If she was my "deeper" friend, I would encourage "Jane" to speak with a Domestic Violence victim advocate. As previous commenters have said-you don't really know what goes on in a relationship....If the abuse is mutual, the VA is trained to deal with...and if not mutual, can guide the verbally abused hopefully to a safer place.
8
Some readers come here to provide additional input, which allows the individual seeking advice and other readers to see the points of view of a variety of readers.
Then, individuals synthesize these various viewpoints to get deeper understanding of the ethical quandary and its possible resolutions.
Thus the discussion becomes an application of collective wisdom.
Try it! You'll like it!
Then, individuals synthesize these various viewpoints to get deeper understanding of the ethical quandary and its possible resolutions.
Thus the discussion becomes an application of collective wisdom.
Try it! You'll like it!
3
1) Janus says...what part of mind your own business is such a leap? Since "friends" are such a fickle reality especially in this case (how come he hasn't spoken of any problems with his wife which is what "friends" usually seek advice for) why not just continue along the lines of neutrally - watch, say nothing, and be "friends" with both?
2) The Ax Person Cometh and to use this as an quasi-morbid analogy, you have an obligation to execute your job as such with a swift and merciful blow to sever her employment. Being as horrendous as that is, you also have an obligation to your own master to remain a professional Ax Person to the very co-employees you have known for years and must now dispatch. Your only solidly ethical recourse for a clean conscience is to quit and then tell employees who will be facing the block. Sleep well.
3) You cannot be heroes and heroin(e)s if you do not consider the children's welfare first. Regardless of anything else. Their well being is a far more important reality than indifference and/or not preventing further damages. Drug users put everyone at risk and the courts routinely remove helpless children from the care of such reckless addicts. Act on the kid's behalf with passion and a clear conscience. That is what "family" is supposed to mean.
IMHO.
2) The Ax Person Cometh and to use this as an quasi-morbid analogy, you have an obligation to execute your job as such with a swift and merciful blow to sever her employment. Being as horrendous as that is, you also have an obligation to your own master to remain a professional Ax Person to the very co-employees you have known for years and must now dispatch. Your only solidly ethical recourse for a clean conscience is to quit and then tell employees who will be facing the block. Sleep well.
3) You cannot be heroes and heroin(e)s if you do not consider the children's welfare first. Regardless of anything else. Their well being is a far more important reality than indifference and/or not preventing further damages. Drug users put everyone at risk and the courts routinely remove helpless children from the care of such reckless addicts. Act on the kid's behalf with passion and a clear conscience. That is what "family" is supposed to mean.
IMHO.
1
Your advice re: Jack and Jane is so wrong, and you say so yourself in the final sentence of the answer to your third letter. "When peoples judgement is addled by addiction, their right to control information can be trumped by their best interests." This should have been your answer to Name Withheld. Someone who stays with an abuser is addicted. Her friend needs to help her. Confront Jack. Expose Jack. Maybe that will enable Jack to get help. Otherwise, get your friend out of there is my advice.
1
Maybe the opposite is right, though. Confronting Javk absent anything else being donemay enrage Jack. The LW should strongly encourage Jane to seek help--preferably therapeutic help with someone who understands the dynamics of abuse so that Jane will be empowered to take action. Then the LW should be there for Jane, whatever the outcome.
Absent this, confronting Jack may actually push Jane to defend him--because, as you said, abuse has its own dynamic.
In fact, LW 1probably should not bring this up with Jack at all. The LW believes Jane, it seems, but still explains Jack's behavior as being caused in part by hurtful events in the relationship.
And who really knows what happens in the privacy of a person's home or relationship? The LW is not a counselor, and even if a counselor should not be counseling friends. "Help Jane. Leave Jack alone and do everything you can not to be in the middle." would be what I would recommend to LW1. S/he may lose the friendship with Jack or even both if Jane can sort this through and act. The LW needs to be ready for that also and there certainly seems to be ambivalence on that count.
Absent this, confronting Jack may actually push Jane to defend him--because, as you said, abuse has its own dynamic.
In fact, LW 1probably should not bring this up with Jack at all. The LW believes Jane, it seems, but still explains Jack's behavior as being caused in part by hurtful events in the relationship.
And who really knows what happens in the privacy of a person's home or relationship? The LW is not a counselor, and even if a counselor should not be counseling friends. "Help Jane. Leave Jack alone and do everything you can not to be in the middle." would be what I would recommend to LW1. S/he may lose the friendship with Jack or even both if Jane can sort this through and act. The LW needs to be ready for that also and there certainly seems to be ambivalence on that count.
1
Unlike the Ethicist, I cannot find anything in the letter that indicates whether or not the employer is being unjust in laying off the employee. I do detect the implication that corporate structures—which, after all, are "professional"—are inherently fair.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the HR employee had two months, rather than two days, advance notice of the termination. What would be the ethical thing to do in that case? Would the ethics of protecting a person for whom the loss of a job may have devastating consequences, trump the ethics of remaining true to HR department standards?
I agree with some commenters that the LW might well jeopardize their own employment if they divulged that information and therefore should not. Self-preservation as a motive, especially in today's economy, should not be dismissed, but that discussion is one of practicality, not ethics.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the HR employee had two months, rather than two days, advance notice of the termination. What would be the ethical thing to do in that case? Would the ethics of protecting a person for whom the loss of a job may have devastating consequences, trump the ethics of remaining true to HR department standards?
I agree with some commenters that the LW might well jeopardize their own employment if they divulged that information and therefore should not. Self-preservation as a motive, especially in today's economy, should not be dismissed, but that discussion is one of practicality, not ethics.
2
In his letter the friend admits he believes the abuse exists only in response to the relationship itself. Therefore, he is blaming the victim in suggesting that if things were different - if something had not been said or done - the abuse would not exist. One defining aspect of abuse is the fact it is not dependent upon the victim's action. I'm disappointed that the ethicist didn't clarify that point.
5
Do readers come here each week to feel better about their own situations? or to match wits with the expert? or... what?
2
Occupy Government: Thank you for your questions. I can't speak to the other's motives. I do study ethical questions to better understand my own inner ethical barometer. In my profession I m informed and guided by three ethical canons, and still I am surprised at how often I have arrived on the wrong end of things.
2
Verbsl abuse can be more devastating than physical abuse. Your friend needs to get out and you need to encourage her to do so. The attempt to excuse the abuser...he's not a bad person; he's had a rough live blah, blah blah is really an excuse for you to do what you really want to do....stay his friend!
Abuse is abuse. An abuser is not a "good" person!
Abuse is abuse. An abuser is not a "good" person!
10
What an intersting interpretaion of ethics, and morality, whereby being laid off -out of the blue - is not considered being treated unjustly.
16
The person being laid off may be laid off unjustly. Certainly being laid off without warning is wrong, except in te most dire circumstances--even though it has become sadly common.
But that is not the question raised to the Ethicist. The LW asked about the ethics of the LW's role and whether s/he should preemptive let the employee know about the layoff.
But that is not the question raised to the Ethicist. The LW asked about the ethics of the LW's role and whether s/he should preemptive let the employee know about the layoff.
1
Don't have much to say about Jack and Jane and their friend except to agree with some of the other commenters here who suggest that we can't know what is really going on in the relationship, although any form of abuse if it is indeed as serious as the friend claims can't be justified. When I hurt, regardless of the cause, it's my problem, I don't make it my wife's problem.
But the comments that claim "professionalism" as the guiding principle in this "HR" case reveal the extent to which puritan capitalism has undermined our native human capacity to empathize. Loyalty now is not to a fellow human but to a monolithic institution (and all its hollow shibboleths) which was built to eschew loyalty of any kind, and of course to one's sense of self-preservation.
Welcome to the Machine, said Pink Floyd circa 1975.
But the comments that claim "professionalism" as the guiding principle in this "HR" case reveal the extent to which puritan capitalism has undermined our native human capacity to empathize. Loyalty now is not to a fellow human but to a monolithic institution (and all its hollow shibboleths) which was built to eschew loyalty of any kind, and of course to one's sense of self-preservation.
Welcome to the Machine, said Pink Floyd circa 1975.
14
Re Jane & Jack: Does the writer know that the "verbal abuse" is one-sided, i.e., that Jane is not also engaging in such behavior? As a pastor I have encountered domestic situations where, contrary to the usual assumption of violent husband and passive, abused wife, both partners shouted, threw things, slammed doors and injured each other. In some families, growing children also learn that behavior. Who gets arrested varies in such families, but overtime they all do.
