Showing posts with label empowerment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empowerment. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

​The Battle of the Bulge: Women, Power and Feeding

It would be perpetuating a myth to say or even imply that women are, historically, foreigners to power. Women's power has historically been proscribed from the high places in government and the economy (unless you look at pre-history--but that is another article). However, women have almost always, cross-culturally, wielded power over food. Even in hunting and gathering societies, it was the women gatherers that provided daily sustenance for their clans, where the hunter's provisions were more ceremonial and glorified than substantive in nature. Women are deeply linked with agriculture. There is persuasive historical evidence that women developed (or "invented") agriculture; most agricultural deities are female (e.g. mother Earth, corn mother).


And in today's societies, it is still primarily the women who do the gathering (shopping), preparing, cooling, and serving of food. Furthermore, since the industrial revolution, having power over food has taken on more and more significance. It has become (more than before) the power to give or withhold sustenance and nurture--something all human beings, particularly children, need for their physical and emotional survival. Since most other avenues to power had been blocked, the power over food and nurturance has tended to be overused, abused, and clung to by women for many generations.
The stereotypical fill-in-blank (Jewish, Italian) mother is famous for such uses and abuses. Forced overfeeding, use of food as reward or enticement, and withholding of food as punishment are all familiar methods to most of us.

In this most recent women's movement (women's rights movements go back to women's enslavement thousands of years ago) the struggle to embrace wider circles of power and let go of food and self-abuse has been a violent and confusing one. We women are starving ourselves, starving our children and loved ones, gorging ourselves, gorging our children and loved ones, alternating between starving and gorging, purging, obsessing, and all the while hating, pounding and wanting to remove that which makes us female: our bodies, our curves, our pear-shaped selves.

This battle was chronicled daily in the American comic strip "Cathy" from 1976-2010, but unfortunately most of the humour is still relevant today. We can all see that Cathy's move up the corporate ladder is not without repercussions. She hates her body, swears to diet every other day, binges on alternate days, all against the backdrop of a love/get-away-from relationship with her overly nurturing and self-sacrificial mother. For Cathy to succeed without ambivalence in a world that was proscribed from her mother, she would have to leave the "woman who gave up everything for her" behind. And so she takes her with her. She has a successful career, but she and her mother cozy up over the diet coke and pizza and moan over their bodies together. It is, if you think about it, an ingenious solution to an emotionally wrenching problem.

Even today, women are made to feel they have no right to feed themselves when they are hungry--the most basic human need there is! While asserting one need, many women will often (unconsciously) deny another, as an expression of their fundamental feelings of non-entitlement. Why is it that to "succeed" in so many fields--i.e., to "climb the ladder"--so many women are expected to take up less space (get thinner)? I see this image of women climbing higher and higher while getting thinner and thinner, until the most "powerful" women eventually disappear into thin air.

There is another solution, but it is more painful. And that is to let go of the power over food in exchange for new forms of power. Letting go of the power struggle with food means returning it to its original purpose of mere sustenance. It means letting go of the battle--no more diets - that includes "Keto" and other fads that pretend to be "healthy eating plans," binges, puke-ins, weigh-ins, or bathing-suit competitions. Just hunger--> self-feed--> satiation and on with life. This is no easy task, and it brings innumerable complications, especially since other forms of power are not so accessible to women in these days of the feminization of poverty when our rights to control over our bodies are being revoked at every turn. Nor are the traditionally male forms of power necessarily comfortable or even acceptable to many women. Some of us might prefer to challenge the very structures of hierarchical power itself. All this sounds exhausting. The battle of the bulge is safer--at least it's familiar.
 
To feel "entitled" to take up space, to take our place in the world and share power equally with men, we must first learn to give up this drive to "trade off" one need for another. We must somehow, gradually, haltingly, but persistently lay claim to each and every human right, one after the other. To do this, we must make use of the greatest source of strength and power we have: each other.

