A Domestic Violence Situation and Tale - from a well known Canadian Musician.

Hi everyone. Today I thought I'd share a video by J.P. Cormier. J.P. Cormier is a traveling musician from Canada and I've seen him in concert six times. Two of those times were with another musician by the name of Dave Gunning. You can catch a little of their music from a video on You Tube (Place: Celtic Colours International Festival. Song: Kate O’ The Gowrie. Arrangement: Dave Gunning and J.P. Cormier. Year: 2019).   

J.P. Cormier is a fantastic guitar player, and has admirable arrangements, songwriting skills, and does You Tube videos reviewing guitars, teaching various styles of playing, interviews and jam sessions with other musicians, and anything else he can think of. He's a highly acclaimed and well known musician in Canada. He is not as well-known in the USA, but frequently crosses the border to perform. 

Anyway, my husband, who also plays the guitar and is a multi-instrumentalist, likes to watch J.P.'s videos from time to time. And sometimes we watch them together. And was he surprised to come across a video from four years ago where J.P. Cormier discusses domestic violence and child abuse!

He had me sit down and watch it.  

So I thought I'd share that video with all of you too.

I appreciate J.P.'s candor and ability to talk about this subject without fear. I have a few comments following the video. 

See it here directly on You Tube:
"A Life in Music Ep. 69 - Showdown at the FU Corral"
or below:

Some of my comments:

People who commit domestic violence "often make themselves appear to be victimized by the partner they are actually abusing". - that quote and link is from Google AI. 

Victims of domestic violence can minimize the threat to themselves. - that link goes to DomesticShelters.org. 

Domestic violence victims can feel guilty for seeing their partner in jail. - that link also goes to DomesticShelters.org 

There are reasons why so few abusers change:

It is not very likely they will change - check this article from the National Abuse Hotline

Can Abusers Change? 5 Almost Impossible Obstacles Explained - by The Mend Project
- this article explains why:
* Perpetrators are in relationships to control the other person.  
* There is entitlement and double standards (i.e. "What's okay for me to do, isn't okay for you to do.")
* Family System bias (I usually call this "family prejudice", whether it be about choice of spouse, politics, weight, race, sex of person such as misogyny, disabilities, cultural leanings - usually there is something they've learned to be prejudiced about from their family of origin that is often a family tradition too)
* Image control (undermining others to uphold status) - other articles refer to this as "efforts to achieve grandiosity at others' expense". 
* Low emotional IQ: "disinterest in others' emotions, resulting in controlling behaviors, lack of empathy, and defensiveness." - quote from the article. However, low emotional IQ can also be the result of brain chemistry in some perpetrators. 

My personal view on why narcissists tend not to change is all of these things, but I'll also add that when a person is mainly out to control others, dominate others and have power over others, they are not thinking about "how to treat others better", or "how to make up with others so that the relationship can grow and thrive", or even about "how to get along with others better". In other words, they are going after people and relationships for a totally different reason than the rest of us are. 

I also think part of the problem is that society is machine, utility, tool and toy oriented. We "use things" constantly to "make our lives easier and better". Somewhere in an abuser's budding brain, he or she got the idea that they can use people in the same way as they use a toy, a utility, a tool or a machine. If they see that it will work to a greater rather than lesser extent, they keep using people. 

People who use people to make their lives easier and better aren't looking at this "machine-person" or "toy-person", and trying to decipher its feelings. They are either thinking, "This toy or machine is working" or "not working". They are either going to fix the toy-person or machine-person that works best for them, or in a way that "puts them back together the way they used to be." If they feel that the machine-person or toy-person will no longer work in the way they want it to, or in the way that it used to, they have to make another choice. In fact, they are forced to make another choice.

And how do people treat toys and machines when they don't work the way want them to, or they used to, or are "supposed to"? Maybe they don't understand the mechanisms that make this toy or machine work or rebel. Someone who is rage-driven, control-driven and antagonistically driven as many perpetrators tend to be usually either gets mad at the machine or toy and stomps all over it, or throws it away in a fit of anger. And so: "Welcome to the world of domestic violence!" and for people in power who act like this, "Welcome to dictatorship!" too. 

Some questions/ruminations I have ... 

J.P. talks about pulling back from playing music performances with her, and playing with "guys" instead. "Pulling back" could have meant she was no longer making money, or that the music partnership was dissolving and that she didn't know what to do, or how to resolve it, or how to react, or what to do with her own music career. Maybe she couldn't think, and just found that her anger was building.

"Pulling back" might also mean, to some women, "fear of being abandoned, of marriage failure, of marriage dissolution, of marital money being only controlled by him, of marital harmony only controlled by him, of marital status only being controlled by him".

For someone who might be controlling, having the partner in control instead might have been interpreted as "deeply threatening", "deeply unnerving", "deeply provoking", or "of feeling threatened". Even if it is a "phantom threat", or a "possible threat", or a "threat of possibilities" of more withdrawal, an insecure person might lash out? Might turn a "phantom threat" into a "real threat" in her own mind?

Is it possible that this was the main impetus for "the scenes" in the room where he was sleeping? 

Granted, it's hard to figure out as he never really knew either. I'm making a few hypotheses based on what I know about "perpetrator behaviors", and the fact that these behaviors are often based on "control" of another person, or feeling "out of control" or "not controlling enough" when it comes to other people. 

Also, he was allegedly a victim of child abuse. And as a child, he learned to be afraid, and to walk away, as he saw that nothing was to be gained by violence, or sticking around to fight back. "Staying, getting mad, and fighting back can kill a person" because the body is fragile, and you can't be sure you are "saving someone" when you are fighting them at the same time, even in self defense.

He also says that guns and knives were pointed at him when he was a child. He admits in the video that his mind was filled with panic and fear, which was, perhaps, why his first instinct was to "get safe" by locking the door on his wife when she was trying to get back in the room. 

It sounds like his mind went wild, possibly envisioning guns and knives and other weapons pointed at him, similar to what he went through in childhood. 

Childhood memories and childhood trauma can have a big impact on how we react when we are adults - having guns and knives pointed at you, and being a victim of violence as a child, can impact the way you deal with scenes that might seem similar in adulthood. 

Anyway, those are some of my own thoughts on the matter ... 

Here are some more links:

Am I likely to be abused no matter what, i.e. be a victim of domestic violence again? Abuse escalates; it's very rare for it to de-escalate, whether that's physical abuse or emotional abuse or both. In other words, it tends increase in danger and types of abuse, not decrease.

Forgiving abusers is often not suggested (from Google AI):

Forgiving abusers is not required for healing and is often not suggested, as it can hinder recovery by enabling continued abuse, reducing necessary consequences for the abuser, and forcing premature closure. Trauma recovery focuses on the survivor’s safety and needs, making forgiveness a personal choice rather than a necessity, say Psychology Today. 

Key reasons why forgiving an abuser is often not recommended include:

* Risk of Further Abuse: Premature or forced forgiveness can lead to safety risks, enabling continued abuse.

* Lack of Accountability: Forgiving too quickly, especially without genuine repentance from the abuser, can remove necessary consequences for their actions.