7
If someone is addicted to opiates, he (or she) is of no state of mind and body to be responsible in anyway for the welfare of children. Something needs to be done there to get him away from those kids, period, whatever that may be.
As an ex-drunk, almost all addicts will remain addicts until (a) the addict falls far enough and hard enough to where he/she realizes change must occur, and then begins the process to make those changes, or (b) dies. It is a stark reality, and being what I was I also was friends with more than a few drunks and junkies, and honestly, a few of them are better off dead (because they were so deep and damaged by the drugs and alcohol, recovery would have been effectively destructive; it is complicated, and not nearly as black and white as most people believe).
Point: you don't "help" an addict to change by being nice, helpful, paying bills, and patting his/her head. You take the kids away. You move out. You kick him/her out. You shove him/her towards that gutter and say "when you decide to quit and get your life together, we'll talk."
And if you've never been there, don't say that's too harsh. You simply have no idea the state of mind of an addict, and hugs and love won't cut it. You'll simply help the person kill himself.
As an ex-drunk, almost all addicts will remain addicts until (a) the addict falls far enough and hard enough to where he/she realizes change must occur, and then begins the process to make those changes, or (b) dies. It is a stark reality, and being what I was I also was friends with more than a few drunks and junkies, and honestly, a few of them are better off dead (because they were so deep and damaged by the drugs and alcohol, recovery would have been effectively destructive; it is complicated, and not nearly as black and white as most people believe).
Point: you don't "help" an addict to change by being nice, helpful, paying bills, and patting his/her head. You take the kids away. You move out. You kick him/her out. You shove him/her towards that gutter and say "when you decide to quit and get your life together, we'll talk."
And if you've never been there, don't say that's too harsh. You simply have no idea the state of mind of an addict, and hugs and love won't cut it. You'll simply help the person kill himself.
25
As a residential custom home architect, I've spent many years with couples who've worked out some serious problems in togethernous in my presence. JGAIA
Abuse should be taken seriously, Unless intervened upon, Jack's abuse will , necessarily escalate; it is definitely something he should see a therapist about it at the least. If the writer's friend is not supporting Jane, then he is by default supporting Jack's abuse of Jane. A real friend would confront Jack, not to do so would be to show what little respect he has for her as a person.
As for Jane, she has options to take Jack's power away. For instance, if he comes home and starts in on Jane, she can say something like this: "Jack I can see you are really angry; but I don't have the power to take your anger away or make you happy. But neither do I deserve to be spoken to the way your speaking to me. I'm taking the kids to get some ice cream, and when I get back we can talk, but if all you're going to do is berate and belittle me, you will be dining alone."
This demonstrates Jack's powerless and at the same time gives him some choices. Jane has leveled the playing field and has at least opened a chance for a civil dialogue.
The bottom line is that the "friend" can't be much of a friend if he is willing to stand by and watch Jane be abused. Of course he should intervene.
As for Jane, she has options to take Jack's power away. For instance, if he comes home and starts in on Jane, she can say something like this: "Jack I can see you are really angry; but I don't have the power to take your anger away or make you happy. But neither do I deserve to be spoken to the way your speaking to me. I'm taking the kids to get some ice cream, and when I get back we can talk, but if all you're going to do is berate and belittle me, you will be dining alone."
This demonstrates Jack's powerless and at the same time gives him some choices. Jane has leveled the playing field and has at least opened a chance for a civil dialogue.
The bottom line is that the "friend" can't be much of a friend if he is willing to stand by and watch Jane be abused. Of course he should intervene.
6
I find some of the MYOB comments to be full of premature judgment and lacking in compassion but I would also caution against the urge to intervene with Jack, especially given how little information we have. Sounds like Jane and probably the couple would benefit from counseling. The writer would do best to work with the party whose attention she already has: Jane. I can't tell if she has exhausted her efforts to work with Jane to help her come to her own decision to address the problem. Jane's own disempowerment should be taken as seriously as the abuse itself -- I would not say this if the abuse were physical and/or life threatening. The point is that there is time and space to respect her self-determination while trying to positively influence change.
4
LW#1: "Is it ethical for me to continue to be friends with [Jack]?……[Jane tried to keep me out of it] until I told her that I should be the one to decide whether one of them is putting me in the middle, so that aspect of this situation is really not an issue for me."
Wow! There's a lot of information in those two sentences.
First of all, it's pretty clear that being in the middle is very much an issue for you, because otherwise you wouldn't be writing to the NYT's Ethicist for help. And exactly why should * you* be the one who decides whether you're being put in the middle, as opposed to Jane making that decision?
Then there's the way LW#1 puts his or her question - "Is it ethical for me to continue to be friends with [Jack]?" How exactly would that work, you ceasing to be friends with Jack? Wouldn't Jack start asking questions, like "how come you're friends with my wife but no longer friends with me?" Obviously, cutting off your friendship with Jack is basically equivalent to revealing to Jack what Jane has told you.
Sounds like LW#1 is yet another in a long line of meddlesome letter writers to this column who work themselves into the middle of other people's relationships and also don't believe other people have the agency to run their own lives. And like so many others, LW#1 is really just looking for vindication from the Ethicist to start meddling in Jack and Jane's relationship.
Unfortunately, the Ethicist may have given the green light.
Wow! There's a lot of information in those two sentences.
First of all, it's pretty clear that being in the middle is very much an issue for you, because otherwise you wouldn't be writing to the NYT's Ethicist for help. And exactly why should * you* be the one who decides whether you're being put in the middle, as opposed to Jane making that decision?
Then there's the way LW#1 puts his or her question - "Is it ethical for me to continue to be friends with [Jack]?" How exactly would that work, you ceasing to be friends with Jack? Wouldn't Jack start asking questions, like "how come you're friends with my wife but no longer friends with me?" Obviously, cutting off your friendship with Jack is basically equivalent to revealing to Jack what Jane has told you.
Sounds like LW#1 is yet another in a long line of meddlesome letter writers to this column who work themselves into the middle of other people's relationships and also don't believe other people have the agency to run their own lives. And like so many others, LW#1 is really just looking for vindication from the Ethicist to start meddling in Jack and Jane's relationship.
Unfortunately, the Ethicist may have given the green light.
13
How about if Jack were beating a dog with a stick, would it be OK to end THAT friendship? Or would MYOB rule the day? Once Jane has burdened me with information about Jack's behavior, it's out of her hands what I do with it, especially if Jack's behavior rises to the level of illegal abuse.
Listening to Jane's problems with Jack is voyeuristic and places me in the middle whether I like it or not. If she wants to unburden herself without consequence she should see a therapist who is legally constrained from disseminating the information. ACA is another avenue of anonymity, hope and healing.
Finally, It is usually impossible to hide the kind of abuse we are talking about and the victim and abuser are usually the last two people to know how obvious this terrible dance has been. Telling Jane of my intentions, and carrying through on them will open a dialogue which may save Janes' life.
maintaining a lie for the sake of, what, friendship? That's worse than abuse....
Listening to Jane's problems with Jack is voyeuristic and places me in the middle whether I like it or not. If she wants to unburden herself without consequence she should see a therapist who is legally constrained from disseminating the information. ACA is another avenue of anonymity, hope and healing.
Finally, It is usually impossible to hide the kind of abuse we are talking about and the victim and abuser are usually the last two people to know how obvious this terrible dance has been. Telling Jane of my intentions, and carrying through on them will open a dialogue which may save Janes' life.
maintaining a lie for the sake of, what, friendship? That's worse than abuse....
5
The short answer to your reply is that Jane isn't a dog. Dogs lack agency; Jane doesn't. The consistent thread tying together the anti-MYOB comments is that someone other than Jane is better suited than Jane to help Jane, because Jane is incapable of helping herself. I don't agree.
Also, there's nothing unethical about ending a friendship. My comment merely points out that if LW#1 ends the friendship with Jack, but remains friends with Jane, that's the functional equivalent of confronting Jack about his behavior. To repeat - I do not think it's wise for LW#1 to do anything other than mind his/her own business.
Also, there's nothing unethical about ending a friendship. My comment merely points out that if LW#1 ends the friendship with Jack, but remains friends with Jane, that's the functional equivalent of confronting Jack about his behavior. To repeat - I do not think it's wise for LW#1 to do anything other than mind his/her own business.
2
And how many conversations has Jane initiated regarding her husband's abuse? Is she asking for help or just blowing off steam? The pattern in abuse is often the same; The abuse will wear her down until she is not capable of acting on her own accord. Autonomy is often the first character trait to go in abuse cases. It is a certainty that sooner or later Jane WILL lack agency, Jack will have all the control.
