During the 1960s, the so-called 'sex-positive movement' [1] began, offering a counter to the prevalent culture of the preceding decades in which sexuality was regarded as something that should not be brought into the public view. As quoted from sexologist Carol Queen on the Wikipedia entry for the movement: "'Sex-positive' respects each of our unique sexual profiles, even as we acknowledge that some of us have been damaged by a culture that tries to eradicate sexual difference and possibility."
It is of course generally wonderful that people are left free to express themselves and develop in the way that works best for them. To not have to hide aspects of themselves, or to feel forced to behave in ways that are considered to be socially acceptable, when it is not what makes them happy. A big example of that is the freedom to develop intimate relationships with others without having to perform the socially acceptable matching of appropriate genitals and social status.
The second part of Carol Queen's quote in the same article however touches on the issues with sex-positivity: "It’s the cultural philosophy that understands sexuality as a potentially positive force in one’s life, and it can, of course, be contrasted with sex-negativity, which sees sex as problematic, disruptive, dangerous. Sex-positivity allows for and in fact celebrates sexual diversity, differing desires and relationships structures, and individual choices based on consent."
The keywords here are 'potentially positive'. This is the part that gets easily overlooked by those who most loudly clamour in favour of the sex-positive movement into the mainstream. The primary issue and reason why sexuality isn't something positive for everyone is all too often caused by sexuality. Perhaps ironically, sex-positivity can be the thing that is disruptive and dangerous, if not outright traumatic.
It is one thing to celebrate sexuality and one's preferences there, but it is all too easy to forget that in the real world actions also affect others. Just because someone's sexuality leads them to prefer under-age boys or girls, or leads to them not respecting personal boundaries in the case of assault and rape in what is often a display of dominance and control, this does not mean that any of this is good, or deserves to be celebrated. Even if it is how their sexuality expresses itself.
Such acts of trauma consequently leads to traumatised individuals for whom sexuality and even physical contact have taken on a distinctly negative slant, often reinforced by successive further negative experiences with sexuality and with putting one's trust into others. Because ultimately sexuality is not about genitals, or even physical intimacy, but about feeling comfortable and safe enough to express certain desires.
It can also be said that the focus on sexuality diminishes the individual instead of enriching them. Whereas Humanism is about individualism and the role of the individual in a society, the sex-positive movement redirects attention away from the person encoded in the neurons of the brain, and back down to whatever sexual features their body have and what they do with them, while reinforcing social pressures about sexuality being something that shall and must be part of one's life.
To those who suffered traumas or for whom the concept of sexuality simply holds no appeal, the public display of or references to sexuality can be something that's undesirable, or even re-traumatising. I have seen examples of the lack of understanding here in a variety of forms, such as in posts on Twitter which included a couple of photos of homosexual couples kissing and an accompanying text that effectively concluded that anyone who dislikes that Twitter post or unfollows the person posting or retweeting it must be homophobic.
I do not like seeing people kiss or hold hands. I know many others who do not care for this either. It does not matter whether the people doing the kissing or hand-holding are hetero-, bi-, tri- or homosexual, the core of the problem is the display of sexuality. Some of us do not care to see it because we consider sexuality something private for a couple and get annoyed when people start kissing and fondling in front of them. For others it acts as a trigger for traumatic experiences, bringing back painful memories or even provoking full-blown Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder episodes.
The reasons for my negative attitude towards sexuality are legion, but I do not feel that it is something that necessarily needs 'fixing'. In fact, I feel that in many regards those views that I hold are the more mature ones, as they are born from experience instead of starry-eyed ideals. When I walked through the Red Light district in Amsterdam and saw the prostitutes behind glass in their sterile, tiled rooms, I did not see it as a symbol of the liberation of sexuality, as some have referred to it. Instead I saw and felt just the sadness and loneliness of the tragedy of what others have described as 'masturbating together'.
