Downton Abbey was on TV last night, and Terry and I are among the millions of fans. Last night’s episode (Season 3, Episode 4) ended in tragedy because of behavior that looked so familiar to me.
(Spoiler Alert: The following description gives away the story.)
Lord Grantham’s daughter, Lady Sybil, is about to give birth. Rather than depend on the local country doctor, Dr. Clarkson, Lord Grantham has imported a more socially acceptable obstetrician, Sir Philip Tapsell, to deliver the baby. As the birth approaches, both doctors are in attendance at the estate.
Lady Sybil starts acting incoherently. Dr Clarkson fears that she may be toxemic. He recommends that they rush to the hospital so the baby can be delivered immediately by C-section. Sir Philip insists that nothing is wrong—Lady Sybil is experiencing a normal childbirth. The two doctors argue in front of the entire family and the nature of the argument is why I’m describing the show.
Dr. Clarkson worries that Lady Sybil may be in grave danger, but admits that he doesn’t know for sure. Sir Philip, on the other hand, is totally confident that nothing is wrong. He never wavers. He is pompous in his confidence. He practically sneers at the country bumpkin doctor for being an alarmist, and actually tells him to shut up.
Lord Grantham notes that Dr. Clarkson isn’t sure about the possible danger, whereas Sir Philip is 100% confident that everything is fine. He sides with Sir Philip, and they do not go to the hospital.
Lady Sybil goes into labor and the baby is born. But a short time later, she goes into convulsions and dies.
Argued like a sociopath
Dr. Clarkson was right all along. But Sir Philip spoke with unshakeable self-confidence, unwaveringly certain that he knew best. He argued like a sociopath.
I am not saying that the Sir Philip character is a sociopath. But I am saying that his extreme confidence, his self-righteousness and his hubris are all traits that sociopaths display when they are pushing to get their way.
I write about this in my book, Red Flags of Love Fraud:
How do they do it? How do sociopaths convince you to go along with their agendas, even to your own detriment?
They command it. This is a function of their charisma because they command unflinchingly, with complete self-confidence, they get results. Now, this doesn’t mean sociopaths are always barking orders. Often the commands are delivered on cushions of sweetness, or camouflaged as appeals for sympathy. But in their minds, whatever sociopaths want, they are totally entitled to have. Therefore, when they make their desires known, they show no doubt, only certainty. Compliance is demanded, and targets respond.
Those of us who are not disordered usually aren’t as adamant in expressing our views, opinions or desires. We may think we’re right, but recognize that we could be wrong. We may know what we want, but we’re willing to compromise. So when we come across people who communicate vociferously and forcefully well, we tend to be bowled over. Because of the sheer force of their words, we tell ourselves that they must know what they’re talking about, they’re telling the truth, and they’re right.
My ex-husband’s convincing lies
I’m soon going to be on another TV show I’ll tell you all more when I have details. The producer asked me if I had any more video or audio of my ex, James Montgomery. Well, I found some tapes that I had forgotten about recordings of voice mails, and a recording of our first telephone conversation when I arrived home after leaving him. The tapes illustrate the steamroller tactics with which he argued even when he was lying.
Let me set the scene. James Montgomery swept into my life, portraying himself as a successful entrepreneur. He invited me to be part of his business plans, which, if I could help him get started, were sure to make us fabulously wealthy. He pressured me to lease a car for him it was in my name, and I made all the payments. To feed his unending need for money, I drained my savings and loaded about $60,000 in debt to my previously zero-balance credit cards.
Montgomery also told me he was a member of the Australian military who had heroically served in Vietnam, and still acted as a consultant, particularly on terrorism. He often flew to Florida, telling me he was stopping by MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, home of the Special Operations Command. While there, he was able to get around by borrowing the cars of other military members that were parked at the base.