And the transition to physical abuse will not be far behind. No, better to confront now. Plant the seed.
And the transition to physical abuse will not be far behind. No, better to confront now. Plant the seed.
1
May I suggest the intelligent and powerful 12-step program, Adult Children of Alcoholics? The program is not just for the children of alcoholics, but is for anyone who grew up in a family in which they were cruelly or inadequately parented. Each of these situations boils down to "Should I intervene?" In doing the work in ACA, that question becomes easier and easier to answer. http://www.adultchildren.org/
5
Years ago, a close friend of mine who herself was in a verbally abusive relationship, suggested I read "Why does he do that?" by Lundy Bancroft. I could barely read more than a page or two at a time because its exactly described by relationship.
My now ex-husband was adored by all, but treated me horribly. He always made me feel that anything wrong in our relationship was my fault and my fault alone.
I don't know your friend's situation, but I suggest she read this book in case it describes what she is going through. Being divorced now 6 years I am happier than I had been in the 30 years I was married. I would say I wish I had never met him, except for our two wonderful children.
My now ex-husband was adored by all, but treated me horribly. He always made me feel that anything wrong in our relationship was my fault and my fault alone.
I don't know your friend's situation, but I suggest she read this book in case it describes what she is going through. Being divorced now 6 years I am happier than I had been in the 30 years I was married. I would say I wish I had never met him, except for our two wonderful children.
12
Letter writer #1 should consider what he would do if he was told the abuse was physical, not verbal, and he should treat the situation in the same way. If the writer knew Jane was being beaten by Jack, surely he would try to help her? Verbal abuse is just as devastating, humiliating and dangerous as physical abuse. Verbal abuse can escalate into something more threatening and damaging as the husband's control and manipulation increase. Doing nothing is not an option. Contact a local women's shelter and ask for guidance on how to proceed.
2
Jane feels that her husband is verbally abusive. She deserves to be treated with compassion for her distress. However, it is impossible for her friend to know whether her characterization of abuse is accurate. The friend is in no position to determine whether abuse is happening - but he can be a caring friend to both members of the couple. They need to be assessed and treated by a skilled couples therapist.
The friend should completely disregard the advice provided, which triangulates him between Jane and Jack. It is a bad idea for him to confront the husband, assume he is abusive and demand that he change. It is equally preposterous for him to offer Jane an unsolicited assessment of her marriage as "broken beyond repair".
The friend should completely disregard the advice provided, which triangulates him between Jane and Jack. It is a bad idea for him to confront the husband, assume he is abusive and demand that he change. It is equally preposterous for him to offer Jane an unsolicited assessment of her marriage as "broken beyond repair".
16
Lots of women are verbally abusive, and on occasion physically abusive as well.
So? America loves intolerance but I tolerated it for many years, and then we broke up but we are still excellent friends.
The world is not perfect and people are not perfect. I detest this tendency to address everything which is not perfect by divorce, by putting someone in prison, or waging a war.
These methods do NOT bring about perfection.
So I agree with those posters who said, MYOB.
So? America loves intolerance but I tolerated it for many years, and then we broke up but we are still excellent friends.
The world is not perfect and people are not perfect. I detest this tendency to address everything which is not perfect by divorce, by putting someone in prison, or waging a war.
These methods do NOT bring about perfection.
So I agree with those posters who said, MYOB.
6
This is he time that The entire family has to get together, Perhaps with an interventionist and discuss very openly and honestly aboout how to approach this dilemma. To heck with the step daughter's shame and fear of what people might think of her. This is not her problem; Her problem is a husband who is killing himself, literally, and needs help.
How close do yo have to be to tell a couple that their son-in-law is addicted to opioids? Whose ego are you protecting by refraining from telling them
the truth?
The Intervention is a safe place where everyone in the family can tell the addict how his addicted life has driven a wedge between them. "It is a place to say I love you, but I will not watch you die", The Ultimate choice is to find help The Interventionist is at the end of the room with a packed bag and and a place to take him. Would spending a couple days setting up another intervention? Just because it hasn't worked once doesn't mean it's not a good idea! I have sat in on a man's fourth Intervention. It's not something you give up on.
How close do yo have to be to tell a couple that their son-in-law is addicted to opioids? Whose ego are you protecting by refraining from telling them
the truth?
The Intervention is a safe place where everyone in the family can tell the addict how his addicted life has driven a wedge between them. "It is a place to say I love you, but I will not watch you die", The Ultimate choice is to find help The Interventionist is at the end of the room with a packed bag and and a place to take him. Would spending a couple days setting up another intervention? Just because it hasn't worked once doesn't mean it's not a good idea! I have sat in on a man's fourth Intervention. It's not something you give up on.
3
Of course it's unethical for the HR person to tell her friend she's about to be laid off. And I'd think that as hurt as the friend will be, she will also realize that someone in HR cannot reveal such knowledge as a matter of ethics, but also because the HR person could lose her job as well simply for giving her friend a couple of days' notice. I think HR can expect a reasonable response from her friend, and she can also volunteer to help her find another job, possibly through HR networking. If done on her own time - or maybe even her boss would allow a little such help on company time if it's just a matter of phone calls or social media - that would be entirely ethical.
15
LW1 has not witnessed any abuse firsthand, so all this stuff about Jack abusing Jane is HEARSAY. I would treat both of them with care but not rush to judgment.
24
When the victim herself tells you she is being victimized, it is not hearsay. Not believing victim's accounts of abuse is just one more burden they have to bear. We see this in child abuse especially, when spouses, parents or other adults don't believe a child's account of abuse. One of the reasons people don't report abuse is because they believe they will not be believed. Abusers often reinforce this belief by telling the abused person that no one will ever believe them. It is wrong to ignore Jane's statements. She could be reaching out for help.
3
There is just not enough information in the first letter. "Verbal abuse" with nothing more tells us absolutely nothing. In addition we do get just a hint that Jane did something pretty bad ("he is hurting"..."because of things that have happened in the relationship"). The advice is only as good as the information upon which it is based. This letter is useless in my opinion. It allows the columnist and the commenters to fill in too many blanks with their own "stuff".
39
Letter #1 - "I've discovered something bad about a friend of mine, but he doesn't know that I'm aware of it. -- Should I approach my friend about his bad behavior - or just say nothing ?"
Letter #2 - "I've been told by one of my managers at work that another employee - who happens to be a good friend of mine - will be terminated in two days. Since I work in HR, my job is to prepare her exit papers and say nothing, but I feel bad for my friend and wonder if I should let her know - or say nothing ?"
Letter #3 - "My stepson - married with two children - is a chronic drug addict who has lost his job and endangered his family's financial stability. While we offer some assistance, our daughter-in-law has not told her family anything about this problem for fear of how they will react. - My husband and I want to tell her parents about this, but are torn. - Should we have a talk with our in-laws about this, or just say nothing ?"
Beginning next week, "The Ethicist" column will be renamed --- "I've Got a Secret"
Oh -- wait...
Letter #2 - "I've been told by one of my managers at work that another employee - who happens to be a good friend of mine - will be terminated in two days. Since I work in HR, my job is to prepare her exit papers and say nothing, but I feel bad for my friend and wonder if I should let her know - or say nothing ?"
Letter #3 - "My stepson - married with two children - is a chronic drug addict who has lost his job and endangered his family's financial stability. While we offer some assistance, our daughter-in-law has not told her family anything about this problem for fear of how they will react. - My husband and I want to tell her parents about this, but are torn. - Should we have a talk with our in-laws about this, or just say nothing ?"
Beginning next week, "The Ethicist" column will be renamed --- "I've Got a Secret"
Oh -- wait...
10
To the HR person.
What good would giving your friend a heads up when in only 2 days she will be officially informed?
Not such a dilemma, really.
What good would giving your friend a heads up when in only 2 days she will be officially informed?
Not such a dilemma, really.
12
"marriage is a social institution. Part of what this means is that friends and family should help sustain the marriage, at least as long as it’s worth saving"
Duh!
If friends and family should help sustain a marriage, then friends and family should help dismantle a marriage they consider not worth saving.
Doesn't sound right, does it?
Ever hear of minding one's own business?
Also, you can be sure that if you support a spouse's complaint, should the couple reconcile, you will not be in good stead, I assure you.
Been there!
MYOB. Good advice.
Duh!
If friends and family should help sustain a marriage, then friends and family should help dismantle a marriage they consider not worth saving.
Doesn't sound right, does it?
Ever hear of minding one's own business?
Also, you can be sure that if you support a spouse's complaint, should the couple reconcile, you will not be in good stead, I assure you.