* Hindering Healing: It may interrupt the necessary process of dealing with emotions like anger and grief, acting as a form of self-betrayal, notes YouTube.

* Not an Obligation: Survivors are not obligated to forgive to heal, and doing so should not be seen as a mandatory step in therapy.

The Truth About Forgiving Abuse With Valerie Hudson

Have you been told to forgive an emotionally abusive husband? Here's what you need to know. - by Betrayal Trauma Recovery Podcast

Going back to abusers and living in a cycle of constant reconciliations after abuse are often not suggested by therapists. 

Do a lot of adult children who have been abused or assalted during childhood end up being the victim of domestic violence or domestic abuse in adulthood? Yes. Abuse was normalized in the childhood home, so victims of child abuse tend to stay in relationships that are abusive in adulthood longer than most people do. 

Do a lot of adult children of child abuse end up in the arts? Yes. What the Google AI article reveals (partial):
Yes, research and anecdotal evidence suggest a significant link between childhood adversity—including abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction—and a higher likelihood of individuals pursuing careers in the arts. Studies indicate that traumatic childhoods can drive individuals to channel their pain into intense creativity, using art as a vehicle for emotional expression, recovery, and control.

What is Battered Wife Syndrome? (however this can manifest in men too). 

Anyway, I feel bad about what happened to him. It doesn't surprise me that he turned to the guitar and to performing considering all of what he endured. There are things in life that relieve trauma better than others, and the rhythms, modes of practice and time alone have something in common with trauma therapies. Even the most common therapy, EMDR, has a very rhythmic element to it. I think this is why, in part, people who have gone through abuse turn to arts professions. Some of it also has to do with acceptance based on competence, and even "perfectionism". And some of it has to do with social elements like being part of a tribe of other people in the arts. 

I find a lot of former victims are "nature bugs" too: hikers, photographers of nature, animal caretakers, people who enjoy being outdoors more than indoors, world or country travelers, traveling salesmen, farmers who enjoy farming the old way with horses, people who work in wildlife profesions, etc. Again, there are elements of this that may have some resemblence to trauma therapy too. 

At some point I will share some of my findings about this phenomenon. I'm probably not going to be able to bring up individual names, but there is no harm in bringing up the subject in ways that may be really helpful to others. 

Thank you, J.P. for being so open. May it help others. 

Why Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families Find It Impossible to Turn Themselves Into Sycophants. Comes with a Discussion on Largely Involuntary Independent Thinking, C-PTSD and Healing.

A WORD ON WRITING THIS ARTICLE
AND OTHER ARTICLES

I turned to Google AI to write this article, which I have to admit has been a boon to research.

When I first started posts, some articles were available on the internet and not just in paper periodicals or books. I tried to stick with on-line articles so that people wouldn't think I was claiming unsubstantiated claims. I largely turned to PubMed articles, books and periodicals at first.

Then as the subject of narcissistic abuse started to explode in online sites like Psychology Today, Psych Central, and on You Tube, a lot of questions were answered between those sites.

Now with Google AI, the synopsis of articles on the web made it so much easier to find an answer rather than sifting through a lot of articles, some of them professional, some of them interviews with professionals, and some of them weren't professional enough. Now with Google AI, the searching is cut short so that I can publish articles in a much shorter period of time. 

PRELUDE

Is it common for narcissistic parents to want sycophants out of their children? Yes (from the link: "total compliance and admiration" of the parent).

Do narcissistic parents demand that their children be sycophants? Yes - from the link: even in demanding that the child relinquish their own identity to serve the parent's ego. 

And can a parent really hate their own child for not being a sycophant? Yes, absolutely. Especially narcissistic parents. 

Do parents reject a child for not being a sycophant? Yes. The caveat here is that they are almost always from narcissistic families. 

Do narcissistic parents abuse and punish a child for not being a sycophant? Yes. - from the link: "any sign of dissent or lack of 'sycophantic' devotion is often perceived as a personal threat or a 'betrayal'."

Do family scapegoats get PTSD from being forced to be a sycophant by a narcissistic parent? Yes. -  from the link: "Yes, family scapegoats frequently develop PTSD—and more commonly, Complex PTSD (C-PTSD)—as a result of the prolonged, chronic emotional abuse and coercive control exerted by a narcissistic parent. Being forced into a sycophantic role (acting as a submissive, fawning, or flattering supporter) to avoid wrath is a survival mechanism that, over time, causes deep psychological trauma."

Do narcissistic parents reject a child who has PTSD for not being a sycophant? Yes. "Rejection trauma" then becomes part of the PTSD and can lead to C-PTSD.  

Is the pressure to be a sycophant by a narcissistic parent unhealthy and traumatizing?  Yes. - from the link: ... "deeply unhealthy and traumatizing". I might add "de-humanizing" to this list if I could. 

Do narcissistic parents abuse and intimidate a child for not being a sycophant? Yes. The link reaveals this: For narcissists that generally means verbal and emotional attacks, threats and intimidation, isolating the child, trying to force a child to be loyal to them, neglect and conditional love and approval based upon whether the parent is getting praise or submission from the child.

All of this tends to be true for a narcissist's adult children, even when the child is receiving Medicare and Social Security. In other words, it never seems to end, and scapegoats see the negative side of sycophancy, the tendencies of sycophants to lose respectability, the tendencies they have to relinquish principles and morals for momentary rewards, the tendencies to keep favor with a narcissist even if it means doing things they might not normally do like bullying others into compliance for narcissistic reasons, or defending a narcissist who threatens, discards or fires family members.

It is why most scapeoats feel they have to be independent-minded, wary and on guard in an environment of coercive control and sycophants who do "the dirty work" of up-ending peace. Plus, most scapegoat's brains are wired to be independent in early childhood, to the point of role-busting, giving up on the narcissist and sometimes the whole entire family in adulthood. Most all scapegoats dream of a better life and make steps, even if not decipherable to the family, to get there. 

I hope this post shows a little of how scapegoats see their role, why many or most feel it is a role they cannot adapt to, why they feel they might have flee from it, how independent-mindedness develops, and how an independent mind helps with survival, safety, and warding off self destruction. 

WHY SCAPEGOATS ARE UNLIKELY TO TURN INTO SYCOPHANTS

I decided again to use a Google AI article to expound on the reason why family scapegoats are unlikely to turn into sycophants. The original Google AI article is written in dark red, then come my comments and further research into the claims where other articles are either linked to or typed in blue: 

Scapegoats are unlikely to turn into sycophants because the experience of being unjustly blamed often fosters independence, a strong sense of truth and justice, and a deep-seated resistance to manipulation and control. Sycophancy, in contrast, requires subservience and a willingness to abandon one's personal truth for the approval of the abuser.

One thing that happens is that narcissistic parents still expect their scapegoat child or children to become sycophants anyway, despite these elements. 

However, it often becomes impossible because the scapegoat becomes wired for independence - the brain of the scapegoat goes through significant changes in order to compensate for the unjust blaming, shaming, false narratives and smear campaigns typical of narcissistic abuse. 

