Enablers of abuse - just as guilty as abusers?

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 mind.

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).

It's a general principle in the Christian faith, a faith that even extends morality into our thought lives, as opposed to simply actions, Matthew 5:28, 1 John 3:15, that anybody that participates in any fashion with evil is a partaker of that evil, of course this therefore a standard of morality, and at least God not mocked by the, as if, "Well, I didn't pull the trigger!" attitude so prevalent. Consider these verses, which involve merely entertaining, wishing well, wishing blessings, upon an evildoer:

2 John 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

There's a saying that says a lot, along these lines, "You can't be a little pregnant."

It seems even common sense a facilitator of evil is part of the program, if they're contributing to the evil results in any form. Sort of seems a no-brainer, as a matter of fact.

dude, this is so complicated.

mods? we have a technical issue.

double post.

sorry triple it seems.

wtf sorry

i am nit doing this

take a deep breath this must be last

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
It's a general principle in the Christian faith, a faith that even extends morality into our thought lives, as opposed to simply actions, Matthew 5:28, 1 John 3:15, that anybody that participates in any fashion with evil is a partaker of that evil, of course this therefore a standard of morality, and at least God not mocked by the, as if, "Well, I didn't pull the trigger!" attitude so prevalent. Consider these verses, which involve merely entertaining, wishing well, wishing blessings, upon an evildoer:

2 John 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

There's a saying that says a lot, along these lines, "You can't be a little pregnant."

It seems even common sense a facilitator of evil is part of the program, if they're contributing to the evil results in any form. Sort of seems a no-brainer, as a matter of fact.

You make some excellent points, I like the references, so many hidden gems in there which, unfortunately, too many people blow off (or mock) simply due to the "origin" ("God" or the bible). I think this mindset is poison against a society when they can't take good advice simply because of the source. When people won't take a hypocrites advice, they really need to look at themselves b/c I think in many ways it is brave to be a hypocrite if they are trying to help someone avoid a downfall/trouble. Sure it can make a person a hypocrite but they may be in the best position to know what to/not do and dismissing their thoughts/suggestions simply because of hypocrisy is often being a fool and short sighted.