Been there!
MYOB. Good advice.
17
It is perfectly reasonable to have a social structure where people work in a positive way to sustain marriages, yet mind their own business when they think poorly of someone else's marriage and think it best destroyed.
It is related to a philosophy of no badmouthing. Among popular moral codes, Christianity doesn't explicitly forbid badmouthing, but badmouthing seems to this observer to be nonetheless rather un-Christian; Islam forbids badmouthing explicitly. Say something nice and helpful about the marriage and it's participants or keep your trap shut.
It is related to a philosophy of no badmouthing. Among popular moral codes, Christianity doesn't explicitly forbid badmouthing, but badmouthing seems to this observer to be nonetheless rather un-Christian; Islam forbids badmouthing explicitly. Say something nice and helpful about the marriage and it's participants or keep your trap shut.
1
Yes, Judaism also explicitly forbids badmouthing. In Hebrew, the expression is "lashen hora," which literally means "bad words."
3
Or my personal favorite: If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, sit next to me....
Ethicist, you blew it on this one. If the wife said, don't tell, or even if the wife hinted that telling the husband would cause retribution, DON"T communicate that to the husband!
1. you will be in the middle of a manipulative situation, and used as a weapon, no matter who is doing the abusing.
2. If she IS being abused, and you tell the husband that she's talked to you about it, you are putting her in danger, full stop. Better to do nothing than escalate--you can help her get out, you can listen to either of them without contributing advice, or you can avoid them both. But if you speak up to him and he retaliates on her, that's on you.
1. you will be in the middle of a manipulative situation, and used as a weapon, no matter who is doing the abusing.
2. If she IS being abused, and you tell the husband that she's talked to you about it, you are putting her in danger, full stop. Better to do nothing than escalate--you can help her get out, you can listen to either of them without contributing advice, or you can avoid them both. But if you speak up to him and he retaliates on her, that's on you.
26
I don't know if "name withheld" is a guy or a woman. It makes a real difference. Assuming everybody involved is straight, if it's a guy, his working with Jane to criticize Jack is open to interpretations beyond what you said in this column.
8
Actually, it could go either way.In any event, It is open to interpretation.
2
People aren't always laid off for the reasons stated. It's one of the bigger problems in the workplace today: employers lay off competent people, others assume that they were fired for incompetence and refuse to hire them no matter what and then these fired employees often find out that they were replaced by someone younger and less experienced. Being laid off is more than financially devastating. It's emotionally devastating as well, especially if the person has been there for a long time, had good reviews, and doesn't expect it.
Your friend may decide that she doesn't want to have any contact with anyone from the company after it happens. That may include you too. I worked at one company for years but after I was downsized, and the way I was treated then and by my supervisor led me not to want to have any contact with my former colleagues. The one thing every employer who lays people off for no reason other than to hire cheaper employees should remember is that they are contributing to a lot of societal and economic problems.
No, you cannot tell your friend. Just don't be surprised if she decides you aren't friends any longer. And maybe you ought to have someone else deliver the bad news. It won't make it any easier but it might leave her feeling less humiliated.
Your friend may decide that she doesn't want to have any contact with anyone from the company after it happens. That may include you too. I worked at one company for years but after I was downsized, and the way I was treated then and by my supervisor led me not to want to have any contact with my former colleagues. The one thing every employer who lays people off for no reason other than to hire cheaper employees should remember is that they are contributing to a lot of societal and economic problems.
No, you cannot tell your friend. Just don't be surprised if she decides you aren't friends any longer. And maybe you ought to have someone else deliver the bad news. It won't make it any easier but it might leave her feeling less humiliated.
28
Doctors and lawyers also have confidentiality obligations; HR personnel should not find it so burdensome to do the job they chose. My experience is antidotal, of course, but I expect that many work in offices where the HR personnel (who are often not challenged with educational requirements) think their jobs entitle them to act as fixers.
2
Why does the writer think it is to 'Jane's credit' that she seldom spoke fully of the problems she was having? Red flag! Why does the writer think SHE, and not his wife who was actually in the marriage, has a handle on why the man is hurting? There is subtext to this letter and it isn't pretty. Abuse and manipulation go hand in hand. She writes as if the man was indifferent to his reputation of being abusive. Hardly likely. She was a close friend and never saw evidence of this abuse? Spare me from such 'friends'. The writer needs to turn some light on herself. There are so many issues with this letter I can't think straight.
19
This is an ethics column, right?
LW#1 asked a very simple ethics question: "Is it ethical for me to continue to be friends with someone who is verbally abusive to his partner?
The answer is yes.. it is ethical for the LW to continue to be friends with Jack.
Mr. Appeah leaps to the conclusion that the LW can no longer continue the friendship knowing what is known. But the LW didn't say that. The LW is asking if it would be unethical to stay in the relationship. It isn't.
LW#1 asked a very simple ethics question: "Is it ethical for me to continue to be friends with someone who is verbally abusive to his partner?
The answer is yes.. it is ethical for the LW to continue to be friends with Jack.
Mr. Appeah leaps to the conclusion that the LW can no longer continue the friendship knowing what is known. But the LW didn't say that. The LW is asking if it would be unethical to stay in the relationship. It isn't.
6
Letter writer 1:
You wrote "I think he is hurting in his own way because of things that have happened in the relationship and is just doing an awful job of dealing with it."
If I'm reading this correctly, he is hurting because of things he didn't cause but must cope with. That means bad things happened and he's having trouble adjusting.
That leads me to think--maybe mistakenly--that Jane did something/s. Is he attacking her because she did something that's made him miserable?
This sounds much more complicated than "verbal abuse." As is, she had an affair and he's taken to calling her a nasty name. Or something along those lines.
It sounds to me like he very much needs a friend--is there some way you can talk to him about things in general, beyond what you've heard about verbal abuse? Maybe recommend that he get help to deal with whatever he has on his plate, that might be contributing to his behavior?
You wrote "I think he is hurting in his own way because of things that have happened in the relationship and is just doing an awful job of dealing with it."
If I'm reading this correctly, he is hurting because of things he didn't cause but must cope with. That means bad things happened and he's having trouble adjusting.
That leads me to think--maybe mistakenly--that Jane did something/s. Is he attacking her because she did something that's made him miserable?
This sounds much more complicated than "verbal abuse." As is, she had an affair and he's taken to calling her a nasty name. Or something along those lines.
It sounds to me like he very much needs a friend--is there some way you can talk to him about things in general, beyond what you've heard about verbal abuse? Maybe recommend that he get help to deal with whatever he has on his plate, that might be contributing to his behavior?
22
My thoughts exactly, but written much better. Bravo!
9
Abuse of any kind is unacceptable -- even if "Jane did something" and she "made him miserable." That is the attitude and justification used by an abuser--she made me do it, she deserved it.
Abuse is not a “relationship” problem. The choice to be abusive lies solely with the abusive partner. Abuse stems from a desire to gain and maintain power and control over a partner. Abuse is a choice, and whether or not Jack has a "lot on his plate" does not cause his abusive behavior.
Domestic abuse often escalates from threats and verbal abuse to violence. Jane's friends should be supportive, refer her to local women's shelter where she can get advice and let her know of the website for the National Domestic Abuse Hotline. The website has excellent resources for victims of abuse, and there are many online resources where she can find information and realize that she is not the only alone.
Abuse is not a “relationship” problem. The choice to be abusive lies solely with the abusive partner. Abuse stems from a desire to gain and maintain power and control over a partner. Abuse is a choice, and whether or not Jack has a "lot on his plate" does not cause his abusive behavior.
Domestic abuse often escalates from threats and verbal abuse to violence. Jane's friends should be supportive, refer her to local women's shelter where she can get advice and let her know of the website for the National Domestic Abuse Hotline. The website has excellent resources for victims of abuse, and there are many online resources where she can find information and realize that she is not the only alone.
5
Jeez, if the daughter in law, who does know her own parents when you don't, says it won't do any good to talk to them, and you have good reason to suspect it might make things worse for her and for the couple -- why on earth would you do this? It's your husband's son who has the problem. Deal with it from that side. Don't make it worse by meddling in something you don't understand.
Using the well-being of the grandchildren as an excuse seems like a cover for some bad motivation. Maybe you blame the wife too, think she's not doing enough, something like that?
Using the well-being of the grandchildren as an excuse seems like a cover for some bad motivation. Maybe you blame the wife too, think she's not doing enough, something like that?