Some of this has to do with lying: Habitual and frequent lying is a core, hallmark trait of narcissists. It is even more so for sociopaths and malignant narcissists. This has a lot of bearing on why family scapegoats become independent-minded and begin, in childhood, to move their minds away from the judgements, narratives, and shaming sessions of narcissistic family members.  

This means that scapegoat children are likely to stop believing in what narcissistic family members or a narcissistic parent has to say sooner rather than later, and usually much sooner than their siblings. They realize that the parent not only lies about them, the scapegoat, but many, many other people, situations, conversations and actions. Most narcissists try to hide many things about themselves, and adopt false personas or a false self to carry their pride, grandiosity and hide the vulnerable, shame-filled, impulsive and immoral side of themselves. 

In trying to hide what they'd prefer not to believe about themselves, or take accountability for, they reason it has to go somewhere else, away from them, so they often pick a vulnerable child who they think won't resist carrying the narcissist's load of regrets, sins, shame, lies and general lack of ethics, and all of their "bad traits", and project it all on to one of their children. This is backed by research, by the way.  

Most scapegoating of a child starts by the time the child is four years old. But it can start much earlier, often when a child is a toddler. 

Narcissists equate shame with less power, less ability to sway others, less domination, less control over others, and less public and private attention. So they do not want to feel shame at all, or show shame, or be accountable for shameful actions, or be exposed for shameful actions, or have anyone talk about anything that would bring them shame. It's one reason why they are so controlling, why they blame shift, why they shame others, including children, a lot, and why they insist on total loyalty, domination and sycophancy from their children. You can read more of my articles about narcissism and shame HERE. Scroll down a bit.

Lying by the narcissistic parent is often enabled in a family because of how ferocious the narcissist reacts when "found out". You'd think they'd avoid lying rather than using a scapegoat, but apparently it's not possible for most narcissists to consider. It's easier to lie, and then try to convince others that the scapegoat is lying instead.

However, there is often an under-tone of secrecy between members that, yes indeed, the narcissist will lie just about anything, and lies way too much, and blame-shifts everything negative that they do on to other family members to save their image and reputation, at least to outsiders. 

To a bright scapegoat child, this is an oxymoron way to get away with abuse, and addictions, and extra-marital affairs, and getting more power, and bullying someone at work, and other actions that narcissists are famous for. "They're going to lie about all of these things to save their reputation? But isn't lying giving them a bad reputation in and of itself?" 

And it is this "awareness" in the scapegoat that, in the eyes of the narcissist, invites further abuse. Many scapegoats realize that if they confront the parent about the parent's shameful behaviors, they, the scapegoat, gets punished by the narcissist. To cover up the punishment the narcissist does, the narcissist lies further, until lies cover up other lies.

Reality becomes a confused mess when narcissists are in charge of stating what the definition of reality is, what happened, who said what, and what it means about the people involved. Good judgements and bad judgements of others are often arbitrary, and are most likely to be about whether a person is giving the narcissist good or bad narcissistic supply. In other words, narcissists have no commitment to the truth, and have no convictions about the truth.  

And in order to make the scapegoat "at fault" for being intelligent and aware enough to know what the truth is, and what is going on and not going on, including all of the layers of lies, the narcissistic parent feels they have to gaslight and isolate the scapegoat from attention and love and many of them tell others that the scapegoat is crazy and deeply flawed, "so don't believe anything my (scapegoat child) has to say."   

Sometimes the other parent, if they are brave enough, validates the child's experiences of being lied to and about. They can do it clandestinely, or outright, challenging their spouse ... but doing it outright gets them blowback and often revenge from the narcissist. 

So it tends to be another bad family secret. In more toxic families where the narcissist is enabled to abuse the scapegoat, the scapegoat may be told to "shut up" and not challenge the narcissistic parent.

Then lying, in of itself, is enabled, and eventually normalized. This is backed by research - that link has this to say:
"Normalizing lies in a family can lead to a decline in empathy. Deception creates a 'vicious cycle' where a lack of emotional closeness, or 'empathic accuracy,' leads to further lies"
... and this to say: "Individuals in such environments may start to view themselves as separate from others, leading to a decreased capacity to understand or care about the feelings of family members" 
... and this: "Constant, normalized lying destroys trust, which can cause family members to feel secure only when they are manipulating situations or controlling others" 
... and this: "Small, self-serving lies can escalate into bigger ones. When the emotional "brake" on dishonesty is disabled, people tend to behave more selfishly."
Perhaps the biggest fall-out is this (from the same link): "Antisocial Tendencies: Greater exposure to lying in childhood is associated with higher levels of antisocial personality problems, such as aggression and rule-breaking, in adulthood." 

In fact the whole premise of family dynamics can be: "Lying gets me what I want. And because my parent lies so much to get what they want, I think I'll do that too." 

And this is how family mobbing against a scapegoat becomes a danger to the scapegoat: "I didn't hit her! She fell!" - when a family member did hit her. "He got way more out of the inheritance than I got" - when they forced a parent to sign over everything to them. "I wouldn't beat her up! She's my sister!" - when he did beat her up. "I would never have an affair on you!" - when he is having several affairs. "I wouldn't steal from him! From a family member!?!" - when he did steal.  

You can see how the closeness disappears over self serving behaviors. And self serving behaviors are much easier to do when lying becomes modeled by a parent, acceptable self-behavior by a parent, ignored by a parent who could care less whether a child or children are lying, and normalized in a family. And self serving behaviors with lies turn into criminal behaviors sooner or later, thus the Antisocial Personality Disorder starting to appear in the family line and usually continuing down the generations.

And once Antisocial Personality Disorder appears, you can count on members going "no contact". This is because an Antisocial Personality Disordered family member can present many dangerous situations to a family, and especially a scapegoat. That last link says "severe danger" to a scapegoat child.  

And who is the most likely to go "no contact" in a family? The scapegoat. 

By the time they go "no contact", the lies about them have reached epic proportions, and criminality in some members has started to escalate against the scapegoat to unbearable levels too. - That link points to financial sabotage, malicious defamation, physical bullying and assault, and something called The "Flynn" Mechanism. Here is an explanation of the "Flynn Mechanism": "By making the scapegoat appear crazy, 'bad,' or unstable, the true abusers justify their actions as necessary, protective, or 'tough love'." (from the same link). 

One thing that is not covered is theft and home invasion by family members. This is more common than you would think, especially against scapegoats, so beware! Perhaps I'll bring that up another time (with some personal stories). 

Anyway, small children aren't going to be careful what they say to narcissistic family members or sociopathic members: "Mommy, I saw you kissing that man. Don't you like Daddy any more?" when they are only seven. 

"How dare you lie about that!" - when they didn't. "You are going to be punished severely for saying that when we get home! Don't you ever accuse me of kissing anyone other than you father again! Do you hear me?" - getting down in the child's face: "DO YOU HEAR ME?!!!" 

This story reveals that lying often comes with intimidation. 

Narcissistic parents aren't going to forget that they were challenged by the scapegoat child, even when only seven years old, ever, as they consider it an extreme and dire threat to the way they want to construct reality, and to their ego and grandiose sense of self. The narcissist becomes paranoid that they will be further exposed, and in order for the scapegoat to survive in the family environment, the scapegoat is chronically gaslighted often for the rest of their lives. It is the ultimate punishment, even though the scapegoat was only a child when they noticed the parent's vulnerability to immoral addictions and shame. 

