posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 12:25 PM
Time and again we see stories of people who abuse others with the assistance of enablers who act on behalf of the abuser by means of minimizing the
actions of the abuser, or trying to convince the person who was abused that they are being judgmental or exaggerating or even making up the story.
The enabler often dismisses the accusations or says that the victim doesn't see what is really happening or even tries to convince them that it is
largely the victims fault. In most cases it is often similar to the "good cop / bad cop" scenario, where the enabler acts as if they are on the
side of the victim when in actuality they are acting as the eyes and ears of the abuser to find out what the victim is thinking or feeling. They also
often plant seeds of confusion where they "don't remember" the abuse actions or reports (even though they were completely described by the victim
after they happened). This basically isolates the victim b/c they thought the enabler was on their side, but in actuality, they were working for the
abuser by heading off any possible reporting or confrontation of the abuser.
Other actions by enablers are things like providing cover (lies about how the incident unfolded - "mis-remembering" the situation in favor of making
the abuser seem like they are being overly sensitive or even out right lying - often stated in more appeasing terminology).
What I'm wondering is how others view the role of enablers, are they just as guilty as the abuser? W/o the enabler, the actions of the abuser would
be much more clear to victim, but the enabler skews this view, plants seeds of confusion and doubt, allowing the abuse to continue.
I see that the enabler almost always benefits in some manner from their role. It's possible the abuser provides the primary means of financial
support and w/o this support the enabler would be on their own, but in this sick, dysfunctional relationship, the enabler gets taken care of by the
abuser for their services of planting seeds of doubt.
In some situations, especially when this is a family dynamic, and the victim is a child (either biological, adopted or friend/acquaintance) I see the
enabler as being just as guilty if not more so, than the abuser, b/c w/o their efforts, the actions of the abuser would be very appearant to the
victim and they would probably take action, but with the enabler, all kind of doubt is thrown in the mix and it allows for the abuse to continue, and
in most cases, even get worse b/c the abuser knows what the victim is thinking and they do sick things to instill fear, doubt, etc in the victims
I think the courts need to look at the actions of enablers more closely and when handing out sentencing they should be just as guilty as the abuser,
getting the same sentences (and this thing of females getting small fractions of punishment compared to male abusers, needs to stop immediately).