36
If you are worried that the children are at risk of harm, call protective services. If there are needles in the home, or drug paraphernalia, or drugs themselves, or if the kids are placed in danger and their mom can't protect them, call right away, and/or offer a safe place to the mom and the kids. If the children are safe, don't try meddling with what you don't understand. You will just alienate them.
22
It sounds like this situation could use an intervention with professional guidance.
4
A problem with the Comments is the "green check" and this seems especially true with this column. These commentators, and I can't tell how this green check is merited, take up the initial comments and others wait and wait. I suggest the Ethicist look into the ethics of this system.
39
"and I can't tell how this green check is merited"
Actually, if you hover your mouse over a green check, a little pop-up box will explain how this designation is earned.
Sorry if you already figured that out and just want to know more specifics.
Actually, if you hover your mouse over a green check, a little pop-up box will explain how this designation is earned.
Sorry if you already figured that out and just want to know more specifics.
4
IMHO ,"the quality of comments" with the green check is all over the place. But thanks for your response. It doesn't change my assessment of merit.
6
Yikes! Two things:
1 -- Why would you meddle? Except perhaps to gain another self-awarded merit badge for noble behavior. No one is in danger here. Mind your own business. Be available to listen, withholding judgement.
2 -- One person's "verbal abuse" is another person's boiled over frustration with a relentlessly passive aggressive spouse. To wit:
She: After work, could you pick up the kids from soccer and make them dinner?
He: I did that the past three nights.
She: You'll need to buy groceries too.
He: How about... I get the groceries, you get the kids and we'll make dinner together?
She: I'm sorry honey. I have to go to Pilates class (for the third night in a row).
He: I can't take this anymore. You're a self-centered a-hole. (Yet everyone thinks you're so sweet and I'm an aggressive jerk who works too much.)
Maybe Jane is near-perfect and maybe Jack is an abusive spouse. Or maybe Jack and Jane have a chemistry and compatibility problem. Maybe Jane likes to complain to friends but not negotiate compromise and change directly with Jack. Does that make Jane a bad person? No. But is Jane's portrayal of Jack accurate and objective? No. Wouldn't we like to hear Jack's side of the story? Maybe he is abusive. Or maybe it's more complicated. And maybe Jane just wants friends to validate her innocence.
You're at a loss how to proceed? Don't. Let their marriage proceed without you.
Can't believe Ethicist's instant assumption that something is "seriously wrong."
1 -- Why would you meddle? Except perhaps to gain another self-awarded merit badge for noble behavior. No one is in danger here. Mind your own business. Be available to listen, withholding judgement.
2 -- One person's "verbal abuse" is another person's boiled over frustration with a relentlessly passive aggressive spouse. To wit:
She: After work, could you pick up the kids from soccer and make them dinner?
He: I did that the past three nights.
She: You'll need to buy groceries too.
He: How about... I get the groceries, you get the kids and we'll make dinner together?
She: I'm sorry honey. I have to go to Pilates class (for the third night in a row).
He: I can't take this anymore. You're a self-centered a-hole. (Yet everyone thinks you're so sweet and I'm an aggressive jerk who works too much.)
Maybe Jane is near-perfect and maybe Jack is an abusive spouse. Or maybe Jack and Jane have a chemistry and compatibility problem. Maybe Jane likes to complain to friends but not negotiate compromise and change directly with Jack. Does that make Jane a bad person? No. But is Jane's portrayal of Jack accurate and objective? No. Wouldn't we like to hear Jack's side of the story? Maybe he is abusive. Or maybe it's more complicated. And maybe Jane just wants friends to validate her innocence.
You're at a loss how to proceed? Don't. Let their marriage proceed without you.
Can't believe Ethicist's instant assumption that something is "seriously wrong."
61
Wow. This is wrong on so many levels.
8
Whatever LW #1 decides to do, he needs to seriously think over whether he is doing it because he wants Jane for himself. He needs to be that honest with himself and not let that wish determine what he does.
14
I got that same impression.
3
Once again, Kwame lives in an alternate moral universe.
If the daughter-in-law says it won't do any good, IT PROBABLY WON'T DO ANY GOOD. She, unlike the stepmom, actually knows her own parents. The stepmom's busy cooking up stories about these people despite knowing nothing about them.
Stepmom, keep out of it. If you want to help, offer the DIL help getting out with the children and starting again. And if she doesn't take it, keep an eye on how things go with the children, because they're the only ones in this situation whom you can help. If you really think those kids are in danger, and are not making things up the way you are with the DIL's parents, you should be talking to a lawyer.
If the daughter-in-law says it won't do any good, IT PROBABLY WON'T DO ANY GOOD. She, unlike the stepmom, actually knows her own parents. The stepmom's busy cooking up stories about these people despite knowing nothing about them.
Stepmom, keep out of it. If you want to help, offer the DIL help getting out with the children and starting again. And if she doesn't take it, keep an eye on how things go with the children, because they're the only ones in this situation whom you can help. If you really think those kids are in danger, and are not making things up the way you are with the DIL's parents, you should be talking to a lawyer.
20
Unless the dilemma involves children too young to fend for themselves, 99% of the "ethical" problems presented in this column could be answered by MYOB.
28
The Ethicist asserts twice that Name Withheld (aka NW) should try to change Jack's behavior: "helping Jack change his ways," & "you can't go on with your friendship with him unless you can help him to stop, & so protect her."
These assertions are predicated on the assumption that people can change the behavior of others. No one can change another person's behavior. Jack must choose to change themself.
The Ethicist suggests that NW should put Jane in the extremely uncomfortable & unfair position of deciding whether to protect her privacy in her marriage, or to allow NW to intervene in the (likely vain) hope that the abuse can be stopped by an outside force.
If Jane chooses privacy, she must carry the guilt of having sabotaged the friendship between Jack and NW. If she allows NW to intervene, she risks further abuse, as no one can protect Jane from further abuse despite what the Ethicist seems to believe.
I gather that The Ethicist has read nothing on the Cycle of Domestic Abuse; if he had, he would never suggest that NW should force Jane into making uncomfortable choices. Jane has already been robbed by Jack of her right to choose what happens to her; by forcing Jane to choose what NW should do, she would be re-victimized by being forced to choose an undesirable outcome for herself.
If NW really wants to be a friend to this couple, then NW should be unconditionally supportive of all of Jane's choices, & help Jane seek therapy to gather strength to leave her abuser.
These assertions are predicated on the assumption that people can change the behavior of others. No one can change another person's behavior. Jack must choose to change themself.
The Ethicist suggests that NW should put Jane in the extremely uncomfortable & unfair position of deciding whether to protect her privacy in her marriage, or to allow NW to intervene in the (likely vain) hope that the abuse can be stopped by an outside force.
If Jane chooses privacy, she must carry the guilt of having sabotaged the friendship between Jack and NW. If she allows NW to intervene, she risks further abuse, as no one can protect Jane from further abuse despite what the Ethicist seems to believe.
I gather that The Ethicist has read nothing on the Cycle of Domestic Abuse; if he had, he would never suggest that NW should force Jane into making uncomfortable choices. Jane has already been robbed by Jack of her right to choose what happens to her; by forcing Jane to choose what NW should do, she would be re-victimized by being forced to choose an undesirable outcome for herself.
If NW really wants to be a friend to this couple, then NW should be unconditionally supportive of all of Jane's choices, & help Jane seek therapy to gather strength to leave her abuser.
69
Yes! The comments about "helping jack change his ways" - I wonder if The Ethicist would have been saying the same thing if it was physical abuse? Something tells me no.
7
And don't blame Jane for the abuse. I'm in this position - I left - and you wouldn't believe the people who blame me or at least let me know this would NEVER happen to them. Doesn't matter I'm happy I'm no longer there but boy they made it harder.
6
I don't understand the first letter. Either it's not abuse or he's not a good person.
8
I disagree with your recommendation concerning Jack, the verbal abuser of Jane.
The best approach is for the friend to support Jane, helping her deal with Jack either by confronting him herself or leaving. It is her problem and she is the one who needs the friends support. Speaking to Jack and perhaps thereby ending the relationship with Jane and the support the friend could provide her would be counter productive.
The best approach is for the friend to support Jane, helping her deal with Jack either by confronting him herself or leaving. It is her problem and she is the one who needs the friends support. Speaking to Jack and perhaps thereby ending the relationship with Jane and the support the friend could provide her would be counter productive.