The scapegoat either has to play along with the narcissist, and pretend they, the scapegoat, is flawed and crazy, or they have to "go silent", or they have to take their grievances elsewhere, or they have to try hard to believe what the parent tells them (self betrayal), or they have to take their perceptions outside the family, or to the other parent, or to a sibling who also "agrees and notices". No matter which way they turn to live in the truth with safety, there is going to be a lot of anxiety.

Expressing dissatisfaction about the lies or dysfunction is met with further hostility from those members who want to avoid responsibility, thus creating more and more selfishness in family members. - one part of the article in the link puts it this way: "Reinforcing Selfishness: This dynamic creates selfishness in family members because they are conditioned to protect their own reputation or ego—often driven by a narcissistic parent—at the expense of the scapegoat’s well-being."

Often the other parent is getting gaslighted too about the scapegoat, and does not want to endure the narcissist's rages either. So the parent who could protect the scapegoat wholly, may do it in parts, or try to do it in secret, or they take the road that they don't want to protect the scapegoat because they don't want to endure rage and punishment from their spouse. Or they may go silent when the narcissist is obviously scapegoating and lying, freezing and not knowing what to do. Or they may rush to be the savior, the reliant parent, the good parent to the child who is getting abused (therefor not lose the child and gain loyalty from that child). Or if they are abused themselves, they may neglect to protect the scapegoat child to save themselves from a punishing divorce by the same narcissist. Or if they are abused themselves they may try to protect the scapegoat child to make an ally out of him or her. Sometimes it is all of these things. You can see that it creates a lot of turmoil.

Sometimes narcissists expect undying loyalty, even in terms of a spouse being loyal to, and agreeing with every narcissist's claim and perspective even if they are chronically disloyal themselves, and even when it comes to insisting that their spouse agree with and partake in scapegoating their own child.  

It's hard to believe that a spouse would go along with the scapegoating, especially since narcissists are so disloyal, so threatening and transactional, and can be evil and scheming, but like cabinet members of dictatorial politicians who go against their own moral principles to follow, it happens. 

This is a terrible "trap" of an environment to live in, even if a scapegoat has outlets for telling the truth about what is going on. So much is stuffed. 

Protection for most scapegoats tends to be tenuous as the narcissist tries to control everyone's reactions. 

So when the narcissist talks, the independent mind can be in full charge. The verbalizing and thinking become internalized (and if the trust is broken, speculative):
* "This might be a lie I'm hearing from my parent, so I'm not necessarily going to believe them. They can rattle on as much as they want, but at least they don't own my mind."
* "Oh, no, my parent wants me to agree with them. I'll just nod that I understand what they are saying and put my head down so that they think they are in charge of my thinking. Or maybe not. These choices are awful! I want to get out of this!"
* "I'm so tired of listening to (my parent). I'm not in a mood to decipher what's a lie and what isn't after that boy tripped me on my way out of the school bus. I just want to be free and be left alone with my thoughts and projects."
* "I'm so tired of this charade. I'd like to tell (my parent) that I know they are lying. I'm either stuck in a silent Hell or I'm getting punished for telling the truth. No good decisions here." 
* "Dad" (the narcissist) "thinks I'm not listening. Doesn't he get I don't enjoy talking to him about any of this? I guess not. Why is he trying to talk me into hating Mom again? He's trying to get me to think the way he does about her, but I'm not going to. I'd like to get out of this seat. I wonder when he'll be done. I'd like to turn him off because he's starting to sound like a loud horn, but I have to pay attention to him just in case I get quizzed on what he said or I'll get punished. I hate having to be pressured by him on all of this!" 
* "Now my mother wants to buy me this horrible sweater. Am I surprised? She likes to buy me ugly things I don't want, but for all she knows, I might cut it up and embroider on it. Then what is she going to do? She knows it will look bad on me and she knows I know that it is the cheapest sweater in the store. It's just another 'Here, dear. This is all you deserve - this ugly sweater that you'll have to wear to please me' kind of life. I guess I'll only wear it in her presence and to show others what a good mother she is for buying me such an ugly, ugly sweater. Maybe it should have some really bad stains and filth on it to impress her fake friends and fake self." 
* "My stepmother must want to prove to my Dad she's totally on his side against me. I wonder what kind of prize she'll get? Another honeymoon cruise? More diamonds? Getting him to send me off to live with Mom again? An estrangement?"
* "My stepfather is prattling on about how ungrateful I am again. I wonder what he wants from my mother. More sex? To give me up and put his kids first? I'll know soon enough!" 

I doubt a golden child thinks this way unless they are two-faced jekyll/hyde personality types. Cynicism is not their knee jerk reaction - usually. 

There is a British comedy called "Keeping Up Appearances" about a narcissistic woman called Hyacinth Bucket (who denies the "Bucket" name and instead calls herself "Hyacinth Bouquet" - sounds a little more hoity-toity, doesn't it?). Anyway, she has neighbors, Elizabeth and Emmet, who really don't like being around her, and who swear they will never be talked into anything Hyacinth demands again.

However, because they are "polite" to her to keep up their own appearances, they keep getting talked into things they don't want to do, perspectives they don't want to have, promoting Hyacinth to the upper class which they don't want to do, and intimidations they don't want to experience (Elizabeth shakes around Hyacinth - a PTSD symptom, and Emmet, who is a musician with sensitive ears, goes into a clandestine rage every time she wants to sing, cringing over her vocal tone and delivery). 

Of course, Hyacinth is blind to her effects on other people. She's got a grandiose vision of herself, her singing style, and her china closet, and feels entitled to get what she wants out of others.

It's a little like that except it's not a comedy, and it's full time, and it's under a lot of tremendous pressure, intimidation and threats, and it's your entire childhood, a childhood that should be about something else besides this.

Many scapegoats simply cannot listen to their parent with innocent "believing ears" any more because of the chronic lying, the often chronic unethical behaviors narcissistic parents exhibit, and the constant intimidation that if you expose them for who they are, they will react with some horrible fit of revenge.

"Revenge for telling the truth" - again, this is a child. Let that one sink in.  

However, also know that narcissistic parents severely punish a child for lying. 

It's also a double bind, "damned if I do, and damned if I don't" situation.

It's incredibly unhealthy - especially for a child. A child should be able to tell the truth, and live in the truth, and live in families that are truthful.

What is really happening is that some narcissists want to groom a child to lie about what the narcissistic parent wants them to lie about, and what they don't want them to lie about. What this link reveals is this (partial):

What Narcissistic Parents Groom Children to Lie About

Narcissistic parents typically coerce children into lying to serve the following ends: 

* Protecting the Parent's Image

* Alienating the Other Parent
* Avoiding Accountability: When a narcissistic parent neglects or abuses a child, they may groom that child to believe the abuse is "normal" or was the child's own fault, preventing the child from seeking help.

* Acting as a Messenger: Parents may dictate exactly what a child should say to the other parent or to authorities, effectively using them as a mouthpiece for the narcissist’s agenda.