In December 1998, Montgomery dragged me to Florida, saying he had a contract to open a Titanic show in Orlando. We spent money we didn’t have to move down there. A few weeks later Montgomery admitted he never had a contract. Then, while he was flying to yet another business meeting, I discovered that he had fathered a child with another woman during our marriage. I left Florida, and took the car that he had been driving.
So, here’s part of my conversation with James Montgomery when I was back at my home in New Jersey. (Warning: Contains some profanity.)
Here’s what I know now that I didn’t know during the conversation. My entire marriage was a financial scam. James Montgomery was never in the military. When he travelled to Florida, he was visiting other women including, but not limited to, the mother of the child., who probably owned the car he drove.
Yet listen to how he argued about the car. I was wrong for taking the car back to New Jersey, which inconvenienced him. I was wrong about him using cars from the base. And I was stupidly ignorant about the policy for using military cars. Montgomery was adamant and self-righteous in his argument even though everything he said was a lie.
At the time, the conversation was terribly upsetting. He threw many more accusations and threats at me, which, because of the conviction of his words, made me wonder if he was right.
Later, I discovered that everything he said that day, and practically everything he said during our marriage, was a lie no matter how convincingly the words were stated.
I didn’t know someone could lie with such confidence and conviction. And that’s how I got into the entire mess.
LPMarie,
We are all doing well, Grand included, growing like a weed, in the middle school, honor roll, is in clubs and on the basket ball team (undefeated bb team, the proud grandma adds).
As far as the grueling 50hr/week work schedule, plus thinking of Grad school – wow – have you ever considered working in a school, where the hours are more “family friendly”. Here, at least, there seems to be a need for aides. If not in a public school, maybe a religious/private or not for profit school. Just a thought, most don’t require grad school degree. I think you would do great working with kids. Pay isn’t much, but it’s a start
Take care and keep your chin up.
darwinsmom
excellent post written with compassion. i am so grateful for what you wrote. it explains much of what i was thinking but was not able to articulate. as a child who lived the horror of a pedophile who was in “love” with me, reading someone giving an opinion that pedophiles are not spath but deserve understanding as just another form of sexuality sent me into feelings of rage. i know what pedophilia does to a child, not just me but the damage done to a whole group of us who banded together to help shield each other – pedophilia is not an intellectual debate for me b/c of my history. thank you for taking on a difficult subject and making total sense.
Yes, thanks, Darsmom. Very eloquently said.
MiLo, im not thinking work and grad school. Just one or the other. I still have some VA educational benefits for school. I like kids but when I have worked with them I feel very burned out very quickly. My little one is so active (just like her dad :-< ). I can barely keep up with her. Shes barely taking an afternoon nap and when she does it isnt until dinner time and then she wont sleep before ten. And then shes up at around 6:30-7ish. Anyway, it was a good thought. Thank u. I need to slow down a bit and recoup from all the changes and associated stress. I am seeing a counselor through a family organization and I am going to see if the VA can refer me for an additional program. These past few years have really taken a toll. I look and feel like I have aged a decade, no exaggeration!
Redwald, the horrible disclosure not too long ago of the Irish Catholic school abuse and orphanage abuse that went on from the dawn of time until recently goes along with what you are saying.
Also I think that the “cloak” of religious sanctions and the faith of the citizens being unquestioning also played into these abuses.
Darwins mom, I said nothing EVER about “letting people be with skewed norms be guided by their instincts”, and NOTHING like this is remotely implied by anything I have ever posted to LF. This is a good example of why someone might end up being or sounding condescending, and maybe why someone would ultimately throw their hands up in resignation and just exit the community.
I have repeated myself alot in my below response to you, partly because you yourself said so much and it all relates to a few basic things. But I just don’t have time to edit it down.
I WAS pandering to the particular sensibilities of this forum when I stifled my own impulse to remark that there might be some actual offenders who don’t qualify as psychopaths.