8
People's character is not situational. The more intimate a relationship, the more stress it may contain. His behavior in the marriage is informative about how he chose to handle his stress. At the least, he acts out. It also indicates he has defense mechanisms - where instead of accounting for his choices, behaviors and the influence he has on the world, he projects stress or problems on to others. At the most, he is a violent misogynist. What do your heroes say about this? My heroes are all human rights activists and they say take a stand. IOW, within your desire/commitment to being with an abuser, take a stand. Beware the elephant in the room.
5
Abuse only escalates from verbal to physical. Man up and step in.
7
Sometimes it stays verbal. Sometimes the verbal abuser wakes up and quits abusing.
1
LW! - You seem to be interested in being in the middle of this drama, getting Jane to confide in you and then wondering if you should further insert yourself by, unbidden by both parties, talking to Jack about his issues.
Jane has confided in you - I'd be supportive of her and leave it there. If you genuinely care about Jack, continue to be his friend and if he seeks help or advice, you may ask what's happening and then say what you wish.
But you aren't a therapist and neither party has asked for your help. This seems like you're eager to meddle in their marriage with your own feelings about it.
Without a clearer signal from either one that wish you to do so,
I'd continue to be friends with both - if you wish - and stay out of their marital issues.
Jane has confided in you - I'd be supportive of her and leave it there. If you genuinely care about Jack, continue to be his friend and if he seeks help or advice, you may ask what's happening and then say what you wish.
But you aren't a therapist and neither party has asked for your help. This seems like you're eager to meddle in their marriage with your own feelings about it.
Without a clearer signal from either one that wish you to do so,
I'd continue to be friends with both - if you wish - and stay out of their marital issues.
38
In reference to the human resources dilemma... In college I had to take a course named, Ethics and Society, which presented a myriad of dilemmas with no clear cut answers. Cultural norms and values are not universal. Beliefs on murder, for example, are more universally aligned, than say, euthanasia, where opinions vary even within cultures. The answer posed by this ethicist is consistent with a Western, first-world view of vocational loyalty above all else. Ask this question in another part of the world and the assumptions could be otherwise. The author readily assumes there was a lack of unjust treatment. In another culture the assumption may have been that indeed there was an injustice; then the situation could be treated as "... there may be an exception...", in which case the recommendation surely deviates from what was suggested here. What if, there had been an injustice and the HR person didn't know about it ? What if, the friend was a best friend or a love of some type unbeknownst to the boss ? Interesting the Ethicist chose the garden variety set of assumptions and answered in text-book form. Unfortunately, the best answer must be a function of the facts (as much as can be known), the prevailing cultural norms of place, and perhaps most importantly, the relationship between the people involved. Rather than provide, unequivocal answers, why not suggest questions to help the individual arrive at their own conclusions ? (Timshel)
6
Excellent answer. Thank you.
I do applaud your attempt at cultural sensitivity. BUT: The ethicist seems to assume this is in the US, I think. Perhaps he knows this but it has been edited out. In any case, let's just assume it is the US...who in his/her right mind, being an HR professional, would think it OK to warn someone of an impending layoff that one found out about in filling one's role in HR? The LW does not cite any extenuating circumstances or injustices-just the LW's friendship with the person being laid off. It does not sound as if anything illegal is happening or abuse of workers in a protected class--age, race, disability, religion. Keep quiet and fill your HR role that you signed on for.
What's more, what is it with two days? Two days? It took longer than two days from the time the letter was received to when an answer was prepared and published. Is this a fake question? Maybe Appiah should have edited out the timeframe and dealt with the generic issue.
What's more, what is it with two days? Two days? It took longer than two days from the time the letter was received to when an answer was prepared and published. Is this a fake question? Maybe Appiah should have edited out the timeframe and dealt with the generic issue.
8
Most folks - including the Ethicist - believe that moral relativism is a bankrupt ethos.
That a HR worker can't decide between keeping a work-related matter confidential or telling her friend tells me the HR worker needs some training or needs to find a job in another field. What other things does she think it might be okay to tell?
63
on #1, the Ethicist's advice seems to put a lot of pressure on Jane to be responsible for whether Jack loses the friendship of the letter writer. This pressure adds to the pain and torment of being abused. Given the shame experienced by abused partners and their tendency to internalize abuse as justified, the additional responsibility of having to choose (potentially) 'make things worse' and cause Jack to lose a friend is unfair for the Ethicist to suggest. If the abuse stops, that's great. But if it continues, it's likely Jane will face social pressure to conceal it from the letter writer and suffer in silence rather than be responsible for ending Jack's friendship with the letter writer. I don't think that's how the social institutional connections among friendships and marriages are supposed to work. The letter writer instead should tell Jack to stop abusing his spouse or loose the friendship.
6
Give Jane emotional support. People who stay with verbally abusive mates usually have battered self-esteem and think the abuse has merit. Make certain Jane realizes Jack's degradation is a form of control and doesn't reflect her worthiness.
With enough social reinforcement Jane may have the fortitude to force Jack into counseling and/or leave him.
Regarding the opiate addict, ask the daughter-in-law why telling her parents won't help. Perhaps she's afraid they will pressure her to divorce and ask for full custody while she's not yet ready to give up on her husband.
Opiates are an extremely difficult addiction to break, often requiring several cycles of rehab. Programs vary in approach and what works for one individual may not be the best program for another. Keep trying to get the help he needs.
With enough social reinforcement Jane may have the fortitude to force Jack into counseling and/or leave him.
Regarding the opiate addict, ask the daughter-in-law why telling her parents won't help. Perhaps she's afraid they will pressure her to divorce and ask for full custody while she's not yet ready to give up on her husband.
Opiates are an extremely difficult addiction to break, often requiring several cycles of rehab. Programs vary in approach and what works for one individual may not be the best program for another. Keep trying to get the help he needs.
6
HR worker's dilemma is a classic management scenario used in training exercises. If it's not entirely made up, the LW has violated his or her employer's confidentiality.
No. You don't get to give your friend and extra couple of days notice. Doing so won't save her job, won't make her happy, isn't fair to the other guy who is also getting fired the day after he closes on a really expensive house. There isn't a good outcome from telling. It doesn't make you a hero. You will tank your own career for no benefit.
No. You don't get to give your friend and extra couple of days notice. Doing so won't save her job, won't make her happy, isn't fair to the other guy who is also getting fired the day after he closes on a really expensive house. There isn't a good outcome from telling. It doesn't make you a hero. You will tank your own career for no benefit.
52
"Doing so won't save her job, won't make her happy, isn't fair to the other guy who is also getting fired the day after he closes on a really expensive house. "
The first part is true: telling her three days sooner will not save her job or make her happy. The second part is interesting. Suppose LW knows her friend is about to close on an expensive house the day before she receives notice? What I would do is strongly suggest she postpone the closing without saying why.
It is unethical for companies to lay off people on very short or no notice, and with little or no severance, for the very reason that people make financial plans based on their reasonable expectation of continued employment if they are performing well and the company is doing well. If management thinks layoffs are necessary it should not be a secret that they are being contemplated.
This is why we need unions.
The first part is true: telling her three days sooner will not save her job or make her happy. The second part is interesting. Suppose LW knows her friend is about to close on an expensive house the day before she receives notice? What I would do is strongly suggest she postpone the closing without saying why.
It is unethical for companies to lay off people on very short or no notice, and with little or no severance, for the very reason that people make financial plans based on their reasonable expectation of continued employment if they are performing well and the company is doing well. If management thinks layoffs are necessary it should not be a secret that they are being contemplated.
This is why we need unions.
21
I totally agree with Catherine's comment, plus I add that it seemed odd to me that the LW suggested one action for herself as a friend: To violate her employer's confidentiality. A friend can find many ways to help, from assisting (outside of work time) in job searches, in giving moral support, etc.
4
I had a similar situation many years ago -- my work friend (whom I supervised) had fallen into very bad attendance habits and was going to be fired by the big boss. At this same time, she told me she was planning to give up her SSI benefits because she no longer needed them (or so she thought). That would have been a double whammy -- so I worked very hard to convince her not to stop the SSI income, and I succeeded. It would not have occurred to me to breach confidentiality on the firing, and I was not in HR!
5
It can take people many attempts to leave an abusive relationship. The abuser may promise to get treatment, change their ways, etc. If there are kids involved, it can make it even more difficult to leave. By telling the abused spouse that you think she should leave, you would want to be sure not to alienate her if it takes her many attempts or an extended period to get out. The key is that she knows she can rely on your friendship and support.
As for the abusive spouse, I can't see that telling him he needs to seek therapy would do anything. A person has to want to change; it can't be imposed on them. It's not your fight, and it doesn't sound like you're being asked to pick sides. There's nothing keeping you from being cordial and even friendly towards him. I presume the best outcome is for the couple to find a peaceful solution. Whether it's together or apart is for them to determine.
