Friday, May 30, 2008

Narcissist Death-Beds and Funerals

On my May 21st post I was posed this question by NNL:

Question for you with respect to something you brought up:

" 'Your mother is dying and in the hospital. She wants to see you.'

This is something I haven't really allowed myself to think about too much yet. But as our parents age, this is an issue that we are going to have to contend with.

You intimated that you still would remain no contact. This is a weighty issue that I would really appreciate hearing your thought process on..."
There are two issues here that I will try to express my thoughts on. That of the dying N parent, and the issue of their funeral. These are my personal decisions based on my circumstances. Adjust as necessary if your circumstances call for it.

The chance of a narcissist being changed on their deathbed is the stuff of fantasy. Your fantasy. Not the narcissist's fantasy. Do not be enticed to the deathbed on the basis of some dream you have of receiving a true gift of an apology or some kind of "closure". You will get neither.

Because I believe what I just said down to my DNA I will not be vulnerable to vague promises of "making things right before I die" coming from narcissist family members. There will still be an iron fist hidden inside the silken glove. I have read many accounts of ACONs being lured to visit a dying N relative, or a funeral, only to find themselves caught in a crucible. I haven't heard anyone say they would do it again had they another opportunity. They consistently regret their decision. I respect the collective experiences of others and try to learn from them. I have listened intently to their testimonies and determined I will not repeat their mistake.

If I ever received a directive from my sister to visit my dying mother in the hospital I would immediately know something to be true: that my sister is there taking care of matters. This would prove that my presence would not be needed to deal with the decisions being made about my mother's care which is the only thing that could possibly make me feel obligated. In other words, my mother wouldn't be in need of my help. The same would be true if it was my father who called me. If he called, he is the one taking care of matters. The chance of my father calling is about the same as a snowball's chance in hell.

The other things I have to consider when anticipating whether or not to attend my mother's death bed is that I will be confronted with dealing not just with her. I will be dealing with my father who very likely will be blaming me for my mother's illness and pending death. Being all too well acquainted with the level of rage he is capable of I feel the need to protect myself from him in that circumstance. And my sister may see this as another opportunity to attach herself to my life. Or she may choose to use the circumstance to get some payback in and I would have to deal with the haughty, snotty version of her. I am not willing to take on the three of them just to go through the motions of giving my mother some kind of death bed absolution.

If my mother called me on the phone in an effort to "make things right", I would likely let her say her piece, give her all assurances that my life was not ruined by her and call it a day. I would not be opposed to her gaining a shred of peace of mind just prior to dying. I'm not into torturing people. If I consented to talking to my mother on her death bed it would not be something I would do for me. It would be something I allowed for her sake.

This probably the most important point when deciding whether or not to allow contact when you know the N is dying. Do not be enticed by your imagination and your hope to allow contact in these circumstances. If you on any level feel you need something from the narcissist then you are perfectly set up for another jab into the center of your heart. You will be handing power over to the narcissist to get you one more time. Don't be gullible. They are unchanged; they are not sorry. If you consent to some contact while being fully aware that you expect nothing from the narcissist then you are better situated to avoid being vulnerable. If you give anything at this juncture, do it for them not for yourself. In other words, if you know you are in the position to give a gift rather than hoping to receive one then you are not set up for exploitation or abuse. Remember, a true gift is something given with no expectation of reciprocation or remuneration. Don't show up with a gift of concern or compassion and expect anything like that in return.

Another problem that can come up with being lured to a "death bed" scene is that it isn't their death bed. They may be feigning to be much more ill than they really are just to lure you by your compassion to their bedside so as to gain an avenue of access back into your life. I've heard those stories too. Once the door is cracked open by you attending their pretended "death bed" they will then pretend you have given them carte blanche to come back as if nothing ever happened and no estrangement had ever occurred.