You seem very invested in the free speech of people who spontaneously characterize others as dishonest, ill-intended, semi-autistic, not rational, confused, and even psychopathic, scientific findings false or evil, and calling for extermination of people with brain abnormalities, even if they have committed no crime whatsoever, and seem to have no issue with those forms of condescension. And clearly you see appropriate boundaries drawn in a different place from where I do, as I also see “You must hate what hurt me the same way I do or not talk, regardless of your feelings about what hurt *you*” as a boundary problem, not entitlement.
It’s inevitable that in trying to talk to someone attacking you without become hotheaded that you might sound condescending. Especially when you are appalled and by something someone is saying and unimpressed with their reasoning or level of informedness. In that sense I was, and have been placed in the very same position as my attackers. I deal with a patronizing tone here on occasion where a response from someone, often long, has me wondering what I said to give the impression that I need this basic stuff explained to me. Add just a little recrimination to those and they read condescendingly, but the nasty posts are way beyond condescension. When some one attacks you and their text is full of projection or fallacious reasoning and every other sentence has misspelled or misused words, does that not affect your attitude toward them?
As for a general condescension, yeah I have serious differences with certain specific aspects of the culture here. Frankly, some of what I see here genuinely embarrasses me as a woman. But despite reading and posting here in the past, I don’t think I got sucked into or triggered anything like this recent specific flame war before, even when I expressed my pity for a specific set of sex offenders [who themselves had been grossly victimized by a spath] in a particularly devasting past case. I mostly have done OK.
I don’t think Donna’s purpose in posting that article was to have one poster after another denounce it and the doctor and learn nothing from this scientists except that some scientists and doctors are idiots. What kind of discussion do you think she was expecting or encouraging? What do you imagine Stehen Becker’s take on the article would be? That thread had people posting their own statistics but then not answering “OK but what then do you make of those reported results of that program in Germany discusseed in the article.” Presumably because rawness trumps actual desire for full understanding, and actual concern for WHAT WORKS in protecting unknown future children, because we aren’t even going to discuss this possibility in this case. Rawness is also to trump reason, as it excuses all manner of hysterical extrapolation and projection regarding scientific data and people discussing it: empathy for ANY perp does not immediately mean reduction of empathy for the victim. Empathy for the person *free of sin*-but-constantly-tempted even less so. And as you imply I did not start out speaking of empathy necessarily. My tone imo was more pitying, and you yourself appear to draw a distinction between pitying and empathizing. Of course I was speaking of what their lives are understood to be like [either do harm or live with varying degrees of temptation]. And I was not generalizing about psychopaths, I was speaking about the people being studied in the article. And where does our empathy or pity get applied when a non-offender who is tested as having pedophilia gets victimized in some part of his life by a remorseless spath, because of some positive qualities the non-offender has?
Again I’ll reiterate that I find the talk of empathy/triggers rather empty considering the atmosphere and considering CQ’s experience and how uncareful some of the expression of support sounded from those denouncing my own lack of it. Seriously, imagine if someone said to CQ, “Oh CQ I’m so sorry, I can only imagine how you must be beating yourself up and wondering if something about your demeanor made you seem less credible to the judge, or why you didn’t run away like so many posters have to save their kids, or if you didn’t try hard enough. I understand you, we are here for you.” You would think this was a devious passive aggressive psycho springing such talk at CQ. I would, at least. Now if you tweak that statement, which very well may accurately cover some of CQ’s agony, to “Oh CQ I haven’t been able to stop thinking of what horror that poor child experienced before his death,” it may not be passive agressive, but certainly is fraught with hazard for CQ’s feelings and was imo thoughtless to say when it could be revised to “I can only imagine the chaos of complicated feelings and questions you are experiencing” That would show CQ that people had some sense of being supported and the scale and terrible of her experience somewhat understood, without introducing possible new horrible thoughts or reviving horrible ones when we don’t even know when CQ will be reading our words or what state she will be in. No way should anybody’s own pain over CQ’s story be trumping their caution over triggerring or further upsetting someone who just lost her baby and whose horrific battle with the murderer has turned out to have been very real. Especially when that someone elsewhere has used the concepts of empathy/triggers to cudgeol ideas that interfere with wrath and hatred — theirs or someone else’s.
As for general empathy for perps vs victims; as I have said, there is no need for empathy to be conserved like mass or energy, and it isn’t. In the abstract, we have it for victims out the yingyang or whatever the expression is. It’s a given. I spoke up precisely because the things being said told me that the stuff I ended saying there was a much needed perspective to consider. I’ve said over and over again that I believe that the monsterification of various offenses and conditions ENDANGERS future children. This is not just some theoretical concept, even if I am wrong. There are real physical children out there that I believe might be either victimized or spared. I believe that some of the things other have said here endangers those kids. Just as some people apparently believe that my words do the same, in a completely different way.
Empathy for feelings of posters… I once weakly defended someone who was getting called a troll and spoken to flippantly and mockingly. I think I might have said I understood where some specific point was coming from, but maybe I didn’t even do that and just asked what they had done wrong. I got a response of they said this to that person. Think about how it would feel to have that said to you. And of course I was privately wondering where does your thinking about how it feels to have what *you* said said to *you* come in?
I have read the forum on and off for over four years. I am constantly coming upon examples of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Generalizations about spaths that may mislead others or make them slower to recognize the spath in front of them, or generalizations that just are factually off as far as numbers. And some that I question, like the idea that all harm doers are acting out of desire to inflict pain, or control, or win a game, or destroy innocence in the case of paedophiles. I think the harm doers are much more varied, their intentions are much more varied, the status of the victim varies completely, and their levels of stupidity, or cynicism, or self-delusion vary from offender to offender, even though there are some general groups and patterns, like there are different kinds of serial killer with somewhat different motivations as well as methods. I think of LF, mostly the discussion in the blog, as similar to the rest of the internet: awash with misinformation and erroneous thinking and holes in reasoning and occasional dangerous ideas, along with helpful information and interesting current news. I’m just going to have to try to let it be when I believe I’m seeing that.
I can’t be convinced I’m welcome at this point. I’m definitely more suited to a different internet culture. I may join CQ and the other triggering suspicious characters who have come and gone in the past. Not sure.
But I do want to say that in any instance of abuse, including or even especially sexual abuse, inflicted on a child or powerless person, I absolutely condemn any party that expected or instructed them to tolerate it because it “wasn’t the victimizer’s fault”, or to protect that person from consequences and just accept the damage done to them for that same reason. Even moreso in the cases where the person putting the pressure on the victim was not subject to the same level of abuse or was in a position where they should have been protecting the victim. I’ve experienced this as an child (and also adult) in certain forms but in connection to other things, not in connection to sexual abuse. It itself, I mean this pressure or expectation, especially with sexual abuse, is a diseased and criminal thing to do to any child or young or powerless person. While I doubt that belief that “it’s not his/her fault” is always the true motivation for the pressure to tolerate, it is clearly the tactic. What I’m saying about it is probably the feeling of anyone here, and is just basic and obvious sense, but I should probably reiterate it and the fact that I agree with it, and I am very sorry if what I had to say revived anybody’s memory of this experience, or sense or fear of the power or effectiveness of the “it’s not his fault” argument in prolonging their victimization.
If you are unable to see the extended hand in my last post, then that is your issue, raggedy. You also blatantly ignored my starting statement: I am not attacking anyone, nor defending anyone, nor asking for empathy, but I hope to explain where many people come from here, and how it may appear to them.
From here on, you are on my ignore list, for the simple reason that I cannot have a constructive conversation with you. I tried, for you and for others here. But no more.
These rambling posts add nothing to the discussion. Can y’all just agree to disagree or something?
Katydid, either you are misspeaking slightly here, or did not understand what I wrote there. I didn’t quite say the things you are saying I said. I’d rather not have others see those words attributed to me.
Can somebody pass the watering can? I gotta water my mums.