Note: I do not mean to imply that this is the only reason for the continuing epidemic of eating disorders; individual situations are very unique and complex. But it may shed some light on the society-wide epidemic of fat-phobia and diet mania, an atmosphere that encourages individual eating and body obsessions to thrive.

Friday, July 17, 2015

On Racism, Violence and Oppression

In his blog http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta/i-racist_b_7770652.html John Metta articulately reflects the reality of targets or racism (people of colour in general) but doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, to recognise that this is also the reality of all targets of systemised genocide, colonialism, violence (including war), trafficking and slavery (mostly women and children) and many LGBT. It's about a lack of empathy (not sympathy - not pity - but empathy). It's the inability to recognise "that could just have easily been me" or "that could just have easily been my child...partner...home..." etc. This lack of empathy is caused by an unfortunate quality of human nature to categorise "the other" as anyone far enough away either in difference or in distance. Just because it is a quality of human nature doesn't mean it can't be challenged or changed. We are also a creative species profoundly influenced by learning and the environment - so much so that learning can change our very genetic makeup. However it is a limitation of human nature we would be wise to be aware of and to challenge.  This limitation makes us vulnerable to being pitted against one another in such unfortunate ways as competing for a place in the "oppression lineup" and prevents us from working together to overthrow the sources of such mutual oppression.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Self Empowerment: Actualizing the Power Within



To experience empowerment we must act on a sense of self worth, value and give voice to our own needs, and give equal validity to our own needs as to others'. As we develop a sense of empowerment, we begin to discover that a conflict of needs actually can present us with a creative challenge to imagine solutions that can empower all parties involved (rather than fearing that a conflict of needs must necessarily result in a "win-lose" battle).  I offer the following vignette as an example:
Mary does child care every night so John can go out with the "boys".  Mary becomes more and more resentful of John and their young children.  Finally, Mary initiates an assertive "conflict".  She says:

"I understand that you work hard all day and need time in the evenings to relax and unwind, but I've never pointed out to you that for you to relax and unwind by going out every night, you are counting on me to stay home with the kids, which is what I do all day.  So I don't get to relax and unwind and I become more resentful toward you and the kids and unpleasant to be around.  I need escape time too.  I'd like us to work out a way that we can both get what we need."
John agreed that Mary had become very unpleasant to be around (and didn't hesitate to tell her so.)  But after a number of arguments, they came around to agreeing on an experiment.  The experiment was that once a week John would go out while Mary watched the children, once a week Mary would go out while John watched the children, and once a week they both went out while Mary's mother watched their children.  The other two evenings they all stayed home as a family.  After two weeks of this experiment, not only did Mary feel better, but John felt better as well because he was feeling closer to his children and getting less resentment from his wife--and he still had time to see his friends.

The word "compromise" does not adequately describe the process of creating a "win-win" solution.  Compromise implies that neither side really gets what they want, whereas in "win-win" solutions, both sides get as much if not more than they wanted originally.  Assertiveness means acting from a place of respect – for self and other – and assuming equal value to the needs of self and other.  This presents many dilemmas that can also be seen as possibilities.  Power--the power of creative problem solving and acting--is mobilized rather than suppressed.

Power
Traditionally power has meant different things for men and women, taking on more positive connotations for men.  Think of the following words, first for men and then for women.  Pay attention to the feelings they evoke:

Men
Women
Powerful
Powerful
Aggressive
Aggressive
Forceful
Forceful
Ambitious
Ambitious
Assertive
Assertive
Competitive
Competitive
Authoritative
Authoritative
      
1. Women have traditionally been expected to defer to men, and have internalized the dominant cultural expectations of females as submissive and powerless
and
 2. There is something wrong with the present system of power distribution for all people, which we, as women, may be particularly sensitive to, having so deeply learned to respect the importance of other people's needs.

