Like playground bullies, they don’t take well to open confrontation. Direct confrontation usually becomes explosive, as the narcissist prefers to be passive-aggressive because they actually fear confrontation. That makes them hard to understand, because on the exterior, they seem to seek out conflict and aggression. Considering their inner experience of helplessness and fear seems oxymoronic (if not impossible) when you are on the receiving end of their wrath and if you believe their exaggerated perceptions of themselves.
Narcissists also demonstrate an emotional aloofness, and they can come across as cold and exacting. They are not in touch with their real emotions. (Their inner world is a war effort against true feelings and a desperate flight from emotional discomfort.) Their flattened emotions concerning some matters manifests as a function of their flattened empathy. Trying to negotiate a healthy relationship with a narcissist is very difficult because they do not listen to others (and cannot listen to some extent). Conflicts are usually seen as all-or-nothing challenges wherein there is an absolute victor and a shamed loser. They tend not to comprehend “win-win” situations wherein both parties in a conflict can arrive at mutually equitable solutions or agreements. Every game is a zero-sum game. If they perceive that their opponent in a conflict has any sense or position of personal power, because of their fragile sense of self inside, they believe that they have no power. Power, truth, happiness, and things like fulfillment seem like “finite resources” to them. In their minds, there isn’t enough power to go around for everyone.
Narcissists feel that they always must be the winner for these stated reasons. If they cannot win, they tend to completely remove themselves from the relationship because their internal discomfort is so great. They would rather avoid the terrible discomfort of losing or the reminders of past loss by completely avoiding people with whom they are forced to share a balanced sense of power and worth. Narcissists don’t share these things. In terms of patriarchy, this behavior and response manifest frequently. Patriarchy isolates families from venues wherein they are not in control, and those outside of their system are demeaned and devalued.
Because those in patriarchy see themselves as special and believe that they have a corner on truth, they can rationalize their isolation, thus avoiding the work of interacting with others who compete with them, particularly in terms of ideology. (Oh, those evil Marxists and secular humanists…) Some of this involves a fear of “contamination” as Vision Forum’s Kevin Swanson puts it, but a great deal of it involves a “refusal to play” when they know that their group cannot “win the game.” Refusal to cooperate or even make the effort shields them from the annihilating pain and rage that they face inside when they loose. Patriarchal families also use this as a means of coping when their children reject their belief system through the practice of shunning.
Another aspect of NPD that can be seen in patriarchy is the tendency to take too much pride and credit for the accomplishments of their children, another behavior and attitude that reduces family members into objects, merely things that exist for their use. Their sense of grandiosity gives them the idea that they are of higher worth and status than all others, even their children in a functional sense. (They likely have ideals that attribute great worth and laud to their children in theory, but as the captors of their own internal personal pain, their habits and behavior functionally bear out a sense of superiority over their children which objectifies them.)
This sense goes hand-in-hand with the narcissist’s tendency to control and manipulate their children in ways that benefit their own interests as opposed to behaving in a way that preserves the best interest of their children. They medicate their own sense of low personal worth with their children’s lives and success, and this temporarily fills their sense of internal emptiness. They can also become pre-occupied with money and the social status that comes with wealth, and this can also be projected on to children.
All that makes for a great deal of difficulty, because any suggestion to a person affected by NPD results in drama and desperate self-defensiveness on their part. They become like a drowning man who is reaching out to grab onto anyone or anything to stay afloat emotionally. Professionals who are trained in the best ways to handle narcissists struggle in their efforts to help their narcissistic clients, so it is no wonder that loved ones and family members also struggle! Rewarding and intimate relationships require negotiation and common respect, and the narcissist does not have the tools to be able to accomplish these ends.
But take courage! In an upcoming post, I will point you to some approaches and tactics that will help you communicate better with the narcissist in your life in a way that they can best hear your perspective without triggering their defenses.