There's a lot more in that link (press the Google AI button to get the Google AI version and the articles onthe right) It's pretty "sick".

But guess what? Some narcissists actually don't tell a child what to lie about and what not to lie about. They might say something like, "Well, of course you should always tell the truth", but then expect a child to go along with a lie for the narcissist's convenience.

But then the rules change again. It's mostly "a trial by fire" in narcissistic households, moving goal posts, extremely volitile situations of acceptance and rejection when it comes to this topic. By the way, moving the goal posts is defined by Google AI as: "In a relationship with a narcissist, "moving the goalposts" is a manipulation tactic where expectations are constantly shifted or redefined so they can never be met. This creates a no-win scenario designed to keep you in a perpetual state of striving for an unreachable standard."

And I should add "- designed to keep the scapegoat in a perpetual state of anxiety." 

This means that the scapegoat gets alternately rewarded or punished for lying in certain situations, and not lying in other situations. It also never adds up to any consistency of rules about what to lie about, and what not to lie about, what to be silent about, what a lie is and what a lie isn't. There aren't any teaching moments about this subject or any subject. It all comes down to what is convenient for the parent, hour by hour, day by day, and situation by situation. What was acceptable to lie about one day will not necessarily be acceptable to lie about another day.

The little girl who saw her Mommy kissing someone else other than her Daddy may eventually be told, "I didn't want you to tell Daddy. Grownups have affairs and they like to keep their affairs secret. It's not a big deal any more because I'm no longer with your Daddy" - after the child got severely punished over noticing it! It's a big deal to the child - you can count on it. 

The changing standards and ethics are common and impulsively annhilated any time the narcissist wants. 

For a narcissist, a perceptive awareness a child possesses is frightening for them, and it's also a contiunually losing battle for the parent too. It lies at the bottom for why the parent hates this child - because being afraid of a child's perceptions is a hit to the parent's ego ("I can lie and have affairs any old time and no one is going to notice, or hold me accountable!"). Anything and anyone who is a hit to a narcissist's ego is someone to loath and hate, even their own child. Here is what the Google AI link reveals: "Narcissistic parents often target the most intelligent and aware child as the scapegoat because these traits directly threaten the parent's control and carefully constructed facade. Instead of seeing a child's insight as a source of pride, the narcissist views it as a liability that must be suppressed to maintain the family’s denial."

And many narcissists try to "supress it to the max".

Most parents enjoy an intelligent, aware child, but unlike narcissistic parents, they don't need child sycophants or child scapegoats to keep their emotions, shame and ego regulated.

If you need a sycophant apparently you have to look for more stupidity, or someone who is like a puppet, or someone easily brainwashed, or someone without definite likes, dislikes, or a personality of their own, or who can be easily swayed by rewards or tentative promises. 

And it is this, folks, these arbitrary take-away-rules, put-the-rules-back-in, about what is acceptable and not aceptable behavior in terms of reacting, or keeping quiet, or lying or not lying, that cause a tremendous amount of stress for the scapegoat child, a stress that along with being invalidated and hated, saddles most of them with C-PTSD with an independent-style mind. 

HOW INDEPENDENCE OF MIND IS PUNISHED IN A NARCISSISTIC FAMILY,
BUT ALSO BUILDS A PATH TO HEALING FROM NARCISSISTIC ABUSE

I've already given you some internal dialogue examples, but I will give you more that aren't just a thought process when someone else is talking, but signify a path to healing. But first, "independence of mind" becomes, at its core, a "natural response" to the lying and pressures to lie, and believe in lies, and believe in promises that are unlikely to come true, and all of the things said about them by the parent. Finding your mind going in the opposite direction from the way a coercively controlling lying person wants it to go is actually part of childhood C-PTSD, more of an involuntary "human behavior".

While a parent's attacks can affect over-activity in the amygdala as well as other parts of the brain of the the child, and produce chronic hypervigilence, stuffing perceptions, stuffing emotions and stress, and stuffing feelings of panic at being attacked again, the fact is that even when the child is running to safety by "going along to get along", they are still not doing it in thinking. 

"How to keep safe" is going to be the first priority, always, and that takes independent thinking. "Should I talk; should I not talk?", "Should I hold my head down or look her straight in the eye", "Should I make better plans for my adult life instead of playing with toys", "Should I practice ______ a lot, so that I can make a living at it", "Should I try spending most of my life outside of the house so that I'm not attacked." Trying to figure out how to keep safe from attacks takes a lot of creative thinking, which is one reason why just about all scapegoats have a core trait of creativity. 

It's all a matter of trial and error, like any creative project, in figuring out how to deal with a narcissistic parent. One thing in a scapegoat's favor is that narcissistic traits don't change, which means that the parent is going to be super-predictable most of the time. While it's horrible to have to spend one's childhood constantly having to "bob and sway" against attacks emotionally and psychologically, and sometimes even physically, it's the only way forward in today's world until better laws are invented to protect children. 

While a scapegoat's major concern is to get out of childhood safely and intact, and mentally and emotionally capable, they are not going to be thinking, "how to connect with my parent", "how to go to my parent when I need safety", "how to talk to my parent about what is happening inside of me", "how to be closer my parent", "how to have a great relationship with my parent." The parent-child relationship is not like other parent-child relationships, it's an attack-and-defend relationship and it's not up to an abused child to save it from destruction.

Once "achieving safety" is all that is left of a relationship where trust and even safety from harm has been broken over and over again, it's just a fact of life that a scapegoat is going to have an independent mind and be insular in dialogue. 

While "achieving safety" is not selfish, it is self-oriented. It's not about being connected at all, but I would also argue that being a sycophant is not a very good love and soul connection either; it's about two people with agendas using each other, the sycophant using the narcissist to gain accesss to power or money, or both, and the narcissist using the sycophant to promote them in some hierarchical scheme or power ladder. 

While all children in a narcissistic family strive for safety too, they are a little more likely to adopt more sycophancy than is tolerable for a scapegoat. Let's make a wild guess and say that for scapegoats sycophancy/selfishness is only tolerable to them 10 percent of the time, for the lost child maybe 25 percent of the time, for the mascot only 50 percent of the time, and for the golden child, 90 percent of the time. Of course, some of the more empathetic golden children hate being pressured to be a sycophant as much as any scapegoat, so it's not an accurate picture, but I put it out there because sycophancy is definitely normalized in most narcissistic families even though to most people, sycophancy is looked at as disgusting, and toxic, and selfish oriented, and causes deep divisions with others. 

A sibling not protecting the scapegoat, for instance, is unprotective of him or her for both safety reasons ("my parent will hurt me for protecting my sibling") and selfish reasons ("I want something from my parent, so I better not protect the scapegoat if I'm going to get anything").

Bullying a scapegoat sibling is done for mostly selfish reasons, obviously, but it also might be done, in  part, for safety reasons ("My parent wants me to bully the scapegoat, and because I'll get punished if I don't do it, I have to do it, and I get rewarded for it besides."). 