 As we endeavor to compete with men as their equals, some of us feel there is something sour about climbing up a ladder on top of other worthy people's heads, something deceitful about the notion of inferiority and superiority in our fellow human beings. We see that to gain others must lose, and having been relegated to losing for thousands of years, we may not feel comfortable inducing that experience in others.

When some people have less power than others do because external forces (e.g. money, status, physical strength, military force) block them, many problems arise for both the "winners" and the "losers".  The "losers" become afraid to express their needs because they fear (often rightfully) that what little they have will be taken from them.  They then become afraid to even feel their needs, to admit to themselves that they want something.  They become immobilized.  And, in certain critical ways, they stop growing; cease to thrive; development (the Power from Within) is blocked. The "winners" then miss out on the experience of sharing with equals and become self-preoccupied.  Their development is also blocked.
Let's consider these questions:

1. How do we reclaim our rights to power and effectiveness in the world without doing so at the expense of others?

2. How can we, as women, integrate the profound knowledge we gain from mothering and being nurtured by our mothers -- i.e., that we are each special, unique, and worthy in our own right, into a culture where value is so often seen in material terms?

We may want to begin by developing our own vocabulary to describe our experiences and perceptions.  Without words to communicate our experiences, we are trapped and limited.  If power only means the power to force others to do our will, we will feel that power is foreign to us, awkward and unfamiliar.  But power means many things, and many aspects of power can feel right for us.
I offer the following words and phrases to begin reclaiming our own vocabulary taken from Simos 1987 - (see below*)

 Power Over: the ability to force others to do your will through physical or financial coercion.  The power inherent in social or economic positions, or physical size or strength, regardless of skill or ability.

 Shared Power: power whose goal is to uplift or teach others to bring them to parity, as with a parent/child, teacher/student, or psychotherapist/client relationship

 Referred Power: the power others give us because they value, respect, and/or are attached us

 Expertise Power: the power others give us because they count on our knowledge and judgment

 Power With: the power to be effective interpersonally, to persuade, to inspire (not “command” or force) respect

Power From Within: the power of growth and development inherent in all living things.  It is the power to change, to overcome obstacles, to face our own fears, to learn new skills, to fail, and to try again.

Power can be used to destroy or create, to belittle others and over-inflate the self, or to belittle the self and over-inflate others.  We may call the use of power to harm or belittle the self passive power, and to harm or belittle others aggressive power. In contrast, assertiveness can be seen as the use of power to enhance and respect both self and other.  Assertiveness training, then, can be a way for women to reclaim their rights to power and effectiveness in the world without doing so at the expense of others.

Recommend this on Google Plus  
 * new vocabulary words taken from Miriam Simos (Starhawk) Truth or Dare, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1987

 Suggested Reading

Jean Baker Miller, M.D. (1976). Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press
Pamela Butler (1981) Self-Assertion for Women. New York: Harper & Row Publishers
Margaret McIntosh () Feeling Like a Fraud a Work In Progress Paper of the Stone Center for Developmental Studies at Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass., 02181

Miriam Simos (Starhawk) (1987) Truth or Dare. New York: Harper & Row Publishers 

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Myths and Truths about "Happy Couples"



                                        by Judy Lightstone © January 2012


This article is partially based on extensive laboratory and longitudinal scientific research about couple satisfaction in long term relationships as presented in the book The Marriage Clinic, by John M. Gottman, published by WW Norton & Company in 1999.  Please see this book for more resources.
Most of us know by now that the fairy tale happily ever after stories are full of holes. Dashing men on horses don't usually rescue helpless women and live happily ever after in real life.  But most of us don't know how inaccurate our current popular expectations and beliefs are about what makes "marriage" work are (and by this I mean any long term committed romantic relationship).  

Mostly we look around at such things as divorce statistics and see that a lot of them don't work  This assessment is also unfair, given that this doesn't include long term committed relationships outside of marriage, nor does it consider that relationships may last several decades and still be included in divorce statistics. Most importantly, the numbers don't tell us what allowed some relationships to last and others to break up, and they don't tell us how much overall satisfaction existed in those relationships that stayed together or broke up.

Many of the following cultural myths perpetuate some of the problems that bring couples to counselling.

MYTHS
1. Arguing = trouble.
2. Distance = trouble.
3. Opposites attract.
4. Flattery will get you nowhere.
5. You have to agree on the BIG issues (like children, sex and money).
6. People divorce because they “grow apart”.
7. Couples divorce because they get older and change physically.
8. The more sex the better.
9.  A fat woman will lose her man.
10. Both partners have to be equal in a good marriage.

TRUTHS
1. Fighting per se is not necessarily a problem.  If there is basic mutual respect, the ability for partners to cool down and soothe each other afterward, and lots of good stuff in the "emotional bank account", the tendency to fight is more a result of personality style than trouble in the relationship.  In his book The Marriage Clinic, John Gottman talks about the "emotional bank account"  and the "fondness and admiration system" in which he describes the ability of a couple to draw on "stores" of good feelings that have been deposited there by each partner.  It is the ratio of negative interactions and positive interactions -he advises the ratio should be at least 5 (positive) to 1 (negative) -that is more of a predictor of a satisfying relationship than the number of arguments.  Some couples like to handle problems directly, and if each of the two people are this way, then they may resolve their problems more quickly and with less bitterness if they approach them head on.

2. Other couples are more avoidant and have a similar level of tolerance for putting off confrontations.  It is the compatibility of problem solving style between the two people rather than the style itself that is more predictive of failure. When two people prefer to avoid conflict together they don't necessarily get into trouble unless this escalates to avoidance of positive regard for one another.  If they can accept each other's differences and remain loving toward one another they may be able to avoid conflict for a long time.  It is more a problem if one is a conflict avoider and the other is a conflict confronter.  This difference can be worked out (although sometimes help from a therapist is required) if there's a lot of overall positive regard.

3.  Differences may make the courtship stage of a relationship more exciting, but they can make a lasting relationship more difficult.  Not all differences are alike, however.  The most important differences that can cause trouble are: difference in conflict style (see above), differences in mutual respect for each other's life dreams (note I did not say the dreams had to be alike, only the amount of respect accorded the other person for his/her dreams), differences in libido (sexual drive), differences in lifestyle (e.g. degree of accumulation vs. simplicity desired), etc.  All of these differences can be worked out in a healthy relationship and don't necessarily signal danger - they just make things harder rather than easier.

4. Some would say the solution to all marital difficulties is honesty - always saying what is on your mind because that is the Truth.  But in my practice I have seen this become an excuse for disrespect and contempt, and these are the things that will cause ruptures rather than healing.  True, people need to be able to express themselves freely to their partners, but this doesn't mean there is no room for tact.  And what may feel "honest" at one moment, may feel irrelevant at another.  Flattery, if that means complimenting your partner frequently, showing your affection regularly in symbolic or romantic ways, and bragging about her or him to others - will get you everywhere.  I don't mean saying things that aren't ever true, but focussing on the positive and building up credit in that emotional bank account makes a huge difference in how well your relationship will weather rockier times.

5.  There isn't a couple around today that doesn't have some "BIG" issue that it can't resolve.  There are too many choices and options available today to assume they must all be agreed upon in each romantic partnership.  Gottman estimates that 60% of all problems couples encounter are ultimately irresolvable.  Once again, the issue isn't the problem itself,  it's how couples learn to manage perpetual problems over the long haul.  This point is critical to understand.  As in other areas of life, many problems stay with us a long time- some throughout the life span - what matters is how we cope with this fact.  Do we comfort each others' experiences of frustration? Do we accept that there are some things that may never be perfect but know that we can keep trying anyway? Do we have enough good stuff in the bank to get us through? Gottman calls this the ability to "dialogue with perpetual problems".  Ultimately, it's the quality of the dialogue, not the seeming seriousness of the problem itself, that will predict the success of the relationship.

6.  Although this may be somewhat true when couples meet at a young age, because the younger they start, the more quickly they will change and might simply become so different they are no longer compatible, for most couples who claim they just "grew apart", this is an excuse that tends to gloss over the deeper issues that can cause serious trouble in a love relationship. 

So if fighting, avoidance, differences, growing apart, and "honesty" aren't the real problems, and huge differences like children, sex and money don't necessarily predict disaster - why is there so much divorce? And what is the solution?  Gottman refers to the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" as being:  1. Criticism 2. Defensiveness 3. Contempt and 4. Stonewalling, and says these 4 patterns are the most reliable predictors of divorce/separation or of a long but miserable relationship. When these four horsemen take over a relationship, the end is near, even if the couple physically stay together.  But with help (professional help is usually necessary for this) you can learn to consistently "build in the antidotes.1"
Here are some "antidotes" I have found effective:
*for Criticism: try complaining without suggesting that your partner is somehow defective
*for Defensiveness: try accepting responsibility for a part of the problem
*for Contempt: learn to create a marital culture of praise and pride to replace the contempt, and
*for Stonewalling: provide self soothing, stay emotionally connected and give the listener nonverbal cues of your attention.

7. Attraction is more related to what's in the emotional bank account than to physical appearance.  When loss of attraction or change in physical appearance is used as an excuse for divorce or constant criticisms,  it is more indicative that the person doing the criticising is having self esteem or identity issues.  Although these problems may require individual or couples treatment,  it is not physical changes that are at the heart of the deterioration of a marriage.

8. Sexual compatibility, not frequency, is the key to couple sexual satisfaction.  Difficulties (again, not irresolvable) arise when there is a difference in the amount of sex desired by each member of the couple.  Many satisfied couples have little or even no sex because this is all each of them desires.  Gottman found that it is the nature of the friendship, more than the frequency of sexual relations, that gets people through in the long run. When frequent sex is desired by both partners, and sex is part of the overall fondness and affectional system, it can be a wonderful asset.  When one is wanting more sex than the other, it is likely to cause stress in both partners.  However, more often than not, the development of sexual problems is a symptom rather than a cause of relationship difficulties. Because sexual intimacy requires each partner to be vulnerable to the other, when the relationship is experienced as emotionally unsafe by one or both partners, sexual disturbances will likely arise.

9.  I have worked with many couples who were dealing with changes in one partner's body size.  I have seen some couples break up when there was no perceptible physical change and other couples thrive through considerable physical changes. When there is a wealth of positive regard in the relationship, physical attraction tends to follow that regard.  It is unfortunately common for someone with an eating problem to project their body image insecurities onto a partner.  This can be true for certain same sex couples too- one partner "absorbs" the bad body feelings and the other projects them.  When this is the case it is important for each member of the couple or family to work separately on his or her eating problem and put a special effort into being loving and respectful of the partner's food and body boundaries.  It is not easy to go against the cultural dictate of thinness for everyone, but a family can work together to develop a culture of love and respect for differences that will ultimately solve way more problems than the temporary (for usually it is no more than that) weight gain or loss of one or more of its members.

10. There are many ways for couples to share power and responsibility that do not necessarily correspond to absolute equality in all areas.  What is more important is that each partner have equal influence on the other.  Weiss'2 coined the term: "positive sentiment override" (PSO) to describe this ability.  He coined the term "negative sentiment override" (NSO) for the opposite. What this means is that when partners feel trusting  of one another, they tend to hear each other's suggestions and complaints non-defensively. There doesn't have to be agreement on the issue, just willingness to talk about the differences. Statements judged neutral or negative by observers can be interpreted positively by a partner with a couples history of respectful conflict (PSO) just as statements judged neutral or positive by observers can be interpreted as negative by a partner with a  couples history disrespectful conflict (NSO) as in the following examples.