If circumstances developed leaving my mother completely alone without my sister or father alive to tend to her then my choices would be different. I would feel obligated to make sure her basic needs were being met. Shelter, food, and basic medical care. One of her basic needs is NOT companionship. She has no claim on me for that even if she is utterly alone. Her basic needs would not require me to be in constant direct contact with her. I would use surrogates for everything I could. I would be behind the scenes. There would be minimal direct contact with her. I would discharge my filial duty and not get entangled with her emotionally.

I know there are people who have much more evil mothers than I have. I can completely understand leaving a N parent to rot if they had been sexually abusive, or allowed sexual abuse. In my estimation there is nothing that proves a person to not have been a parent in any true sense if these things happened with their knowledge and approval. My sense of duty to my mother doesn't have to translate to how you deal with yours. You get to decide how much to give in their final days on their earth. Only you know if they deserve to be considered a parent in any sense of the word.

My decision about attending the funeral of narcissist relatives seems like a no-brainer to me. There is no point whatsoever is attending my narcissist mother's funeral. As they say, funerals are for the living. My father would be distressed and angry and vengeful if I were to show up. So, obviously, I wouldn't be doing a kindness for him by going. My sister will have her own self-serving agenda, whatever it may be. I feel no need to comfort her at the loss of her mother. She is the one who has complained the loudest and the most about her mother. I will assume some part of her will be happy Mommy Dearest is gone. There is no other family who will attend my mother's funeral that I have any connection with. My attendance would be superfluous. No one will be there who needs me to be there. I feel zero obligation to go to my mother's funeral. Or my father's. My sister is younger than me, so I don't think about her funeral. Same rules apply though.

These are some of my thought processes as it concerns your question, NNL. I hope there is something in there that you can use. To sum up what I think should be the guiding principle for making decisions on these matters: only give what you are willing to give and do so with no expectation of reward.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Cause of Death

I just received the FedEx delivery of Kathy Krajco's death certificate. I will share the relevant details.

The date she was pronounced dead was May 9, 2008. The certificate indicates her body "was found 24 or more hours after death" in her own home. The coroner certifies that, in their opinion, her death was due to natural causes. The box for indicating the "actual or estimated date of death" is marked "Unknown". Box 19a is for "Informant's Name". Kathy's sister name is in that box. So, I guess we can assume it was her sister who found Kathy's body. The sister's physical address does prove she lived across the street from Kathy.

It can be concluded that the experts believe Kathy died of natural causes and not of foul play. It can also be concluded she was not found for some considerable time after her death. Likely it was a couple of weeks when we consider her last blog post was April 15, 2008. She approved comments for her last post for what looks like could have been four days following her last post. Given she was blogging regularly every day or every few days for months, I think we can assume she probably passed away almost a week after her last posting.

I hope this information is helpful for all who are trying to make sense of her tragically sudden passing.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Kathy Krajco: "NPD? A Male Disease? An Adult Disease?"

Blog post originally published on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 at "What Makes Narcissists Tick". I will include the comments for this post as there is good content there as well.


*******************************************

Another thing that warps our picture of NPD is double standards that are the fruit of stereotypes and sloppy thinking:

  • Women are nicer than men and therefore less likely to be narcissists.
  • What's okay for men to do is wrong for women to do.
  • All old people are nice and deserve a pass to treat young people without repsect.
  • Physically hitting someone is worse than verbally abusing them or destroying their life through slander and calumny.
  • Children are all innocent and, by nature, good.
Rubbish.

So, another thing that invalidates current statistics is mental-health-care workers applying double standards of both age and sex.

An example of such a double-standard is this: if we see an action photo of an angry male coach with his mouth wide open and his face contorted, we think nothing of it. He doesn't strik us as ugly. Yet, if we see a photo of a female coach with but an intense look on her face, we find the image off-putting. She strikes us as ugly.

These internal reactions are so conditioned by society, that even if you are aware of the double-standard, you can hardly help but be affected by it. Therefore, we think nothing of this behavior in our male hero, but she strikes us as a bitch.