Scapegoats may try sycophancy every now and then, not from the heart, but mostly to relieve tension, and because they know it is the only and major thing a narcissist wants, but I'd bet it is not building any kind of meaningful connection for either the parent or the scapegoat. It would be more about relieving stress for the child, and about feeling more emotionally regulated for the parent (less rage, less shame, less retaliatory thinking, less anxiety of "being found out"). 

With the scapegoat taking some steps towards sycophancy every now and then, narcissists are probably a little less likely to experience the same shame-rage spiral that they usually experience with a scapegoat (a very common spiral for narcissists when it comes to people they can't control). The narcissist goes into the spiral when the scapegoat is present, especially when it is obvious to the parent that the scapegoat is going through life as an independent, which is most of the time. 

Of course, "being a sycophant" and "wanting a sycophant" isn't a real relationship in the sense of most relationships between a child and parent - there's no closeness there; there isn't safety; wanting a sycophant and pressuring someone to be one is not love; sycophancy is only a role and not a relationship; most people feel invisible in a sycophantic role (this link is worth exploring); and it'll never be enough for the narcissist or the scapegoat besides. 

For scapegoats, no matter how much they might try to please a narcissist by acting out in sycophantic ways, independent thought is always likely to barge in and take over. Usually the mind and body work in ways to help you keep safe during deeply challenging situations. The fact that independent thought barges in and takes over is a good thing considering the circumstances.

Again, it's a C-PTSD matter, and an involuntary mechanism of safety, a way of involuntary reaction to  potentially dangerous situations that took millions of years of evolution to create. This is to say that it's kind of like a lever: "When attacked, or there is a potential for attack, we want your mind full of your own thoughts, not theirs, and please only listen to this person as if you were a spy in a hidden place, and know that they don't know you, or care about you." - and they don't. If you are aware through their attacks, they get most everything wrong. 

It's not much different from Putin, for instance, calling Ukrainians "Nazis". "The attacks" aren't much different than any kind of prejudiced perspective, in fact. The kind of names you're called will always sound prejudiced, and they never change, right?  They may be dangerous, but they are fixed and not very brilliant, or accurate perceptions, or perspectives, right? They tend to use the same insults over and over again, right? 

However, if you're blanking out while attacked (entirely possible), your mind may not be able to do the "spy" thing. Still, you may be able to remember some of it. 

Their fixed minds will not change, and you're not going to be able to change them enough to treat you better, but at least your mind is fluid, intelligent enough to have new insights and not just parrot your same old phrases over and over again the way they do, mature enough to want to understand what is going on, and working hard enough to understand many perspectives, including other's. And creative enough to consider how to keep the attacks at bay, how to change, dodge, reduce the pain, reduce the impact, reduce the long term effects, reduce this person's sway. It's what PTSD is all about - reducing, taking away their amplification, filling your mind with your own voice or blanking out on theirs. If your mind fills with your own voice, I bet it is louder than their voice, even when they are raging.    

For sycophants who prefer to actually be sycophantic over thinking for themselves, they are likely to have more fixed cement-like perspectives, similar to the narcissist's, but even their independent thoughts are likely to butt in sometimes (for different reasons).

Since scapegoats find sycophants cowardly and often disgusting, their thoughts are going to go in the direction of "why be a sycophant - wouldn't it make me cowardly and disgusting too"? Also, being a scapegoat is a role born out of a parent's contempt, so why try to please people who "have very few good intentions towards me" - and since contempt wipes out compassion and a charitable heart, for the scapegoat this means a never-ending burden. It is a role meant to sabotage them and again, provide prejudiced and hate-oriented perspectives.

For the scapegoat, the roles of sycophant and scapegoat are mere endurances, not wanted, not liked, not deserved, needing to shed it. 

It is certainly not something that most scapegoats want to carry into adulthood. Some do via trauma bonding (especially during crisis-ridden times), or getting romantically involved with another narcissist, or being brainwashed that they don't deserve anything better ... however, it is my opinion that all scapegoats always deserve something better - they deserve going beyond sycophancy and scapegoating  into real love relationships. They deserve going beyond having their self esteem played with and bashed all of the time into co-appreciative, co-operative trusting and trustworthy relationships. They deserve to go beyond only one acceptable role like sycophancy by going into multi-dimensional expansive roles and non-roles, enlightened and enlightening relationships, much more intimacy and joy than they've ever experienced in relationships. 

A sycophantic role, in comparison, is too one-dimensional, very lopsided, so unfit for human intelligence, human potential, human capacity, emotional well being, physical well being, not worth the  kind of provisional, conditional rewards you might receive. If you want to be a sycophant, most people will notice it, so you might as well stand on a stage and say into a nicrophone: "I hereby give up my moral standing to be a sycophant for this individual who I believe in, even though he lies, especially about other people who he is in competition with for attention, power, control, domination and narcissistic supply." 

However, mostly the role of sycophancy is an anxiety ridden prison (at best!) - at least to most scapegoats. Why would a parent want that for a child with the added role of being a scapegoat? Why wouldn't a parent be able to see how impossible it is to fulfill these two awful roles at the same time to please them? These are always good questions to ask yourself even when you know the answers, and I'd bet all of you know the answers. 

Let's be real: It's like living a life starved to death, and in more ways than one. People need wamth; people need love;  people need peace. They aren't going to find it in a prison made for roles, or in a manual about how to find love from a "never-enough" incapable-of-love, prejudiced oriented, contempt-filled, environment.

As I've said previously, as a scapegoat, I'd bet your inner dialogue will always be a lot louder and a bigger force in your life than anything that the narcissist has to say, and in some cases what others in that circle have to say. Not that scapegoats invalidate others, but their inner voice tends to demand more attention than outer voices. Scapegoats tend to become remarkably introverted because of this. Thinking and internal dialogue is hard to ignore. In order to be a sycophant, you'd have to drop your own thinking and adopt the narcissist's way of thinking and perspectives. And is that really possible for any of you? 

The parent can't adopt the scapegoat's thinking and perspectives either. They wouldn't know how to do it beyond putting a slapped-on role that they created. Sycophancy absolutely requires that you take up the parent's perspectives about yourself and everyone else they don't like or want to control, and that puts scapegoats on the outside of the family from the get-go. They are already rejected from the lack of sycophancy they are unable to adopt. So it shouldn't take much effort to walk away, right? 

Except it does. I'll get to that later.  

Narcissists are rarely, if ever, in touch with the fact that sycophancy and scapegoating aren't bed-fellows. Like Hyacinth, they are largely oblivious. Their brains are also altered in that they very rarely think about how their actions impact other people. Like Hyacinth who rarely notices Elizabeth's shaking, she only notices when it impacts her and her table (spilled coffee all over it - and sometimes on the floor too). She doesn't bother to ask Elizabeth why she is shaking, what she can do to help her to stop shaking, what might make her stop being so anxious.

Hyacinth's conversations are mainly always about Hyacinth and her needs, and her thoughts, and her plans on how Elizabeth will help Hyacinth gain hierarchical adavantage (all without asking Elizabeth if she is willing, able, whether she has other plans for her day, whether she's up for helping her). Hyacinth assumes she has authority over Elizabeth's actions at all times. 