PSO Example:

Partner 1: Will you shut up and let me finish?
Partner 2: Sorry, go ahead.
Though partner 2 may not be very happy about this comment, he still recognises that his partner felt hurt by his interruption and gives her the benefit of the doubt.

NSO Example:
Partner 1: Will you shut up and let me finish?
Partner 2: To hell with you, I’m not getting a chance to finish either. You’re such a bitch, you remind me of your mother.

Here partner 2 assumes negative intent and feels he must defend himself.

In summary, this does not mean that a couple in trouble can just start being loving and affectionate during their arguments.  It takes work and often professional intervention to get out of negative cycles.  Repeating affirmations that have no meaningful basis is not the solution either.  Genuine positive regard, if not already deeply embedded in the marriage, can only emerge once the relationship is made emotionally safe for both partners.
************************************************************************
*   * This article does not apply to couples struggling with physical or sexual abuse. Much stronger interventions are required in those cases to first and foremost keep all parties physically safe.  For resources on this topic, please see: http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz
Link to:  Couples therapy

Notes:

1. Gottman, John M.  The Marriage Clinic, NY:  WW Norton & Company; 1999, page 193.
2. Weiss, R. L. (1980) Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention. In J.P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229-271). Greenwich, CT; JAI Press.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Overcoming Powerlessness

"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts
comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances."-- Victor Frankl


When you feel powerless, you feel afraid to express your needs because you fear (often rightly) that what little you have will be taken from you. You may have learned powerlessness if you were kept in powerless positions repeatedly and/or over long periods of time (possibly during childhood) by those who used external forces (money, physical strength, legal status, and/or military force) to control you. You may have been abused as a child, a partner or spouse, an employee, a soldier, or you may have been the victim of racial or ethnic attacks. Such prolonged abuse can cause you to become afraid to feel even your own needs, i.e., to admit to yourself that you need something. You become immobilized. And in certain critical ways you stop growing, you cease to thrive.


Distinguishing Externally Imposed Powerlessness from Learned Powerlessness


When powerlessness is "learned", it becomes self-perpetuating, even if the external forces are no longer there. An abused child may grow up to feel permanently powerless as an adult, even though his/her parents no longer have physical or economic power over him/her. One may then enter into a situation that repeats childhood experiences (e.g., living with or marrying an abusive partner), and therefore keeping oneself in externally imposed danger. Or one may keep oneself down through self-abuse, compulsive behaviors, and/or depression...because the powerlessness has become internalized.

This is different from the externally imposed powerlessness of racial, class, and gender oppression, which may be enforced through economic, legal, physical, or military, might. The secretary who is being sexually harassed, the single mother who cannot get a promotion due to sex discrimination, the homeless family that cannot afford housing: these are victims that require collective power and direct action to overcome their powerlessness. Collective power may take the form of a union, or a "network" of friends, supporters and professional helpers. Direct action might involve a lawsuit, going to the media, or organizing a strike or protest. Collective power and direct action together make an even more powerful combination.
Even more insidious than this is when--as is often the case--externally imposed powerlessness is combined with learned powerlessness. When this is the case, the above methods are not possible because the person is emotionally incapable of asserting her/his rights.

Overcoming Learned Powerlessness

The first step to overcoming learned powerlessness is to learn to feel entitled to your personal rights. You have the right to live a life free from physical, emotional, sexual, and financial mistreatment. You have the right to be treated with respect, to earn a livable income, to be informed of matters that affect you, and to express yourself freely (without harming others). Most importantly, you have the right to ask for what you need (even though you may be turned down) and to fight for what you need and want (even if you are turned down!). This list of "legitimate entitlements" is easier to read than to experience. Most people who have learned powerlessness barely feel entitled to speak, let alone to speak freely. Often professional therapy is necessary to overcome the ingrained patterns. Never the less, to overcome learned powerlessness, you must gradually, haltingly, but persistently lay claim to each and every human right, one after the other.

Click here to find out about distance learning programs for therapists and here to find out about general training and supervision options.