Again for example, personality traits regarded as distinguishing a man as worthy of admiration as a good, tough businessman are regarded as distinguishing a woman as a bitch. That's just a fact, and mental heath-care workers are taking few (if any) precautions to avoid applying such sexual double-standards in diagnosis.

Which cuts the legs out from under the widespread belief that NPD is far more prevalent in men than women. In my own slice of the world, the ratio is 50-50. And in my own understanding of the disease I see no reason why men should be any more prone to it than women.

But I can think of many reasons why male narcissists are exposed as narcissists more frequently than female narcissists are. Put another way, I see many reasons why female narcissists get away with it more often. Could it be then that women are under-represented in the statistics?

It sure could be! In fact, because of this we must presume that women are greatly under-represented in the statistics. And you can't just chalk this up to the fact that men are more likely to use their fists than their mouths. For, the only narcissist I have observed physical violence in is an extremely violent woman — who had everyone but those who had seen her with her mask off thinking she was a regular Mother Theresa.

And anyone who thinks male narcissists are worse because they're more prone to physical violence is dead wrong. If anything, that makes them less dangerous than female narcissists. The law deals with physical attacks. It does almost nothing to protect us from non-physical attack. Indeed, the non-physical violence the woman I referred to above did was by far more damaging and sadistic than any beating she gave someone.

Author: Kathy Krajco
Source

7 Comments:

At 2:26 AM, Blogger Nevermore said...

From my own experience I would say that men are less likely to admit to feeling the abuse of a woman than women are of men. That may be why the stats are so far off. It is a hard thing to admit that I was brow beaten by a woman and took it without standing up for myself. According to our society men are supposed to be strong and self sufficient, not backing down to a woman, but once the Narc has their claws into you, and you feel as though you love them, there is little you can do except take it. It took me 4 years but I finally made the break and I have offended many friends in the process because they never recognized what was going on and have a hard time believing the severity of it. It seems to me that emotional abuse is worse than physical, only for the fact that one is unable to point to the bruises and make people believe. When common friends are involved the abuse continues because of their disbelief and their acceptance of the Narc’s story. The difficulty is not only in the proving, but in the admitting to others.

At 4:41 PM, Blogger Kathy K said...

Yes, what you say is very true. In fact, it's somehwat true when a narcissist abuses a sibling of the same sex. Men are really at a disadvantage in this game, but people don't realize that.

At 4:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I for one have seen more female narcissists in my lifetime than males. As a matter of fact, I have been slandered and suffered so much abuse from my sister who is a narcissist, it is unreal.
I say she is a narcissist but she certainly fits the profile of BPD and HPD. Who knows, wonder if it's possible she's all 3...Is it possible does anyone know if more than one or two personality disorders can be found in a person?

At 8:39 AM, Blogger Kathy K said...

I know that the diagnosis one gets offen differs from psychiatrist to psychiatrist. That doesn't give you much faith in the diagnosis, does it? It's not like these are all different diseases. It might help to think of them as different directions pathology can take, depending on the circumstances. Some even seem to be variants or stages in progression to another (as narcissism and psychosis). Plus, the diagnostic criteria aren't really a definition: they are just red flags likely to stand out in a clinical setting, so they are used to aid diagnosis. But the whole picture is somewhat nebulous.

At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I gathered there is a larger proportion of men who are narcissistic and a larger proportion of women who are histrionic ( If I remember well 70 percent ). They abuse both genders but for different gratifications and a larger proportion of them are bisexual.Indeed they can seduce anyone.

At 6:39 PM, Blogger Kathy said...

That's conventional wisdom. But studies show an outrageous amount of error (over 50%) in diagnosing these disorders. They also show a tendency to misdiagnose women as histrionic who would be diagnosed as narcissistic if they were but male. So, those statistics are totally unreliable. I think I still have an article on the Main Site about that that provides the sources. As for bizexuality, that I don't know. This is the first time I heard that.

At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, Kathy, in the world of stererotypes, mothers in particular aren't supposed to be mean. Especially to their own kids. Now, since the mother-child relationship offers an N woman more power over another human being than any other, I'd guess a fair number of female Ns are 'hidden' by the Good Mommy archetype.

The idea that the old are automatically worthy of respect and deference from the young is another one that needs scotching. I've come across a fair number of people who are emotionally and sometimes physically abused by elderly N parents, and I suspect it's actually fairly common, but everyone believes that the abuse only ever happens the other way.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Last Chapter on the Book of Sister


Here is the final episode of the sister drama. I sent this Tue, 20 May 2008 12:53:54 my time:




D,

In your May 10 email you said,

"I know I have always stepped unaware on your sensitive spots."

My last email of 2006 and the one I sent you last week were not efforts to induce you to apologize for past misdeeds; it was an effort to give you some clue as to why you are unsafe for me and my family to be around. It is your ongoing behaviors, much more than your past "crimes", that have been my concern. It is your complete lack of empathy. It is your refusal to recognize the rights and privileges of others - in the present - that prevent me from trusting you and having you in my life as well as the level of deception you're willing to employ to get your way. You can't think of even one lie to cop to. That is a lie in and of itself. Look at the lie in the sentence of yours quoted above. The words "always...unaware" is the damnable lie. You proved the lie in your most recent email. You have done things with intent to hurt. Yet you persisted up to May 10 to insist you never intentionally hurt me.

This latest email of yours confirms what I suspected about your May 10 email; it was a fishing expedition for the next phase of "Operation Trojan Horse". You didn't really care what I had to say as long as I gave you a list. Even though I rejected your pretense of not knowing your offenses of two years ago, I went ahead and reiterated. This suited you well since you ultimately got what you wanted: a formulaic opening for your "repentance" shtick. But it took me having to repeat myself for you to suddenly 'know' what to apologize for. Then, suddenly and miraculously, you can remember details from 2006 that I didn't reiterate proving you were lying about not knowing what the hell you did. This mitigates against me believing in the sincerity and the motivations of your apologies. See my problem? You talk, you lie.

You then indicate you're willing to apologize for more if I'm willing to give you the list. You're only going to fess up to whatever it is I "have" on you.

This is a criminal mindset.

Let me illustrate. A career criminal has finally been caught for one of his crimes. He's been dragged into court before a judge with a list of related charges against him. The evidence is irrefutable which convinces the crook his best hope is to plead guilty to the charges and throw himself on the mercy of the court. This criminal has been doing his life of crime for years. He has just been caught for a crime, but not for a fraction of what he has done over his lifetime. He is willing to plead guilty to whatever the DA has on him because he knows he can't dispute the evidence. There is a list of crimes longer than both his arms that he has never been caught doing. He does not plead guilty to those crimes. Oh, no. He is only going to take his lumps for whatever it is he can't wiggle out of. Whatever it is the "law" has caught him on...that and only that will he confess to.

That is you. You still think like a crook. For all your vaunted "change" and "healing" you still clearly show you operate from the mindset of a criminal.

I don't need to spend my time coming up with your laundry list for you. I'm not going to provide your Jiminy Cricket services. It requires you to do no introspection when we rely only on my memory to come up with what you need to confess to. Expecting me to come up with things for you to apologize for shows me you're not interested in making things right. You are only interested in convincing me you're making things right. It is about rehabilitation of your image, not your character.

I'm not interested in more apologies or confessions. The time for that is long past. You finally getting around to some unvarnished apologies is too little, too late. Sincerely sorry people don't wait two years and several lengthy emails on the part of the victim to start to come clean. Even if I did give you a check-list and you apologized for everything on it, I would still be left with my basic problem concerning you. My inability to trust you. Your way of apologizing inspires zero confidence in you. The only way to find out if you're truly sincere would be to admit you back into my life. That is more of a risk than I'm willing to undertake. There is simply not enough evidence to believe anything has changed.

You need to understand something about my state of mind toward you. I don't think about you 99.9% of the time. And when I do think of you it is just a passing thought with no accompanying emotion. Well, I do usually have an emotion. It is one I would describe as relief. Relief that you're out of my life. By the way, relief is what we call a positive emotion.