The previous post discusses the primary characteristics of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and how it affects the children of those affected by the disorder (abbreviated as “BP” which stands for “borderline person”). In “Understanding the Borderline Mother,” Christine Lawson presents four different “character profiles” of affected mothers, one of which she names the “Witch Mother.” Please note that BPD can affect both men and women, and in terms of how the example of BPD relates to patriarchy, it should be noted that the father can be substituted wherever “mother” appears in these posts to make it even more applicable.
Note:[Bracketed terms] in any excerpts were adapted and added by this blog host for the ease of the reader of this post in order to abbreviate the terminology which was explained in the context of the book (in terms of character subtypes) but is beyond the scope of this post.
BPs that Lawson identifies as the “Witch” variety wrestle with annihilating rage, and this kind of BP mother believes deeply that she is evil and must compensate for an inadequate sense of self. When she feels threatened, she becomes predatory and demands submission as a means of medicating her own emotional state at the expense of her children. She often singles out one of her children as the receptacle for her self-hatred, though she may show this side of herself to all of them. The message she communicates to her children is that “Life is war.” This is also the rarest of the subtypes Lawson describes, and quite often, this type of mother tends to hide within another BP persona or apparent competence until something triggers the predator within (pg 38).
Borderline mothers can be difficult to recognize (pg 38) because BPs:
Seem normal to casual acquaintances
Have unique symptom clusters
Are different with different people, including their own children
Have different external or public personalities
Function well in structured environments and specific roles
More Similarities Between Behaviors in Dysfunctional Stay-At-Home-Daughter Families and BPD Parenting Styles
Parents who follow Botkin-style patriarchy sometimes manifest these same traits or variations of them, and in the previous post, I explore several other similarities between parenting styles within these two groups that both manifest enmeshment. The reader should understand that this post draws a comparison between the common features of both groups in order to help children of enmeshment both understand dysfunctional families and thus move through their pain into wholeness.
Though I believe that the ideology of patriarchy lends itself well to those with personality disorders which makes those who do have such a diagnosis more protected within these patriarchal systems, I am in no way contending that parents in patriarchy suffer from BPD. The followers of patriarchy sometimes behave very aggressively with critics, showing intense anger and demeaning those who do not meet their expectations, both inside and outside of their families and groups. Like the high functioning BP who keeps more unpleasant matters well-hidden by showing only a careful façade to most others, patriarchy follows a very obvious rule: the parent can never be wrong and fathers can never be criticized.
Those who follow the Family Integrated Church (FIC) system see each individual father as the gatekeeper concerning doctrine and related practice for his own family, and in many FIC churches, men are even discouraged from talking directly to other women concerning conduct and doctrine because it is interpreted as interfering with the authority of the patriarch as independent prophet, priest and king over his own family jurisdiction. The FIC system itself tends to naturally insulate against criticism, inhibit legitimate concern for members within a family, and the system itself is quite punitive and intolerant of deviation from its narrow standards.
Often in the same manner by which parents with BPD use their children to bear and contain their negative emotions, parents in patriarchy often objectify and scapegoat their own children to preserve their devotion and high regard for their ideology, the leaders they follow, as well as the outward appearance of the family. Also noted in the previous post, dysfunctional families spontaneously and unconsciously assign identified roles to family members, and one individual tends to be labeled and serves the family as the primary scapegoat. Because of the inequitable balance of power in families (favoring the BP and the patriarch), any subordinate within the family system can be blamed, however. Black and white thinking fosters this response in both BPD and cultic families where ethical issues as well as dynamic people reduce down to static elements – objects of use – which are understood through narrow predefined prejudices.