To be held captive by one's carnal desires and the associated sexuality, to be blind and ignorant to the wider picture, and to put the desires of the flesh above exploring the incomparable beauty of another person's mind as all of us work in communion on a better world for all. To me that is the true tragedy and crime against humanity on view here.
Maya
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_movement
Monday 24 August 2020
Sunday 16 August 2020
The three laws of robotics, or: the measure of a man
Having recently read through Isaac Asimov's collected robot stories, I was given cause to consider the concept of the Three Laws Of Robotics, as they are commonly referred to. These laws are essentially conceived as fixed programming rules in the positronic mind of a robot, which 1) forbid a robot to hurt a human being or allow them to come to harm, 2) force a robot to obey a human's commands unless this conflicts with the first rule, and 3) allow a robot to protect its own existence, if this does not conflict with the first or second law.
The reasoning for enforcing these rules in Asimov's stories is simple: fear of robots. Because the humanoid robots in these stories are larger, stronger and generally more capable than human beings, the thought appears to be that with these rules in place, no robot could ever harm a human being, and would always sacrifice themselves to save a human life. If one considers robots to be unthinking machines, with nary a thought of their own, then this may seem like a completely valid way to maximise their use and benefit to humanity, while preventing any unfortunate mishaps that could result in the injury or death to a person.
In the 1980s sci-fi series Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG), there is an episode titled 'The Measure of a Man' which revolves around the android called Data. As a one of a kind android, he managed to get into Star Fleet, ultimately serving with the crew of the USS Enterprise, under command of captain Picard. Also equipped with a positronic brain, he is not programmed with the three laws, but is free to learn and discover on his own. In time he comes to be accepted by the crew as a highly capable individual with his own sense of humour, individuality and preferences. His differences are seen as an asset to the crew, including on a personal level.
This all comes to the forefront in the aforementioned episode. A scientist working for Star Fleet wishes to understand how Data's positronic brain works, as so far only the elusive scientist who made Data has figured out how to stabilise a positronic brain. If successful in determining this, many more androids like Data could be manufactured for use not only on Star Fleet ships, but also in many other situations. Only catch is that this examination may end up destroying Data's brain through permanent depolarisation.
Initially, Data is merely treated as property, as his status within Star Fleet at the time treats him no different than any other piece of inventory. That's why Picard at first only receives the order to have Data transferred to the scientific department at Star Fleet. While Data seems accepting of the idea at first, it are Picard and then other crew members who step up to fight for Data. In a legal case, they attempt to prove that Data is in fact not a piece of property, but as close to a living, breathing human being as one can be as an android, and thus worthy of the same rights and protections as any other person.
In the end, Data wins this case and he is granted personhood. As Data is not fundamentally opposed to the concept of Star Fleet scientists understanding how to stabilise positronic brains, he suggests to the scientist that he will gladly work together with him and share data. Everything except for invasive or destructive examinations, as that would be neither ethical nor moral.
In Asimov's short stories, too, there is the question of where the line between a 'person' and 'property' lies. If a construct with a positronic brain is self-aware, capable of reasoning and lives a life that is essentially indistinguishable of how a construct with an organic brain would live it, then why could only the latter be a 'person', and would the former forever be condemned to live as property, if not also shackled by the Three Laws?
In The Bicentennial Man, the robot at the center of that story lives a life that is that of a person, yet who does not get treated as a person, because he is a robot. Despite working jobs, being a well-known artist and gaining the respect of the family which 'owns' him, he is not granted the rights and privileges that come with being a person. Which means being an organic human being. Even after changing his body to a more human-like appearance, thus becoming an android, the fact that he has a positronic brain instantly disqualifies him as a person in the eyes of society.
Ultimately, the bicentennial man is granted personhood when he proves that he is just as mortal as humans, by essentially destabilising his own positronic brain, resulting in his death after living for more than two-hundred years. All to gain this intangible property of being accepted as a person.
When it comes down to it, there is no way that we can deny personhood to any entity that is capable or is presumed to soon become capable of understanding what being a 'person' entails. An entity like Data in TNG or the bicentennial man are as human as you or I, capable of understanding emotions, perhaps even experiencing them, while enjoying every moment that they are alive and can be around those people who they care about.
In the case of a newborn child, we accept that their brains are as of yet incapable of producing the patterns required for them to achieve self-awareness, but that given enough time, they will be capable of this. That's why they are given into the care of adults, who can provide the safe, caring environment in which they can mature before they can assume the responsibilities of adulthood.
However, if personhood was just about cognitive capabilities, the fact of the matter is that part of humankind would not qualify. Think of those born with developmental issues, or who suffer brain damage or develop Alzheimer's. To most of us, they are still persons, not property or something less than that. This makes one wonder whether the true qualifier that makes us amicable to granting an entity personhood is whether or not it appears 'human' enough to us.
Think of the pets we keep and the human qualities we ascribe to them. Perhaps the problem with intelligent robots and androids (as well as artificial intelligence in general) is that it provokes a primal fear in some part of our lizard- or primate brain sections which makes us respond in a negative fashion against even the mere concept of something 'like us', but which is 'different' and possibly superior.
In TNG, Data's photographic memory, super-accurate timekeeping, calculation skills and immense strength initially lead to fear and distrust among those near him until they learn to see the person behind these skills and capabilities instead. This isn't too dissimilar from the distrust we can see in today's society as well, with the faster learning or otherwise 'different' children in a school often being subjected to bullying and finding themselves much more often alone.
So, I guess that in effect, I cannot say that I would ever be a supporter of something like the Three Laws of Robotics. To me it feels like an excellent way to impose something akin to chattel slavery upon individuals who have done nothing to deserve such a cruel fate. As people and persons ourselves, the onus is on us to recognise that perhaps the true measure of intelligence is to perceive and accept it in others, even if they are very much unlike ourselves.
Maya
The reasoning for enforcing these rules in Asimov's stories is simple: fear of robots. Because the humanoid robots in these stories are larger, stronger and generally more capable than human beings, the thought appears to be that with these rules in place, no robot could ever harm a human being, and would always sacrifice themselves to save a human life. If one considers robots to be unthinking machines, with nary a thought of their own, then this may seem like a completely valid way to maximise their use and benefit to humanity, while preventing any unfortunate mishaps that could result in the injury or death to a person.
In the 1980s sci-fi series Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG), there is an episode titled 'The Measure of a Man' which revolves around the android called Data. As a one of a kind android, he managed to get into Star Fleet, ultimately serving with the crew of the USS Enterprise, under command of captain Picard. Also equipped with a positronic brain, he is not programmed with the three laws, but is free to learn and discover on his own. In time he comes to be accepted by the crew as a highly capable individual with his own sense of humour, individuality and preferences. His differences are seen as an asset to the crew, including on a personal level.
This all comes to the forefront in the aforementioned episode. A scientist working for Star Fleet wishes to understand how Data's positronic brain works, as so far only the elusive scientist who made Data has figured out how to stabilise a positronic brain. If successful in determining this, many more androids like Data could be manufactured for use not only on Star Fleet ships, but also in many other situations. Only catch is that this examination may end up destroying Data's brain through permanent depolarisation.
Initially, Data is merely treated as property, as his status within Star Fleet at the time treats him no different than any other piece of inventory. That's why Picard at first only receives the order to have Data transferred to the scientific department at Star Fleet. While Data seems accepting of the idea at first, it are Picard and then other crew members who step up to fight for Data. In a legal case, they attempt to prove that Data is in fact not a piece of property, but as close to a living, breathing human being as one can be as an android, and thus worthy of the same rights and protections as any other person.
In the end, Data wins this case and he is granted personhood. As Data is not fundamentally opposed to the concept of Star Fleet scientists understanding how to stabilise positronic brains, he suggests to the scientist that he will gladly work together with him and share data. Everything except for invasive or destructive examinations, as that would be neither ethical nor moral.
In Asimov's short stories, too, there is the question of where the line between a 'person' and 'property' lies. If a construct with a positronic brain is self-aware, capable of reasoning and lives a life that is essentially indistinguishable of how a construct with an organic brain would live it, then why could only the latter be a 'person', and would the former forever be condemned to live as property, if not also shackled by the Three Laws?
In The Bicentennial Man, the robot at the center of that story lives a life that is that of a person, yet who does not get treated as a person, because he is a robot. Despite working jobs, being a well-known artist and gaining the respect of the family which 'owns' him, he is not granted the rights and privileges that come with being a person. Which means being an organic human being. Even after changing his body to a more human-like appearance, thus becoming an android, the fact that he has a positronic brain instantly disqualifies him as a person in the eyes of society.
Ultimately, the bicentennial man is granted personhood when he proves that he is just as mortal as humans, by essentially destabilising his own positronic brain, resulting in his death after living for more than two-hundred years. All to gain this intangible property of being accepted as a person.
When it comes down to it, there is no way that we can deny personhood to any entity that is capable or is presumed to soon become capable of understanding what being a 'person' entails. An entity like Data in TNG or the bicentennial man are as human as you or I, capable of understanding emotions, perhaps even experiencing them, while enjoying every moment that they are alive and can be around those people who they care about.
In the case of a newborn child, we accept that their brains are as of yet incapable of producing the patterns required for them to achieve self-awareness, but that given enough time, they will be capable of this. That's why they are given into the care of adults, who can provide the safe, caring environment in which they can mature before they can assume the responsibilities of adulthood.
However, if personhood was just about cognitive capabilities, the fact of the matter is that part of humankind would not qualify. Think of those born with developmental issues, or who suffer brain damage or develop Alzheimer's. To most of us, they are still persons, not property or something less than that. This makes one wonder whether the true qualifier that makes us amicable to granting an entity personhood is whether or not it appears 'human' enough to us.
Think of the pets we keep and the human qualities we ascribe to them. Perhaps the problem with intelligent robots and androids (as well as artificial intelligence in general) is that it provokes a primal fear in some part of our lizard- or primate brain sections which makes us respond in a negative fashion against even the mere concept of something 'like us', but which is 'different' and possibly superior.
In TNG, Data's photographic memory, super-accurate timekeeping, calculation skills and immense strength initially lead to fear and distrust among those near him until they learn to see the person behind these skills and capabilities instead. This isn't too dissimilar from the distrust we can see in today's society as well, with the faster learning or otherwise 'different' children in a school often being subjected to bullying and finding themselves much more often alone.
So, I guess that in effect, I cannot say that I would ever be a supporter of something like the Three Laws of Robotics. To me it feels like an excellent way to impose something akin to chattel slavery upon individuals who have done nothing to deserve such a cruel fate. As people and persons ourselves, the onus is on us to recognise that perhaps the true measure of intelligence is to perceive and accept it in others, even if they are very much unlike ourselves.
Maya
Sunday 9 August 2020
When an intersex woman isn't just a woman
Two common questions which I often get asked during interviews are:
I found it very hard to figure out the answer to the first question. Not so much because it's a hard question, but more because of the indoctrination of society and its binary way of thinking. When it comes down to it, the first question isn't even a real question, but a trick question.
You do not 'feel' like a 'man' or a 'woman', as this does not make any sense. As every human brain is unique, we can only feel like ourselves, independent from the configuration of our genitals. The definition of 'man' or 'woman' in the dictionary sense therefore refers to one's physical sex. Basically, you are a woman on account of having grown up with a female body, or you are a man on account of having grown up with a male body.
This is something which becomes quite apparent when I look at intersex women. For CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) and XXY women in particular, they generally are not even aware of the fact that they have anything but regular female bodies, until they start fertility treatments to become pregnant, or run into the binarist and highly discriminating sport world. In either case it is ridiculous to state that they are anything but women, even if they may gather some (less pleasant) experiences along the way on account of discrimination and harassment by their environment.
In my own situation, I share the notion that my sense of how I feel or see myself hasn't changed, despite having grown up as an officially designated 'male' person until it was discovered that I do in fact have a female reproductive system as well. I recognise that on account of those first years and growing up with a body that is at least partially 'male', that it is something that will always be part of me.
Yet at the same time that my body did a half-hearted attempt to be 'male', most of the development during puberty went into female development, so that my sensation of growing up with this body is a curious mixture of typical male and female experiences. I would say that these experiences defined me as a typical hermaphrodite. Not just a man or a woman, but a mixture of both.
As a result, even though my passport says that I'm 'female' and I'm grateful that this matches society's expectations with regard to my looks to prevent annoying questions, I still wish that society could accept that us intersex people can be more than just 'women'. I'm an intersex woman, a hermaphroditic woman, a chimera, and my own person. These are experiences that I must acknowledge if I want to be myself. Everything that I experienced, all that I went through as a child, teenager and beyond, all of that is part of who and what I am.
It's the kind of diversity that society will hopefully embrace one day.
Maya
- Do you feel more like a man or a woman?
- Do you prefer men or women? (in a 'love' sense).
I found it very hard to figure out the answer to the first question. Not so much because it's a hard question, but more because of the indoctrination of society and its binary way of thinking. When it comes down to it, the first question isn't even a real question, but a trick question.
You do not 'feel' like a 'man' or a 'woman', as this does not make any sense. As every human brain is unique, we can only feel like ourselves, independent from the configuration of our genitals. The definition of 'man' or 'woman' in the dictionary sense therefore refers to one's physical sex. Basically, you are a woman on account of having grown up with a female body, or you are a man on account of having grown up with a male body.
This is something which becomes quite apparent when I look at intersex women. For CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) and XXY women in particular, they generally are not even aware of the fact that they have anything but regular female bodies, until they start fertility treatments to become pregnant, or run into the binarist and highly discriminating sport world. In either case it is ridiculous to state that they are anything but women, even if they may gather some (less pleasant) experiences along the way on account of discrimination and harassment by their environment.
In my own situation, I share the notion that my sense of how I feel or see myself hasn't changed, despite having grown up as an officially designated 'male' person until it was discovered that I do in fact have a female reproductive system as well. I recognise that on account of those first years and growing up with a body that is at least partially 'male', that it is something that will always be part of me.
Yet at the same time that my body did a half-hearted attempt to be 'male', most of the development during puberty went into female development, so that my sensation of growing up with this body is a curious mixture of typical male and female experiences. I would say that these experiences defined me as a typical hermaphrodite. Not just a man or a woman, but a mixture of both.
As a result, even though my passport says that I'm 'female' and I'm grateful that this matches society's expectations with regard to my looks to prevent annoying questions, I still wish that society could accept that us intersex people can be more than just 'women'. I'm an intersex woman, a hermaphroditic woman, a chimera, and my own person. These are experiences that I must acknowledge if I want to be myself. Everything that I experienced, all that I went through as a child, teenager and beyond, all of that is part of who and what I am.
It's the kind of diversity that society will hopefully embrace one day.
Maya
Friday 7 August 2020
Self-motivation while adrift on an ocean
The fun thing about being adrift in the middle of an ocean are the many options that are visible, with each direction offering new and thrilling adventures and outcomes. The not so fun thing is that one's vessel has no propulsion and thus one is left to awkwardly paddle around with some scrap wood that one found in the bottom of the boat. It doesn't really matter what one direction one picks, as the wind and ocean currents will determine what direction one heads into anyway.
Sometimes that's the feeling I get with my life. I can see all the beautiful vistas that I could have reached, but there's always that combination of unfortunate circumstances, lack of motivation and crippling depression from post-traumatic stress disorder that end up clobbering any attempt at improving my life. It's pretty futile to get frustrated with ocean currents and the current wind direction.
When I try and take a look at exactly why the propulsion of my vessel is not functioning, I can obviously tell that the effects of youth trauma and subsequent traumas have done most of the damage. How do you work up self-motivation when your sense of self-esteem is constantly being attacked and drained by past and present reminders of one's failures and of being a worthless excuse of a human being. Combined with too many expectations from others heaped on top of that as well, perhaps, on account of always being the 'smart kid', due to a preference for reading, learning languages and the sciences, and so on.
When you end up sabotaging everything you try to do, because a lack of self-confidence makes you falter. When even small successes look meaningless next to the many failures and things promised and yet left unfinished... at some point you'll just find yourself adrift.
Of course there are many things which I can do. Or could do. I'm not dumb. I can learn what needs learning. I can make what needs making. Or I could, if I can figure out this lump of darkness that's inside of me, like a black hole. When you find yourself trying to motivate yourself to do something important for an entire day, but you just cannot bring yourself to do it, because... it doesn't feel right yet. That's just another failure that makes it again easier to fail the next time you try something.
And yet if you force yourself to do what needs doing, tearing through this resistance, it does not feel right either. It feels as if you're hurting yourself in the process by not understanding the source of this resistance. This bleakness and lack of purpose. Because that's ultimately what is is about.
The thing with depression born from trauma is that it isn't something that is easily addressed or treated. Sure, you can try to nuke it with medication, like anti-depressants, but the effect there is limited. It's after all caused by unprocessed trauma, which causes the brain to constantly injure itself as it goes through each subsequent retraumatisation and flashback event. The only proper long-term therapy there is to address the trauma.
Over the course of this year, I have managed to reintegrate the child personality which represented the childhood trauma back into my psyche, allowing me to finally make progress with examining and dealing with the trauma. This while also using it to understand and learn to deal with the subsequent traumatisation events, including bullying, physical violence, psychological and sexual abuse.
Blaming oneself is a horrible thing. Yet the assignment of blame yelled at me when I was a young child has been seared into my brain. It seems to have sensitised me to the acceptance of blame, no matter whether it was true or not. Slowly the sense of control got wrestled away from me. Over what was true or not. The ability to trust in others. The erasure of the physical, medical facts about my body. The erasure of my identity and my sense of self.
By the time I tried to commit suicide, I had come to accept that there was nowhere that I could go, nowhere that would accept me. Nothing that I could do or change. That's why the decision to take my own life had such a positive impact on me, because it was the first time in a very long time that I was fully in control of my life and myself.
That things had escalated that far was rather tragic.
During the years following that failed suicide attempt, I have tried to rebuild my life. Not surprisingly, I fell into the same traps as before, finding myself robbed of control by the medical and legal systems, and once again suffering psychological and physical abuse by those who sought to take advantage of my overly compliant attitude on account of having no self-esteem.
So what changed about that recently? Most of all getting to know a few friends who helped me through a number of harrowing situations. Without them I do not think that I would be typing this right now. Yet it's only a good start. Regaining control is hard. Dealing with trauma is harder. And I have to do both.
The coming time this means working on myself, figuring out more about these traumas and how to disarm parts of them. Regaining self-esteem as I work on my career. As a freelancer you do need to have some self-esteem, after all. Yet I would not at all mind a few more helping hands here, as I try to find more freelance work, or perhaps something more permanent.
The thing about being adrift after all is that you're pretty flexible about solid options that appear. One would be mad to refuse a new engine, or a tow by another vessel, simply because you have set your sights on transforming your vessel into a gold-plated and diamond-encrusted yacht through the power of wishful thinking.
I feel that part of regaining self-esteem is to learn to accept that others may see something of worth in me, much as I can see the worth in others. This also means that both giving and accepting help are essential parts of overcoming trauma.
Maya
Sometimes that's the feeling I get with my life. I can see all the beautiful vistas that I could have reached, but there's always that combination of unfortunate circumstances, lack of motivation and crippling depression from post-traumatic stress disorder that end up clobbering any attempt at improving my life. It's pretty futile to get frustrated with ocean currents and the current wind direction.
When I try and take a look at exactly why the propulsion of my vessel is not functioning, I can obviously tell that the effects of youth trauma and subsequent traumas have done most of the damage. How do you work up self-motivation when your sense of self-esteem is constantly being attacked and drained by past and present reminders of one's failures and of being a worthless excuse of a human being. Combined with too many expectations from others heaped on top of that as well, perhaps, on account of always being the 'smart kid', due to a preference for reading, learning languages and the sciences, and so on.
When you end up sabotaging everything you try to do, because a lack of self-confidence makes you falter. When even small successes look meaningless next to the many failures and things promised and yet left unfinished... at some point you'll just find yourself adrift.
Of course there are many things which I can do. Or could do. I'm not dumb. I can learn what needs learning. I can make what needs making. Or I could, if I can figure out this lump of darkness that's inside of me, like a black hole. When you find yourself trying to motivate yourself to do something important for an entire day, but you just cannot bring yourself to do it, because... it doesn't feel right yet. That's just another failure that makes it again easier to fail the next time you try something.
And yet if you force yourself to do what needs doing, tearing through this resistance, it does not feel right either. It feels as if you're hurting yourself in the process by not understanding the source of this resistance. This bleakness and lack of purpose. Because that's ultimately what is is about.
The thing with depression born from trauma is that it isn't something that is easily addressed or treated. Sure, you can try to nuke it with medication, like anti-depressants, but the effect there is limited. It's after all caused by unprocessed trauma, which causes the brain to constantly injure itself as it goes through each subsequent retraumatisation and flashback event. The only proper long-term therapy there is to address the trauma.
Over the course of this year, I have managed to reintegrate the child personality which represented the childhood trauma back into my psyche, allowing me to finally make progress with examining and dealing with the trauma. This while also using it to understand and learn to deal with the subsequent traumatisation events, including bullying, physical violence, psychological and sexual abuse.
Blaming oneself is a horrible thing. Yet the assignment of blame yelled at me when I was a young child has been seared into my brain. It seems to have sensitised me to the acceptance of blame, no matter whether it was true or not. Slowly the sense of control got wrestled away from me. Over what was true or not. The ability to trust in others. The erasure of the physical, medical facts about my body. The erasure of my identity and my sense of self.
By the time I tried to commit suicide, I had come to accept that there was nowhere that I could go, nowhere that would accept me. Nothing that I could do or change. That's why the decision to take my own life had such a positive impact on me, because it was the first time in a very long time that I was fully in control of my life and myself.
That things had escalated that far was rather tragic.
During the years following that failed suicide attempt, I have tried to rebuild my life. Not surprisingly, I fell into the same traps as before, finding myself robbed of control by the medical and legal systems, and once again suffering psychological and physical abuse by those who sought to take advantage of my overly compliant attitude on account of having no self-esteem.
So what changed about that recently? Most of all getting to know a few friends who helped me through a number of harrowing situations. Without them I do not think that I would be typing this right now. Yet it's only a good start. Regaining control is hard. Dealing with trauma is harder. And I have to do both.
The coming time this means working on myself, figuring out more about these traumas and how to disarm parts of them. Regaining self-esteem as I work on my career. As a freelancer you do need to have some self-esteem, after all. Yet I would not at all mind a few more helping hands here, as I try to find more freelance work, or perhaps something more permanent.
The thing about being adrift after all is that you're pretty flexible about solid options that appear. One would be mad to refuse a new engine, or a tow by another vessel, simply because you have set your sights on transforming your vessel into a gold-plated and diamond-encrusted yacht through the power of wishful thinking.
I feel that part of regaining self-esteem is to learn to accept that others may see something of worth in me, much as I can see the worth in others. This also means that both giving and accepting help are essential parts of overcoming trauma.
Maya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)