As for the abusive spouse, I can't see that telling him he needs to seek therapy would do anything. A person has to want to change; it can't be imposed on them. It's not your fight, and it doesn't sound like you're being asked to pick sides. There's nothing keeping you from being cordial and even friendly towards him. I presume the best outcome is for the couple to find a peaceful solution. Whether it's together or apart is for them to determine.
4
The addict isn't owed your complicity, nor is he helped by it. A phone call or notification to the inlaws isn't going to fix him, but nor should you behave as though his drug abuse is any more secret than the color of his hair. Al Anon. Best resource for family members.
14
Don't meddle in Jack & Jill. Refer separately to professionals. As for the general questions of can you remain friends with someone who did something horrible? The answer is yes, you can. You yourself will be capable of terrible behavior and will need a friend. That doesn't mean you tolerate misogyny or help a Bill Cosby or Jerry Sandusky cover up crimes. It simply means you can be decent towards your friend.
11
"I do, however, think that their relationship is so broken that the best outcome for both is to end it."
That is a lot to take on yourself about a marriage that isn't yours. (I say "marriage" because Appiah does. I assume that information was edited out of the letter before we saw it.)
Maybe you could express to Jane that she ought to consider whether Jack and their relationship are a net positive in her life, and if not, whether she wants to make some changes. Or if you see that Jack is hurting, you could tell him that he appears to be unhappy, and invite him to consider the same things. Otherwise, unless you see him being abusive in front of you, best to stay out, IMO. You are not there to see what is going on and you can't be getting the whole picture.
That is a lot to take on yourself about a marriage that isn't yours. (I say "marriage" because Appiah does. I assume that information was edited out of the letter before we saw it.)
Maybe you could express to Jane that she ought to consider whether Jack and their relationship are a net positive in her life, and if not, whether she wants to make some changes. Or if you see that Jack is hurting, you could tell him that he appears to be unhappy, and invite him to consider the same things. Otherwise, unless you see him being abusive in front of you, best to stay out, IMO. You are not there to see what is going on and you can't be getting the whole picture.
6
Advice for a person who wants to help someone being abused:
1) Listen more, talk less
2) Consider the challenges your friend is facing
3) Offer support, but don't make decisions for them. They are in a situation where someone is already taking away their agency. Don't add to it.
4) Ask them questions that might help them see the abuse for what it is. Telling them it is abusive and that they have to leave might backfire. They might end up defending their abuser. Asking questions, not telling, is the way to go on that front.
5) Educate yourself about abusive relationships and the local and national resources that your friend might need.
These are just a few of the many ways a person can help. While Mr. Appiah's response does encourage Anonymous to support Jane as a friend, much of his advice might take away her agency and indeed be seen as meddling.
For more on how to help a friend in an abusive relationship, please check out the resources "Get Help" and "How to Help a Friend" at Project Survive's website www.ccsf.edu/survive
1) Listen more, talk less
2) Consider the challenges your friend is facing
3) Offer support, but don't make decisions for them. They are in a situation where someone is already taking away their agency. Don't add to it.
4) Ask them questions that might help them see the abuse for what it is. Telling them it is abusive and that they have to leave might backfire. They might end up defending their abuser. Asking questions, not telling, is the way to go on that front.
5) Educate yourself about abusive relationships and the local and national resources that your friend might need.
These are just a few of the many ways a person can help. While Mr. Appiah's response does encourage Anonymous to support Jane as a friend, much of his advice might take away her agency and indeed be seen as meddling.
For more on how to help a friend in an abusive relationship, please check out the resources "Get Help" and "How to Help a Friend" at Project Survive's website www.ccsf.edu/survive
42
Alternative advice for a person who wants to help someone being abused.
1. Every health and legal professional is bound by law or ethics to report acts of domestic violence.
2. You may not be a professional, but there is a reason for this blanket reporting requirement for professionals - it prevents people from being killed and it does not justify illegal acts. 'Agency' does not trump living
3. Report ALL acts of domestic violence.
1. Every health and legal professional is bound by law or ethics to report acts of domestic violence.
2. You may not be a professional, but there is a reason for this blanket reporting requirement for professionals - it prevents people from being killed and it does not justify illegal acts. 'Agency' does not trump living
3. Report ALL acts of domestic violence.
3
2 and 5, over and over and over.
I can imagine the report on this case: Jane SAYS that Jack verbally abuses her.
For the parents with an addicted son/stepson: As a parent with a nearly identical challenge, I can truly empathize. Please consider finding an Al-Anon or Nar-Anon meeting (Al-Anon is much more common), and trying several meetings out before passing judgement on their effectiveness.
Addiction is called a "family disease" because it affects a circle of people around the addict, people who love them and care about them. Each can have a different response, whether it is denial, control, despair, or self or other blame - family members can find themselves in conflict and caught up in their own forms of insanity and turmoil as a result.
Addiction can be understood to be a disease. Coming to terms with addiction in a family member is a process, one that can take years, and it's a journey that lasts as long as that person is in our lives, and longer. It's important for one's own sanity to better understand addiction, and what's possible and what's not. We all travel in this understanding at a different pace.
The opportunity to share our lives safely and confidentially with peers in groups like Al-Anon and Nar-Anon can be a bridge back to our own clarity and acceptance of and compassion for those we love who are addicted. There's no cure and no fixed answers in any group, but there is a safe place where we can share our experiences, give and receive support, and gain a perspective that helps us restore our own peace of mind. Wishing you the best in finding support.
Addiction is called a "family disease" because it affects a circle of people around the addict, people who love them and care about them. Each can have a different response, whether it is denial, control, despair, or self or other blame - family members can find themselves in conflict and caught up in their own forms of insanity and turmoil as a result.
Addiction can be understood to be a disease. Coming to terms with addiction in a family member is a process, one that can take years, and it's a journey that lasts as long as that person is in our lives, and longer. It's important for one's own sanity to better understand addiction, and what's possible and what's not. We all travel in this understanding at a different pace.
The opportunity to share our lives safely and confidentially with peers in groups like Al-Anon and Nar-Anon can be a bridge back to our own clarity and acceptance of and compassion for those we love who are addicted. There's no cure and no fixed answers in any group, but there is a safe place where we can share our experiences, give and receive support, and gain a perspective that helps us restore our own peace of mind. Wishing you the best in finding support.
14
Such wonderful people live in Eagle Wisconsin!!!! I hope you all the best in your relationship with your qualifier.....
LW1: There is no law so primary as "do not interfere with a couple's relationship." I am a divorce attorney and I work with these situations every day. It would be best if you could keep an open ear and mind to both of them. Until they are ready to break up (and it may take several breakups), there is nothing else you can do. If you try to do anything but listen, you might lose both of them, and they will lose any assistance you might be able to give them.
51
Be humble gentlemen with your advice and your actions with women--the writer is a compassionate friend and likely to understand what I'm saying here already but Mr. Ethicist the very first thing in your column should be "slow down and ask Jane whatlshe wantsbefore doing anything at all.", Deciding to act without doing this, rescuing the damsel in distress puts her even further into victim and child which is exactly what you don't want to do. I grew up in a household like hers and knew the internal working and complexities of my parents troubled relationship in a way that you can't know. However,
letting Jane take hold of this in her way--with your help if she wants it respects her autonomy and encourages her to take responsibility for changing this dynamic. In this way you give her power back instead of taking it away!
letting Jane take hold of this in her way--with your help if she wants it respects her autonomy and encourages her to take responsibility for changing this dynamic. In this way you give her power back instead of taking it away!
8
It's good that the Ethicist pointed out the difference between an abusive relationship and an unhealthy one. All abusive relationships are unhealthy, but not all unhealthy relationships are abusive.
Is your friend afraid of her husband? Has he threatened, intimated or isolated her, limited her choices/options? Is he controlling her? If so, she may well be abused and in danger if she confronts him or leaves. Having a friend intervene can also increase the danger, so always talk to the abuse victim before doing anything. Victims can contact the NCADV National Hotline for help in their area: 1-800-799-7233. http://www.thehotline.org/
If however, your friend is not fearful for her safety and is free to make choices and exercise options, she may be in an unhealthy marriage, which can be a humiliating, confusing and sad experience, but not a dangerous one. We can feel paralyzed and powerless in bad relationships, but if we can make a move or a decision without risking harm or danger from our partner, it's not abuse, and a different kind of help/support is called for, such as counseling, confrontation, mediation, or separation.