Drawing Insight from the Personal Accounts of Concentration Camp Survivors
Lawson and other authors concerned with child abuse report that enmeshed children and adults often find value in reading literature concerning concentration camp survivors. Many report dreams about captivity themes because they feel guilty, falsely condemned, trapped, and hopeless. Many of these things reported by children of BPs and abuse victims echo the statements and feelings of those who grew up in spiritually abusive patriarchy. As so many in patriarchy profess to be acting in the best interest of their children by following the prescribed paradigm, something the loaded language of this cultic group describes as “shepherding” or “protecting the hearts” of their children, BP mothers also feel entitled to their duty to dominate their children as a part of their role as parent. They do so because they believe that this treatment is “for the child’s own good.” When confronted by therapists, the BP becomes very defensive because they do not recognize their behavior as destructive. Lawson states,
Having been raised by parents who demanded absolute loyalty and obedience, the [borderline] mother wields her power as blindly as she once relinquished her will to her own parents. Denial of her child’s pain comes as easily to her as denial of her own pain. The [borderline mother] projects the war that rages within her onto the no-good child (pg. 273).
Many people who did not grow up in dysfunctional homes often question why people remain in destructive and demeaning relationships, and this is very true of people who do not understand BPD. Likewise, people who do not appreciate the concept of “bounded choice” do not understand the plight of the children within Botkin-style patriarchy because they do not understand the subtle dynamics and complex pressures upon adult daughters within the patriarchal system. But the survivor of a concentration camp knows deeply and intimately what the ill-affected daughter in patriarchy faces, something Lawson in particular points out as true of the children of BPs in “Understanding the Borderline Mother.” This kind of degradation at the hands of a parent is vastly different from that which comes via a stranger because the child builds their own identity upon that which the parent gives to the child. If this is based upon denigrating shame, it has a devastating affect on the child.
From Lawson, Pgs 273-4:
The words of a concentration camp survivor reflect a child’s blind faith in the parent: “Why did we not fight back? . . . I know why. Because we had faith in humanity. Because we did not really think that human beings were capable of committing such crimes” (Klein ["All But My Life"], p.89). The [borderline mother’s] children, too, fall victim to their own faith in humanity and therefore repress awareness of their mother’s destructive power. . . Children have faith in their parents and believe in their greater wisdom.
In his book on moral life in concentration camps, Todorov ["Facing the Extreme"] (1996) observed, “In the totalitarian ethic, loyalty to the leader is a fundamental obligation” (p. 189). Young children need to believe that their mother knows what is right and good. Their trust and loyalty are truly blind, for they have no other experience by which to assess her judgment. They believe in her basic goodness, more so than they believe in their own goodness. It is safer to accept the view that they are evil than to consider the consequences that the mother is evil.
Just like a survivor of a Nazi prison camp, the child of a BP must realize that if they do not take responsibility for their responses to their captivity, they run a great risk of becoming like their captors. This is very true for those in recovery from spiritual abuse who must address the lure of the benefit that they believed the ideology offered to them, because they are also at high risk for allowing their devotion to idealistic virtues serving as justification for behavior. They must make peace with their former abusive leader and work toward forgiveness, one of the long-term goals in recovery that occurs in the final stages of healing after steady progress and perseverance. They must also admit to themselves that their former ideology was flawed, just as the recovering BP parent must perform a painstaking moral inventory in order to take the first steps toward their own healing. Lawson quotes Todorov saying “Someone who sees no resemblance between himself and the enemy, who believes that all the evil is in the other and none in himself, is tragically destined to resemble his enemy” (p. 200). For me, this echoes that “if we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us” (1 John 1:10, KJV).
As a part of working through their trauma, it is essential that those who have been hurt by any trauma, be it spiritual abuse, a personality disorder in a parent, family enmeshment, or Botkin Syndrome must be able to express themselves as they make sense of their experience so that they can progress through it into full healing. The silence must be broken regarding the silent suffering of Jesus’ little lambs. Lawson quotes another concentration camp survivor concerning the importance of telling one’s story to encourage healing.