Part of this has to do with brain chemistry: there are several regions of the brain which are atrophied in narcissists, and one of the sections, the left anterior insula has to do with the narcissist's lack or absence of empathy. The second to last link in that article points to this issue: 

Changes in the prefrontal cortex affect self-regulation and awareness, contributing to narcissistic traits like grandiosity and self-absorption.

So, we can say that Hyacinth assumes she has authority over Elizabeth because her brain is not geared towards thinking about Elizabeth.

What this means is that narcissists are primarily focused on what they want (and feelings of grandiosity, and needing more of it, take a front seat in terms of what they want) without considering the feelings or states of others. This quadruple lack of awareness, lack of empathy, self absorbed thinking style with grandiosity affects entitlement. They feel entitled to sycophancy. "Getting my own way comes first before getting to know who a person is, and what they are going through" - is what narcissistic thinking is about, although I don't know if it is as conscious as this (for this link, check Google AI and the independent articles on the left).  

Entitlement is always going to infect or occupy their thinking, blindingly so. If they aren't getting their own way, grandiose narcissists get bombastic and try to convince via statements that they need to control you, that they are more knowledgeable and have achieved greatness more than you (coercion to be a sycophant with rage). However covert narcissists play the victim (and also rage, using passive aggressive tactics to coerce and control you). Malignant narcissists use fear, intimidation, threats, heavy amounts of criticism as well as unusually controlling micro-managing behaviors and expectations, often exhibiting blinding rage (with abuse), and they are also are not above playing the victim if they don't get their way - "You better be my sycophant, or I'll get you and your little dog too!" - from the Wizard of Oz. 

Another reason why narcissists escalate abuse with scapegoats, and hate their scapegoats so much, is because threats, intimidation, grandiose statements, temper tantrums, and rages tend to either irritate, or not affect the scapegoat as much as their other children. If unable to respond, it may because of the freeze response that scapegoats find themselves in over time when they realize their parent doesn't care about them. Scapegoat's reactions tend to be quite a bit more muted unless the narcissist escalates a lot more than they do with their other children. 

And if you're reading this, even in a world where your thoughts aren't bombarding your thinking when being attacked, would you really want to become a sycophant of a person without empathy and with this much brain atrophy in areas where they have very little propensity to understand what you and others are actually going through, and never will? - and that you are not a robot at their command, or an Elizabeth in Hyacinth's world to push around? 

That's a decision of rational thinking, however I do understand all of the things that hold scapegoats back. I wasn't able to pschologically think about getting out of a relationship clearly enough until crimes were being committed against me. Then I felt I had no choice. That's an extreme "waiting period" to see if things would improve, don't you think?

The common things that hold scapegoats back:
* pressure from inside the family and outside the family to hold the family together
* some societal notion that all parents love their children, although it's not so popular now that 30 percent of Gen Z is going "no contact" with at least one parent. However, older generations can adopt this attitude.
* a perception that children are always at fault when there is family estrangement (more blaming, in other words), but again, that's an attitude of much, much older generations, rare among people under 50 years old. 
* Narcissists don't generally teach you life skills to be independent in the world - so the skill deficit can lead you to stay dependent longer than you might otherwise. 
* Narcissists often try to hurt scapegoats financially, refusing to pay for college, extra-ciricular activity fees (or at least without a lot of guilt trips and "you owe me way more than the small activity fee I paid"). Unless they give you a permanent discard, they want children dependent on them as dependency fosters much more control for them (they've got a permanent Elizabeth at their beck and call that way).
     Plus finding a way to support yourself, and getting a skill, is extremely challenging with narcissistic parents. Even if you believe even a milli-part of what they say to you, you often have to turn a blind eye and ear to their insults - often the insults are "inept, crazy, stupid, useless" - and for malignant narcissists, all of that plus they call you "lazy" and can say "You're nothing" too. It's hard to go into work places with those insults in your head.
     The best way to deal with these insults is to realize that these are the common phrases of narcissists, and therefor have little to do with you since they all seem to gravitate to these particular insults. 
     Note that malignant narcissists are quite a bit more frequent with insults than run-of-the-mill narcissists, sometimes every day if you are in their presence. It is their way of trying to micro-manage what you do, what you say, and to create feelings of fear, guilt and obligation in you, with "fear" coming first.
     The fears that they try to make a part of your internal dialogue is that they won't help you in any capacity "because you're too terrible to deserve it" (they try to get you to believe it so that they can remain self-centered and entitled to take from you), that they will abandon you at the drop of a hat and over anything "because you deserve it", they will hate you "because you deserve it", they will do anything to make your life totally miserable because they think you deserve it for rebelling against their control.
     They can and often do break the law, unless you give into them on everything they want.
     In many ways it's easier to leave malignant narcissists because they are profoundly unreasonable and see no humanity in you, could care less about any feeling or disability you have, and have no remorse for hurting you. Hurting you is easy, in other words, because they think "you deserve it" for being stupid about and vulnerable to their control, and so stupid to go around in life having empathy for others and expecting empathy from others. Empaths are "dip-sh&t weaklings" in most malignant narcissist's minds.
     In other words, they believe you are too stupid to fight off perpetrators like them, so they put every effort into controlling just about all of you with tremendous amounts of callousness, rage and guilt induction - often just to see how much they can get away with. 
     Anyway, you are put on notice that you are supposed to perform for them (the malignant type) - as if you are a machine with buttons that say "fear", "guilt" and "obligation". It can be very effective for them short-term, but the exhaustion sets in really fast in the victim, and you get the sense sooner than any run-of-the-mill narcissist that this is pure brainwashing and that you're not going to listen to it, and may be dissociating or dimming out anyway when they talk or rage. 
     So you have to get their insults and brainwashing out of your head to survive. Domestic violence counselors are very good at this in my experience. "You're crazy" is the easiest one for them to erase because they, and often a head psychiatrist, are usually the ones to dole out the diagnoses.
     If you feel your self esteem has been punched in, you can fake confidence if you must until you actually believe you have it, since the challenges of healing and leaving require confidence (especially in a workplace). Your own thoughts and assessments can give you the strength in knowing what you're doing (without theirs intruding into your mind-scape). Your knowledge that you are capable, good, loveable, deserving of the best, and can achieve your dreams is part of how you block out their merry-go-round of insults. 
* C-PTSD - this can make you disabled the longer you stay, which has the effect of you being too disabled to hold down a job, and live life without help. However there is help - sometimes government disability, domestic violence centers and shelters, therapists and career specialists (who sometimes volunteer in domestic violence shelters to help victims get back on their feet). 

     However, also realize that C-PTSD gets worse the longer you stay in the scapegoat role, and that abuse is likely to keep escalating to unbearable heights. Narcissists are also likely to keep trying to hurt you until they get a reaction. If you are freezing or dissociating, they aren't going to get a reaction, so they will keep trying in a myriad of ways until they get the reaction they want (usually crying, desperate pleading to get them to stop, or capitulating to their demands, often all of it).
     If they don't get the reaction they want, they may graduate to physical aggression, sabotage, ruining property, ripping up your diploma, stealing, emptying bank accounts, false imprisonment, calling your employer, seducing your partner - I've seen and heard all of it and then some. 
     