That being said, you have gotten a sense of my anger in my letter. Here's the deal: I went from not having to think about you at all to being hit out of the blue with one of your letters where you yet again plead ignorance and pure motives. This is provocative, annoying and manipulative on your part. So, yes, in the present, while I'm having to deal with your latest shenanigans, I'm frustrated and angry. You are mistaken when you extrapolate my frustration at what you've just thrown in my lap to deal with again into some kind of proof that is my constant state of mind and attitude about you. It isn't. Quit pretending my anger is coming from harbored resentments and recognize my anger is directed at your behaviors in the present. Because the past with you looks like the present I bring it up. Your present behaviors make the past relevant. Yes, I was angry in my last two letters of 2006 because of what you had done in the present. I wasn't suddenly lashing out based on some simmering resentment.

I know you'll continue to ignore what I tell you about my state of mind because it doesn't serve your agenda. It is much better for your state of mind to pretend I am the one who is broken, the one with the problem, the one who isn't being "spiritual" enough.

You say you have no expectation that your apologies will result in reconciliation. Yet, you magnanimously offer me the service of further apologies with the obvious implication that you think I need them for my "emotional healing". My emotions are fine and your services are not needed. You have nothing I need and nothing I want.

In the future I will be the one to contact you if that is what I decide to do. Do not initiate contact again. I told you in April 2006 that "Maybe, at some point in the future, I'll call you and see if you're willing to have an mutually respectful, healthy and adult relationship with me". No where in there did I tell you I was waiting for you to initiate contact. I indulged your forwardness. It was yet another time I have given in to your demand for attention that I have lived to regret. I have wasted my time in responding to you. I won't repeat this mistake.

If you want to show me that you've learned to respect my wishes prove it by leaving me alone. The only avenue for the restitution you claim you want to engage in is to leave me to my life without you in it. I am content to let eternity prove who you really are.

Signing off,
Anna

****************************************


Thus ends the sister saga. At least, this ends my participation in that saga. If I ever hear from her again I'll let you know. Be assured, she will not be able to provoke a response from me. It has been three years since I cut off from my parents. They have not heard another word from me. I tell you this to assure you I won't be lured from my peaceful life into my sister's maelstroms going into the future. When I'm done, I'm really done. Maybe I should say she's done. Cooked like a Christmas turkey.

Stick a fork in her.

[Credit for the great 'Princess Bride' icon goes to]

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Kathy Krajco

I am sure that the faithful readers of Kathy Krajco's blog received the terribly sad news of her unexpected death on May 9, 2008. It was brought to my attention on May 14th by one of the readers of both my and Kathy's blog.

Those of us who know Kathy's work feel the loss very deeply. She has been a clear, compassionate voice for those abused by malignant narcissists. She cut no quarter for the abusers. Her intelligence, breadth of knowledge of her subject, her teaching ability, her scientific mind, her humor, her compassion are seen throughout all her writings. It would be impossible to measure the amount of help and good she has been to people around the world.

I was recently contacted by Barbara who owns the blog "Sanctuary for the Abused". She was a "net friend" of Kathy's and had a warm email relationship with her. Barbara voiced a concern to me that I had been pondering too. What will happen to Kathy's blog? Kathy's main website is available in book form which will help keep it in circulation in the years to come, although I am uncertain about the fate of the main site as well. The outcome of the blog is less certain. Barbara is willing to spend the time going through Kathy's blog archives to pull out articles to re-post on her two blogs with full attribution to Kathy, of course. Barbara has asked me if I will help her with this project. I am more than happy to help as I have been concerned about the loss of Kathy's work.

If any of you have any other suggestions as to how to approach this, please comment.

Barbara posted a memoriam on her site for those of you who may not have gotten the sad news of Kathy's passing before now.

A true heroine has laid down her sword. I pray the Lord will continue to richly bless her work to the benefit of humanity.