Pg 290:
Those who experienced imprisonment . . . are divided into two distinct categories . . . those who remain silent and those who speak . . . those who remain silent who feel more deeply that sense of malaise which I for simplicity’s sake call “shame,” . . . The others speak . . . because . . . they perceive . . . the center of their life, the event that for good or evil has marked their entire existence. [Levi, p.149]
Lawson concludes this chapter by pointing out again, that like the BP parent who is often difficult to recognize and mistake the child of the BP as the problem in the family, concentration camp survivors were not believed at times. History has documented accounts of many who escaped camps in the early phases of WWII who were not believed when they escaped to tell the horrors of what they endured. For the adult children of patriarchy, this is absolutely true in many cases, because it is painful for people to be shaken out of their comfort zones to consider a very disturbing truth. Things aren’t always as they seem, and few people often believe what both the children of BPs and the children of abusive patriarchy have to say.
In conclusion, I would like to offer the footnote on page 290 of Lawson’s book:
Primo Levi (1988) writes in The Drowned and the Saved: “Almost all of the survivors, orally or in their written memoirs, remember a dream which frequently recurred during the nights of imprisonment, varied in its detail but uniform in its substance: they had returned home and with passion and relief were describing their past sufferings, addressing themselves to a loved one, and were not believed, indeed were not even listened to” (p. 12).
Lawson also states that,
“Pain that is expressed, heard, and believed is not experienced in vain. Pain that is heard can then be tolerated and healed” (pg 290) . . .Children need to be held, to be mirrored, to be soothed, and to be given some control throughout their childhood, but especially following separation and loss. Unbearable pain that is expressed, heard and believed becomes bearable (pg. 304).
It is my great hope that the daughters and sons of patriarchy can speak the truth about their experiences and also see them for what they are. I pray that they will be able to separate from the oppression they endured, can forgive their parents for their shortcomings and what many experience as spiritual, psychological, and emotional abuse. I pray that they can see themselves as good and can trust in their own personal goodness, no longer serving as a scapegoat and source of blame for the family. Exploring some of these writings about the plight of the concentration camp survivor as well as the child of a borderline personality can offer helpful encouragement to the children of enmeshed families.
Without intervention, their emptiness, hopelessness, rage, and fear will be passed to the next generation . . .
Borderline mothers are not evil; evil lies in the darkness of unawareness.They cannot see what they are doing.
Those of us who can see must shine the light of our understanding like a beacon guiding a ship to harbor, or share in the responsibility of allowing mothers to drown their own children in a sea of despair.
Those affected by patriarchy in the style of the Botkin Syndrome face a set of challenges and often struggle to see their experience in a way that helps them understand what happen to them. After establishing a place of safety in safe relationships, retracing and recounting personal history is an essential stage of recovery, something that comes before the stage of reconnection and intimacy with others. This is also true of children who grow up in other types of dysfunctional homes, such as those who had parents who suffered from personality disorders like narcissism.
Because of the many similar elements that are common to the enmeshment as a Stay-At-Home-Daughter and the enmeshment that takes place between children and the parent with a personality disorder, this literature is often helpful to those who are working their way out of patriarchy. In particular, I like “Trapped in the Mirror” and “Children of the Self-Absorbed” because the functional problems faced by children and adult children from patriarchal homes are so similar.
I find it striking that people with borderline personality disorder use many of the same coping mechanisms that are used by those who follow Botkin-style patriarchy. This certainly does not mean that everyone who follows patriarchy has a narcissistic or borderline personality disorder, but I think that the ways in which the children of people with borderline personality disorder are affected by their parent’s disorder can and may help those overcoming enmeshment understand their experience in a more meaningful way because of the similarities.
What is BPD?
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), so named because the disorder was once classified differently, as it was originally thought to be a very mild form of “borderline” schizophrenia. As science and further study has now revealed that the disorder is actually a very specific reaction to trauma that takes place in childhood which inhibits aspects of brain development related to memory.
At the current time, the name of the disorder remains, even though it is a little misleading. In addition to some more child-like means of coping with distress and reality, people affected with BPD fail to transfer very emotionally charged events into their long term memory. For this reason it was originally thought that those with the disorder could not “take in” reality and make sense of it, but it is actually now understood as a type of complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that has affected brain function and development. Throughout the rest of this post and for the sake of ease, I will refer to those who suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder as a “BP” meaning a “borderline person.” As one author suggests, it avoids reducing those affected into a diagnosis and preserves their identity as a person apart from the disease.
Features Common to Both BPD and Botkin Syndrome
BPs rely upon coping mechanisms [See this link] that are commonly used within spiritual abuse. In order to deal the depression and the intensity of mood swings, the BP uses defenses like distraction through fantasy and idealization to deny painful experiences, all in addition to the denial that occurs as a consequence of disturbance in memory. People who follow patriarchy cling to an idealized view of family and see the world through patriarchy’s galvanized prejudice, and elements of this created system of idealism often does not meet with practical demands, something very much like the alternate reality of the BP.
Psychological splitting (a type of black and white thinking) also predisposes the BP to devaluation of others in order to protect their fragile sense of self, using devaluation, demoralization, and demonization of those whom they find threatening at a given moment. Those who follow patriarchy also defend their belief system against their critics, detractors, defectors, as well as their own excommunicated followers in the same manner. BPs use blame and projection in order to feel better about themselves, raising their own comfort level by “leveling the playing field” by focusing and attributing fault to others, regardless of whether they are deserving of that fault or blame. Patriarchy uses these tactics through the concept of merited grace and safety which always falls on the shoulders of the devotee (“If you failed to get promised results, you are to blame because of personal failure or sin.”).
Patriarchy uses all of these primitive coping tactics to enhance the group’s sense of exclusivity and special status to blame and reduce those outside of the group to a lesser status. For the loved ones of those with BPD, because of the high degree of manipulation used by the BP to avoid their fears and to survive their disorder, the “brainwashing effects” that the disorder has on their family and friends is very much like the thought reform employed within many systems of the so-called Biblical patriarchy. Again, this does not mean that anyone who follows patriarchy has a personality disorder, but the dynamics of the patriarchal system do bear many similarities in some respects. I believe that it is worth considering some of the wisdom from this literature to bring more insight. I am also concerned on another level that patriarchy may attract both leaders and followers with some of these personality disorders because the ideology of patriarchy lends itself so well to the natural style of those who have both borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.
Relationship Dynamics
The story of the Wizard of Oz lends itself well to the disorder as a way of explaining what it is like to live with a BP. The child of the BP lives in two worlds: the BP’s world and real world which is governed by rational and predictable social rules and dynamics which are consistent. Life with their BP is much like getting caught up into the whirlwind and carried to Oz – into an alternate universe where the regular rules don’t apply. It has some elements of enchantment fantasy, but like Oz, it also has its villains, heroes and sojourners. (Link HERE to a brief explanation of this metaphor.)
In general, a BP can function at very high or very low levels, being very capable or very debilitated. Recognizing high functioning BPs proves more difficult for those outside of their immediate family or outside of the BP’s primary relationships, because it is masked by their high level of competence and skill at hiding their inner turmoil from others. BPs also vary vastly in the way that they deal with their fears and anguish, either turning them inward to become collapsed personalities or turning them outward to become exaggerated personalities.
In “Understanding the Borderline Mother: Helping Her Children Transcend the Intense, Unpredictable, and Volatile Relationship,” Lawson identifies four basic “character profiles” that tend to dominate the personality of the BP, but they may also overlap. (BPs manifest their core issues in very complex ways, but understanding them in terms of profile types or metaphor such as “Life in Oz” helps their loved ones with their own understanding and interpersonal struggle with their BP.) The BP may also behave consistently with one type of profile when coping well and may switch into another character profile when feeling threatened.
Character Profiles of Mothers with BPD (Lawson, pp 37-8):
(1.) The Waif Mother who predominantly demonstrates helplessness; “Life is too hard.”
(2.) The Hermit Mother who predominantly demonstrates fear; “Life is too dangerous.”
(3.) The Queen Mother who predominantly demonstrates emptiness; “Life is ‘all about me.’”
(4.) The Witch Mother who predominantly demonstrates annihilating rage; “Life is war.”
The following chart, adapted from the book, describes the affects of the mindset of the BP on their thoughts and behaviors concerning their children. It should be said that all parents make errors and that none are perfect, but parents who consistently respond to their children in the manners described in the Table do suffer with impaired relationships, and these ideas and resulting behaviors adversely affect their children. (No parent can be expected to be the perfect, ideal parent, and few parents are ideal.)
It cannot be stressed and stated more emphatically: Parents in patriarchy or those who follow the Botkin Model of parenting do not suffer from BPD! I present this material here to highlight how the similar coping and parenting styles of those with BPD are quite similar to those within patriarchy in some ways, and understanding this may be helpful for adult children who have been affected by particular elements of these parenting styles. It must also be noted that, though this book discusses the Borderline Mother, within patriarchy, the controlling and manipulating comes from both parents, theoretically from the father in particular.
My point here involves understanding the general effects and problems, not to make a case that mothers in patriarchy control their families and that they are the source of the problems in the system. But, children of BPs suffer from enmeshment just as do children in patriarchy, and many of the assumptions that BPs make about their children are consistent with adult children who have exited patriarchy. It is a comparison, not an analogy. Some of the doctrines and some of the functional problems manifested in patriarchy also manifest in BPD (functional problems that manifest and deviate from patriarchy’s ideology when the ideology s put into practice). And for that reason only, the literature which addresses BPD can be helpful for those who are overcoming Botkin Syndrome.
Just as the BPs described here fall into predictable patterns of behavior, their children also develop predictable responses. Children in dysfunctional families fall into certain categories. Lawson notes these specific family roles for children of Borderline Mothers: the “all-good child,” the “no-good child” and the “lost child” (pp 160-173). Per the literature concerning addictions and recovery, the identified roles within dysfunctional, enmeshed families that children (and the non-addicted spouse) adopt include the “hero,” the “clown,” the “mascot,” the “caretaker,” the “rebel,” the “scapegoat,” the "mastermind," and the “lost child” or “loner.”
Children within systems of enmeshment feel constrained to remain in these expected roles in order to accommodate the needs of the BP which assuages them, because children become overly responsible for the well being of the parent and family at the expense of their own needs and their own personalities. In patriarchy, exiting the family system is also tantamount to religious apostasy and loss of connection with God, so children within patriarchy feel even more pressure than do those in families where a parent suffers from addiction/dysfunction.
What Can We Learn from BPD?
Recently, while reading through the BPD literature, I noted several statements that Lawson makes in “Understanding the Borderline Mother” that apply well to those within patriarchy. I offer only a few of them here for those who are working through the “Why?” and “How?” of the painful aspects of their experience of family, noting understanding and evaluation of personal history as an essential stage in healing from any type of trauma. Working through and resolving their understanding of the painful aspects of their family experience will liberate them to be able to celebrate the good and beneficial elements of their families without hindrance or distraction.
Note:[Bracketed terms] in the following excerpts were adapted and added by this blog host for the ease of the reader of this post to abbreviate the terminology which was explained in the context of the book (in terms of character subtypes) but is beyond the scope of this post.
To make the excerpts more relevant to those within patriarchy, consider substituting the term “family” for “mother.” As previously stated, though the book discusses these issues as they pertain to mothers who suffer from BPD, these issues apply to family and also to fathers within the Botkin-style form of patriarchy.
Pgs 223-4:
Children of borderlines expect incongruent behavior from others. They learn to hide their real feelings, to express their needs indirectly, or not to need anything at all. Because this learning is unconscious, they are unaware of their own incongruence… Children of borderlines keep the true self hidden, first from their parents and eventually from themselves. . . The real self will be hidden if it can not be fully expressed.
Pg 244:
Because borderlines lack object constancy, they have no access to an internal, loving, approving, protective self that is constant regardless of events. Therefore, they try to rely on their own children to hold them together. As adults, children of the[mother] have a choice about how much they are willing to give, how much they can emotionally withstand, and how much of their own lives they are willing to sacrifice.
Pgs 253-4:
The [mother’s] adult children must understand that those with healthy mothers cannot imagine the manipulativeness of the[mother]. Others therefore assume that the child, rather than the mother, is the selfish one…Attempting to separate from the[mother] can cause volcanic eruptions. Everyone reacts to seeing the smoke and red-hot lava once it is flowing, but few people understand the forces beneath the surface that created the disaster.
Pg 254-5:
The[mother’s] emptiness distorts her perceptions of interactions with others. Regardless of how much she is appreciated, loved, valued, or admired, she feels disappointed. Gifts from the [mother] have strings attached because they are tied to her sense of self. She gives in order to receive what she needs or wants… The strange combination of the[mother’s] extravagant gifts and her inability to give what is actually needed reflects her own longing to be indulged… The[mother’s] behavior elicits embarrassment about her need for recognition, attention, and control, and her children may react by becoming intensely private individuals...The[mother’s]adult children should accept only those gifts that do not leave them feeling indebted, uncomfortable, or guilty.
Pg 261-2:
“In normal development, the mother introduces the child to increasingly difficult levels of frustration so the child will learn that she does not always get what she wants. At some point, the child’s ego realizes, accepts, and internalizes this, understanding that it is a normal, although disagreeable, fact of life. The child with an arrested ego, however, will have a poor ability to tolerate frustration…”[Quoting Masterson, pg 76.]
Unfortunately, both the[mother]and her children can suffer from arrested ego development. The[mother] cannot supply her children with something she lacks in herself, and she uses her children to mirror her self-worth. This aberration in parenting results in children with selves that either respond with angry defiance and feeling of worthlessness or with false compliance and feelings of emptiness… Adult children must learn to mirror their true selves instead of the[mother’s].
~~~~~~
In an upcoming post I HOPE to explore the connection between literature written by concentration camp survivors and why the children of BPs often feel a connection to the plight of the captive.
For some time, I have thought about quoting Alice Miller on this blog. She was a psychologist in Europe, living in Switzerland for some time, and she passed away earlier this year. She wrote about the “poisonous pedagogy” or the “black pedagogy” as it translates from German, a term which describes oppressive practices that people use when raising children. She defines this term as “the kind of parenting and education aimed at breaking a child’s will and making that child into an obedient subject by means of overt or cover coercion, manipulation, and emotional blackmail” (from the preface of The Truth Will Set You Free).
I don’t agree with her on some points, and I don’t like the anger that I discern when I read sections of her work, particularly other books. Yet at the same time, she was a brilliant, brilliant diagnostician in terms of developmental growth and patterns of family dysfunction. She also struggled with aspects of Christianity including aspects of the gender debate, and though I don’t always share her conclusions about all of these matters, she was honest and fair to read and consider the Bible. I have great respect for those who do not share my religious opinions but have honored me by thoughtfully considering my own. She brings a valuable perspective that I think Christians would be wise to heed.
I have also been reluctant to bring her name up on my blogs because she has worked as an anti-child abuse activist, contributing to the UN’s initiate regarding children’s rights. At this point, I’ve been called so many things from Communist to lesbian, I don’t really care anymore. I quoted Stalin in a paper that I wrote, something I cited from a book by Donald Howard, so I guess this is proof that I am a Marxist? My quoting her does not mean that I think that the UN is a terrific organization or that I am some Communist that wants to give our country to China and other third world nations. (I think that this has already happened in many respects.) I have read the literature and mailings concerning groups like HSLDA’s activism against the very causes that Alice Miller advanced. This does not mean that I support any of these groups. If you like, consider my cause for citing her as what PG Wodehouse once placed in the literary mouth of his Jeeves character when he said “It is best to know what tunes the devil is playing.” I don’t feel at all threatened by the cogent things she had to say, and it is my hope that we can learn from her wisdom.
On the night of what I understand was originally scheduled as a pre-trial hearing for Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz after the events that you can learn about elsewhere, I thought it would be fitting to quote Alice Miller since so little accountability for all of this matter has been shown by the Christian community. Caesar will apparently keep us honest, or will make fools of us for burying our heads as a Church, the group that should set ethical standards, not be shamed by secular ones. I think that we can learn, at least, from her honesty and from her compassion for wounded and hurting children. I wish I could quote more of her book here. I think that though many of those who are healing from “Botkin Syndrome” would also not agree with her on some points, I believe that many would find it insightful and validating.
I believe that, from the epistemology through which I best make sense of the world (How we know what we know), that truth is transcendent. Some say that all truths must come from the Bible first, and that what our senses tell us about the world is a lower order of truth. I am often criticized for being too much of an evidentialist, putting too much emphasis on worldly facts as opposed to Godly wisdom. In short, I do not think that these types of knowledge compete with one another, but I see them as “coherent” and “corresponding.” Statements from unbelievers can that bear truth can be very true in this sense, if they correspond to what is real. I am going to agree with Winston Churchill about truth who sums it up quite eloquently: “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”I don’t think that he would be intimidated by Alice’s statements either, because “here they are.” I think they stand on their own merit.
This section appears in “The Truth Will Set You Free” in the epilogue entitled “From Ignorance To Knowledge and Compassion.” (In my edition, this section appears starting on page 190 and concludes with a section appearing on page 195.) The book speaks of “generational faithfulness” as old patterns of dysfunction, of how parents unknowingly use their children to medicate their old pains of the past. The whole chapter speaks respectfully of the Bible, but it draws into question the traditions of men.
The figure of Jesus confounds all those principles of poisonous pedagogy… Long before his birth Jesus received the greatest reverence, love and protection from his parents… His earthly parents saw themselves as his servants… Would it not make eminent sense to encourage believers to follow the example of Mary and Joseph and regard their children as the children of God (which in a sense they are)?
[T]he members of the upcoming generations will have the courage to call evil by its name…It is high time to relinquish the destructive models and to mistrust the principle of obedience. We have no need of docile children brainwashed by their upbringing to be ideal targets of seduction by terrorists and lunatic ideologists, ready to fall in with their commands even to the extent of killing others. Children given the respect they deserve from their earliest years will go through life with open eyes and ears, prepared to fight injustice, stupidity, and ignorance with arguments and constructive action. Jesus did this at the age of twelve, and the scene in the temple (Luke 2:41-52) demonstrates eloquently that, if need be, he could refuse the obedience his parents asked of him without hurting their feelings.
With the best will in the world we cannot truly emulate the example of Jesus. None of us were carried by our mothers as the child of God; indeed, for far too many parents, children are merely a burden. What we can do, provided we really want to, is learn from the attitude displayed by Joseph and Mary. They did not demand docility from their son, and they felt no urge to inflict violence on him. Only if we fear the confrontation with our own histories will we need to have power over others and cling to it with all our might. And if we do that it is because we feel too weak to be true to ourselves and our own feelings. But being honest to our children will make us strong. In order to tell the truth we do not need to have power over others. Power is something we only need in order to spread lies and hypocrisy, to mouth empty words and pretend they are true.
I hope that we are not too pious as a Body to fail to honor and learn from her words before it is too late.
Please pray for the Schatz family and everyone whose lives have been touched by them. I don’t even have words to express my great sorrow or to find words to pray. What confidence that I have in Him, for He understands groans.