Is your friend afraid of her husband? Has he threatened, intimated or isolated her, limited her choices/options? Is he controlling her? If so, she may well be abused and in danger if she confronts him or leaves. Having a friend intervene can also increase the danger, so always talk to the abuse victim before doing anything. Victims can contact the NCADV National Hotline for help in their area: 1-800-799-7233. http://www.thehotline.org/
If however, your friend is not fearful for her safety and is free to make choices and exercise options, she may be in an unhealthy marriage, which can be a humiliating, confusing and sad experience, but not a dangerous one. We can feel paralyzed and powerless in bad relationships, but if we can make a move or a decision without risking harm or danger from our partner, it's not abuse, and a different kind of help/support is called for, such as counseling, confrontation, mediation, or separation.
16
You should not work in Human Resources if you would consider questioning your confidentiality. You could put your job and the company in jeopardy by disclosing this early to your friend. What difference would a day or 2 make in your friends situation anyways realistically? If she is mad at your for doing your job then so be it.
32
“Jack” and “Jane” are a classic he said/she said. There is no way to verify that any of this is true, outside of that it is Jane's perception that it is.
Years ago, I had a friend who told me that her husband was verbally abusive. They lived in a house with a rental apartment on the top floor, which one of our mutual friends rented for a year. After she moved out, she told me it was our friend who was the verbally abusive spouse, screaming at her husband almost every day.
Stay out of it and take what the friend says with a grain of salt.
Years ago, I had a friend who told me that her husband was verbally abusive. They lived in a house with a rental apartment on the top floor, which one of our mutual friends rented for a year. After she moved out, she told me it was our friend who was the verbally abusive spouse, screaming at her husband almost every day.
Stay out of it and take what the friend says with a grain of salt.
31
Lay of. Your telling your friend is a great way to be fired for cause, and possibly less humane than their receiving the news from a professional trained to do so—likely if your company is large. If yours is a small or family firm then why not suggest to your manager that you would like to deliver the news (or be present) and see if they'll allow that? At the very least you can be available immediately after as shoulder to cry on, and resume/interview adviser.
Addiction. Before you do anything, please go to Al-anon where you will meet others in similar situation, and who can help YOU decide if, or how best to help your son-in-law and his children; as well as how to discuss with extended family should you decide to do so. Beside paying for things, please continue to stay as involved in these children's lives, providing good role models and stability, to the maximum extent you are allowed. At some point you may wish to seek professional advise in how best to deal with the many complicated aspects of your family's situation. Good luck from someone who's been there!
Addiction. Before you do anything, please go to Al-anon where you will meet others in similar situation, and who can help YOU decide if, or how best to help your son-in-law and his children; as well as how to discuss with extended family should you decide to do so. Beside paying for things, please continue to stay as involved in these children's lives, providing good role models and stability, to the maximum extent you are allowed. At some point you may wish to seek professional advise in how best to deal with the many complicated aspects of your family's situation. Good luck from someone who's been there!
9
"I have learned, both from Jane and from another close friend of hers, that Jack is verbally abusive." So says the 'friend' in the letter to you for advice. You respond with " You wouldn’t speak of “verbal abuse” unless it involved a lot more than nagging or occasionally raising his voice in anger." Now advice giver, you have severely overstepped the bounds of giving reasonable advice, both for lack of a two sided story, and for assuming, sua sponte, that the abuse is very bad because otherwise this complainant wouldn't bring the problem to you. Where is your evidence? Where is the response of the abuser? You are acting beyond your evidence.
19
Jane needs to be encouraged to seek counseling. She's staying in an abusive situation, and that's unhealthy. If Jane speaks to other women and professional counselors, she may realize how damaging Jack's attitude is, and she is a much better prospect for therapy. Jack won't try to change as long as Jane continues to endure it, and he probably in massive denial.
HR- Ridiculous to risk your job by breaking a confidence, and the motivation would be so that your friend get bad news a day early? If you think you have the right to tip off certain employees, you're in the wrong job. You've been asked to keep a secret. Do it. If you think a personal friend is being terminated unjustly, you can give her advice - but only after the fact, and out of the work context, based upon your knowledge of employment regulations...
Opiates - Their daughter and grandchildren are in a type of danger, and you're concerned about how the other grandparents will feel about you? Until the son changes, things can only continue to spiral downward. He has already resisted help, which is very common. Opiate addiction progresses relentlessly. There is no stasis. An unemployed addict is an even greater danger to his family, and he is frequenting people who are breaking the law. He may wind up in jail if he is lucky; in any case, you should immediately consider the welfare of the kids in his probable absence one way or another.
HR- Ridiculous to risk your job by breaking a confidence, and the motivation would be so that your friend get bad news a day early? If you think you have the right to tip off certain employees, you're in the wrong job. You've been asked to keep a secret. Do it. If you think a personal friend is being terminated unjustly, you can give her advice - but only after the fact, and out of the work context, based upon your knowledge of employment regulations...
Opiates - Their daughter and grandchildren are in a type of danger, and you're concerned about how the other grandparents will feel about you? Until the son changes, things can only continue to spiral downward. He has already resisted help, which is very common. Opiate addiction progresses relentlessly. There is no stasis. An unemployed addict is an even greater danger to his family, and he is frequenting people who are breaking the law. He may wind up in jail if he is lucky; in any case, you should immediately consider the welfare of the kids in his probable absence one way or another.
5
The HR worker made a commitment (likely by taking the job, not specifically assuring confidentiality for this issue) to keep certain matters confidential. It comes with the territory of having access to and being required to work with certain sensitive information. HR, among other, workers need to be black holes when it comes to much of the information they encounter.
Is a response really expected in the two days between contacting the Ethicist and the friend being canned?
Is a response really expected in the two days between contacting the Ethicist and the friend being canned?
54
"I think he is hurting in his own way because of things that have happened in the relationship and is just doing an awful job of dealing with it."
The "things that have happened in the relationship" seem relevant to the discussion (though probably not appropriate to share on such a forum). Since Name Withheld uses is as a partial excuse for what Jack does, it seems that Jane did something pretty bad. Otherwise, Name Withheld wouldn't be so willing to potentially let Jack off so easy. I'm not saying Jill deserves what she's getting, but I would guess she had a role, though not necessarily the only role, in causing it (aka, "it's complicated")
If Name Withheld believes what I quoted above (and the rest of that original paragraph), his/her duty as a friend would be to support Jack (like one would an addict who needs/is trying to recover). Don't betray Jane's confidence, but encourage her to encourage him to get help (if the situation allows it) or put together enough pieces of your own experience to independently come to the same conclusion as Jane and have an honest talk with Jack about it.
The "things that have happened in the relationship" seem relevant to the discussion (though probably not appropriate to share on such a forum). Since Name Withheld uses is as a partial excuse for what Jack does, it seems that Jane did something pretty bad. Otherwise, Name Withheld wouldn't be so willing to potentially let Jack off so easy. I'm not saying Jill deserves what she's getting, but I would guess she had a role, though not necessarily the only role, in causing it (aka, "it's complicated")
If Name Withheld believes what I quoted above (and the rest of that original paragraph), his/her duty as a friend would be to support Jack (like one would an addict who needs/is trying to recover). Don't betray Jane's confidence, but encourage her to encourage him to get help (if the situation allows it) or put together enough pieces of your own experience to independently come to the same conclusion as Jane and have an honest talk with Jack about it.
4
The most important question here is that of potential escalation. Jane's safety should be of paramount concern if there is any chance that Jack's abuse could become more than verbal. While the writer doesn't seem to be concerned about that occurring, verbal abusers are not safely taken lightly.
6
"Otherwise, Name Withheld wouldn't be so willing to potentially let Jack off so easy."
People in this society are trained to make excuses for abusers, right up to the point the victim gets killed. I wouldn't make that assumption.
Letter-writer, men who abuse women are often perfectly decent to other men. That's part of how they get away with it.
People in this society are trained to make excuses for abusers, right up to the point the victim gets killed. I wouldn't make that assumption.
Letter-writer, men who abuse women are often perfectly decent to other men. That's part of how they get away with it.
47
Whoa, Dave. So Jack being cheated on or perpetually nagged by Jane would mean that Jane had contributed to the verbal abuse? You say, "I would guess she had a role." So, not being abused in a relationship is a function of the non-abuser's behavior? In that scenario, abuse is a always a weapon held at bay, coming out of the toolbox if the partner's behavior falls below certain standards. That's like a guy saying, "hey, at least I never hit her," as though it was somehow commendable that he had taken that option off the table. Human decency is when that option is never on the table to begin with.
26