"Stopping the pain" is a reasonable reason to leave. Not trusting them and realizing you never will, is a also a reasonable reason to leave. "Not feeling any, or much of a connection" with many of your family members who may be exacerbating your condition through sycophancy, selfisness, cowardice and puppeting the narcissist, is a reasonable reason to leave. Wanting to shed the responsibility placed on you to be some sort of super hero sycophant/scapegoat when you can't be one, is a reasonable reason to leave. Domestic violence is a reasonable reason to leave. Wanting to shed the scapegoat role is a reasonable reason to leave. Being diagnosed with C-PTSD is a really, really good reason to leave (it won't get better by staying). 

Just as you went "independent minded" with your parent, you are allowed to go "independent minded" with people who want to put you back into that role and position inside your family. Like a toxic drug that is being offered to you, you have the right to say, "No" without shame. 

A note: Many people desperately want to know that scapegoats will go back to their abusers because they want to believe if they, themselves, scapegoat someone, that their scapegoat will return to them too. 

Also note: Narcissists feel they cannot live without a scapegoat (there's a desperation to it - but they want one that will put up no resistance).

But if you have fulfilled a lifetime of duty in that role, you can decide when to retire from it if you want to (however the present administration in America is trying to curb help for domestic violence services, and other community organizations - so look into it first if you think you want to go that way). At any rate, I don't want you to be discouraged fromfinding ways to heal. 

One thing about independent thinking, creative thinking, and independent actions from "the narcissistic group-think", is that scapegoats are suited to run their own businesses. If you can get trained in a skill, you can skip the introduction to the working world of jobs that are available because no one else will take them. Or working for a tyrant. You aren't damned to a life of cleaning toilets, or working in hot fields picking cotton, or having a screaming boss over your shoulder, for instance. 

Scapegoats often become self employed or have autonomy with decision-making in a workplace  - this phenomenon hasn't had scientific peer review yet, however, but professional researchers in college and university settings are seeing that trend. They also have more resilience and self-reliance to work alone than other types of people. However, because scapegoats are betrayed for an entire childhood, and often beyond, they can have difficulty reaching out to others, or asking others for help. They are used to surviving independently, without help. So, you're going to have to reach out and "risk hiring rejection" if you leave - although realize the rejection is different from family rejection. Try not to get too triggered by it, in other words.

I'll go through some of the careers that are a good fit for a lot of scapegoats in another post. 

It also reminds me that I have to put the finishing touches on my post about "hoovering" from narcissistic family members because it can be very challenging when you are "no contact", and it is often a trap for more abuse and more demands for sycophancy, especially if they are trying to draw you in with your empathy (since the high majority of scapegoats have empathy). I'll leave a link in this paragraph when I get it published because it's obviously important to this discussion. But you can check out the link through the word "hoovering" above in the meantime.  

I'll also be writing many more articles on traits and survival attributes of scapegoats other than "independent-mindedness" in the future. This one is the first in the series.

I also realize that the article I used to start this post isn't finished, so there will be a part II, as this post is long enough. 

FOUND ON FACEBOOK

I hope the following is an inspiration. This was written by "Something Interest" about the British poet, Elizabeth Barrett Browning:

She was fading away in her father’s London house, shut off from the world, forbidden to leave. Most people thought her story was already over. Then one letter arrived. And she chose a life that would shock her family, anger society, and change literature forever.
Elizabeth Barrett was born in 1806 into comfort and privilege, money tied to sugar plantations in Jamaica. From childhood, her mind was fierce. She read Greek at an age when most children were memorizing prayers. She wrote long poems before she was a teenager. Her father was proud of her talent, at least when it stayed safely under his roof.
Then her health collapsed.
A serious spinal injury. Chronic lung disease. Pain that left her barely able to stand. Doctors turned to laudanum, an opium mixture, because there was little else. She depended on it just to get through the day. Years passed with Elizabeth confined to dark rooms, curtains drawn, listening to the city live without her.
Her body weakened, but her mind did not surrender.
She wrote constantly. Line after line, poem after poem. By her late thirties, she was one of the most respected poets in England. Her book Poems, published in 1844, made critics stop and stare. Some whispered her name alongside Shakespeare. When Wordsworth died, people even mentioned her as a possible Poet Laureate.
And then, in January 1845, a letter reached her sickroom.
A poet named Robert Browning wrote to say her words had pierced him. He told her he loved her poetry with all his heart. Elizabeth answered. He wrote back. Soon, their letters carried everything they could not say out loud. Fear. Longing. Faith. Doubt. Hope.
For months, they were only voices on paper.
When they finally met face to face, Robert did not see a helpless invalid. He saw a woman of fire and intelligence, someone alive in ways others had missed. He fell in love with her. Not with the idea of rescuing her, but with who she was.
He asked her to marry him.
That was when reality turned cruel.
Elizabeth’s father, Edward Barrett, ruled his household with iron control. He had forbidden all his children from marrying. No exceptions. Any child who disobeyed would be cut off forever. Elizabeth was forty years old, ill, financially dependent, and living under his roof. Obedience promised comfort. Defiance promised exile.
Many would have stayed.
Elizabeth did not.
On September 12, 1846, she slipped out of her father’s house, married Robert Browning in secret, and left England for Italy. Her father never forgave her. He never spoke to her again.
But something remarkable happened once she was free.
In Florence, sunlight replaced sickrooms. Love replaced fear. Her health improved in ways doctors could not explain. She grew stronger. She gave birth to a son at forty three, after being told she never could. She wrote with new power and confidence.
And she wrote the most famous love poems in the English language.

Sonnets from the Portuguese was her private record of being seen and cherished after a lifetime of confinement. When she wrote “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways,” she was not dreaming. She was telling the truth.
Yet she did not stop at love.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning was angry at injustice, and she used her voice without restraint. She wrote about slavery with unflinching honesty in The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point. She exposed child labor so vividly in The Cry of the Children that it helped stir public outrage. In Aurora Leigh, she argued that women deserved education, independence, and meaningful work.
Victorian society was unsettled. Women were supposed to be gentle, quiet, and grateful. Elizabeth had already defied her father. She had no patience left for polite silence.
For fifteen years, she lived fully. She loved her husband, raised her son, and fought with words sharp enough to cut through comfort and hypocrisy.
She died in 1861 in Robert’s arms. She was fifty five. Her last word was “Beautiful.”
Robert never married again. He preserved her work and guarded her legacy for the rest of his life.
What makes her story endure is not just romance or poetry.
She was told she was too sick, too old, too fragile. She was locked away by family and written off by society. Safety demanded obedience. Life demanded courage.
She chose life.
She proved that it is never too late to begin again. That love can arrive when the world says your chances are gone. That a voice, once freed, can still shake centuries.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning did not just write about love. She lived it with bravery, defiance, and a refusal to accept a smaller life.
That is not just history. That is a lesson still breathing.
Sometimes the thing that looks like safety is slowly killing you. Sometimes the risk is the only path to freedom.
Elizabeth knew that. And she walked into the light.

photo of Elizabeth Barrett Browning before marrying Robert Browning:

after marrying Robert Browning: