Keep Smiling

 “A fake smile may fool the crowd but it never eases the pain.” 

– Kelly Brook

“Turn that frown upside down!”

“It takes 72 muscles to frown and only 14 to smile.”

“You’d look prettier if you smiled.”

“Smile!, it won’t kill you”

These phrases, and their variations, are often said by parents, and other adults of hierarchy, to children.

Communication can be done via many different methods. One way is through facial expressions. 

When an adult tells someone that they better stop looking sad and start looking happy, the adult is telling them that they need to stop communicating their feelings of sadness.

There are two things we can do when there is a problem, one can try to fix it, or one can pretend that it doesn’t exist. 

Telling someone that they need to smile is a shorthand way of telling them that their feelings are making you uncomfortable, and you would like them to stop communicating their feelings to you.

A true friend, a real caring person would try to figure out why the person in question isn’t smiling, not request that the problem be concealed.

People of all ages have feelings and concerns. Often, they just need someone to speak with, someone who can just listen and “hear them out”. By squashing the means of communication, you’ve deprived them of that so desperately required by them. Worse yet, you’ve also insisted that they broadcast to the world that all is ok with them (since they’re now faking a smile).

Forcing a smile isn’t the only way that people who need to express themselves get shot down. 

Sometimes they get shot down because they’re:

being accused of negativity, 

bringing up the past (what’s the point, move on) or 

speaking “ill of the dead”. 

However colorfully it gets phrased, it boils down to the same thing, figuratively duct taping the mouth because the listener is bothered by the topic that is about to be discussed.

The role of a friend is to be there for their buddy.

The job of a parent is to listen to their child.

What children hear from their friends and from the news naturally will make them curious. 

It will often confuse them.

They will likely have questions. 

Sometimes they will actually ask a question in question format. On other occasions, they will make a statement in the hope that it will elicit a response and become the start of a dialogue.

However they approach the situation, the issue is clear. They’re reaching out asking for you to communicate with them about what it is that is bothering them.

And that presents you with two options, discuss or don’t discuss. 

If what they’re telling you is making you uncomfortable, try to find them someone helpful whom they can speak with. Acknowledge their concern, and express that while you aren’t capable of having this conversation, you’ll connect them with someone who can and will.

That’s the correct course when you cannot fill the required role.

But by telling them to be quiet, and worse, by telling them that they have no right to speak (be it due to negativity, being “in the past” or speaking “ill of the dead”) you’ve done a double crime. Not only have you told them that you’re incapable of being a listener for them, but you’ve taken away their permission to even speak to anyone about this topic that is of concern to them.

Recently I was listening to eulogies of someone who died way too young, and a speaker said something that burned me inside: “We tell people that smiling never killed anyone, but his smile killed him”, meaning that he pretended that all was ok when it obviously wasn’t.

Things are not ok. Many are shaken and confused by what is going on. 

It is one thing if the person isn’t communicating that there is a problem, but to convince those struggling that they aren’t? That they can’t be? That they aren’t allowed to?

Words cannot properly convey how wrong that is.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

Missing the Mark: Who Gets the Blame?

 “People may not realize the damage that they are doing by placing the blame on the victim, but that doesn't lessen the damage that they cause by doing it.”

― Darlene Ouimet 

The defendant was standing in front of the judge.

He was arrested for stealing a brand new luxury car.

He was facing a minimum of a dozen years behind bars.

As he was standing in front of the judge (he waived his right to a jury trial), about to make his final plea for leniency, he said the following words:

“Your honor, in all fairness, he did leave the car unlocked”.

The judge turns to the defendant and says “You’re right, it is the fault of the car owner. It was, afterall an unlocked car and it is the newest BMW. The car owner should have known better”. 

The judge gives the defendant a nominal fine and insists to the gallery that the defendant has learned his lesson.

What type of reaction does the above story cause you to have?

Understanding? Rage? Sympathy? Anger?

The story about the judge and the auto theft is fiction. 

However, if you replace “judge” with “our community” and “auto theft” with “sexual abuse” the story is accurate.

The problem was how she dressed.

The problem is yichud

The problem is the lack of cameras

The problem is intergender therapy/doctor visits

The problem is tznius

The problem is that the victim is just seeking attention

The problem is the internet/iphones

The problem is …

Lack of protection is NEVER a cause.

They are two separate and independent items.

Obviously one should be wearing a seatbelt in a car, but the lack of wearing a seatbelt does not absolve the drunk driver who causes the crash.

Likewise one should be careful with the laws of yichud, but the mere fact that two people ended up alone in the same location does NOT mean that one party gave permission to the other to abuse them.

Yichud is a “fence”, a protective measure implemented to prevent a transgression. Just like locking your car doors.

In both cases, the lack of a protective measure doesn’t permit the transgression.

The problem is the abuser, only the abuser and nothing but the abuser. 

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

Trigger Happy

 "There are wounds that never show on the body that are deeper and more hurtful than anything that bleeds."

— Laurell K. Hamilton

Clint Malarchuk was a hockey goalie who played in the NHL. 

He played with 3 different teams over the course of his 10 year career.

He won 141 games over those ten years.

But he will forever be remembered for a single incident that happened during a game on March 22, 1989 in Buffalo, when an opponent’s skate inadvertently severed Malarchuk’s artery in his neck and partially cut his jugular vein.

He lost a third of the blood in his body that night. It took over 300 stitches to close the wound. (The video is available on YouTube, due to its graphic nature, I will not link to it)

Miraculously he survived. 

But the horrors of that event were only just beginning. 

Eventually things got under control. He was seeing a mental health professional. He was on the right medications.

Then the Richard Zednick injury happened.

Zednick, also an NHL player, was cut in the throat by his teammate’s skate during a game. (Video is also available on YouTube, due to its graphic nature, I will not link to it)

Malarchuk didn’t witness the event, nor did he watch a replay of it later, but he heard about it, and he was asked to discuss it.

All seemed well, he discussed the situation with clarity and insight that only he could provide.

Except all wasn’t ok. 

Despite neither being there nor ever seeing a replay of the Zednick injury, the mere learning of it triggered Malarchuk’s PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).

Suddenly he couldn’t sleep. He kept on revisiting his own horrific injury.

It all became too much for him.

Eight months after the Zednick injury, and nearly 19 years after his own injury, Clint Malarchuk shot himself in the head with a gun.

For the second time in his life, he survived a near-death experience.

The reason I mention the story of Clint Malarchuk is to illustrate how triggers work. 

Triggers don’t need to be direct. 

The trigger might simply be hearing people discuss something.

What do I mean?

How do you speak when someone famous and renowned gets accused?

Do you say that the person is so famous that there is no way they could have done it?

Will you say that without witnesses, a victim cannot be believed?

Do you find some blemish in the victim’s character to diminish their credibility?

Will you say that it is the victim’s word versus the abuser’s word, and that isn’t enough?

Do you play the “lashon hara” card and silence the one who is mentioning the accusations?

Do you insist that the abuser’s “parnassa’ (livelihood) is going to suffer, and that sharing news of the allegations will harm the accused irrevocably? 

Do you play the “he has a family” card? Insisting that spreading such news harms the wife and children of the accused.

According to statistics, 1 out of every 3 girls, and 1 out of every 5 boys are sexually abused before they reach 18.

So it is quite likely that someone will overhear your comment, and be reminded about their own victimization.

And they’ll be reminded what they were told:

That they were making it up

That they can’t be believed

That the abuser has a family

That there is no way a man of the stature of the abuser could do such a thing

That they were saying lashon hara.

That without witnesses, they, the victim was powerless.

Based upon the aforementioned statistics, there are probably many people in your life (unbeknownst to many of their colleagues) who are survivors of sexual abuse.

By discussing these accusations and siding with the accused, it is quite possible that you’re triggering them.

PTSD and triggers are real.

They can happen even many years later, as the Clint Malarchuk story shows us.

By silencing victims, however one might be doing so, you’re basically playing a game of Russian Roulette, pointing a gun of PTSD at each and every person who is hearing your words.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

"You Did it by Yourself!"

 “Ask for help. Not because you are weak. But because you want to remain strong.”

-Les Brown

Based upon the actual definition of the word, “brainwashing” isn’t the correct word to use. But I will use it because I believe it best gets the message across. It is better to be understood accurately than to be misunderstood while technically correct.

The way we raise and educate our children is brainwashing. We take brains that are empty of information and we (try to) fill them with valuable lessons and morals. 

A child will take these lessons and use them during the course of their lifetime.

One lesson that we all bestow upon our children, is the lesson that was taught to us from when we were young, that the ideal is to be able to do something by ourselves.

Kids are rewarded when they can get dressed by themselves, tie their shoes on their own, and cross the street without assistance.

As they grow older, the goals become greater, but the message is still there, the ideal is to be able to do it by yourself.

Unfortunately, this message can be taken the wrong way.

By focusing on how great it is to do things by oneself, some children perceive it as a weakness if they are unable to, and therefore require assistance from others.

These same children turn into teenagers, and these teenagers turn into adults, all with the same belief:

“I am weak and I am a failure if I need help from others.”

If we want to end the stigma about mental health issues, if we want people to be comfortable seeking help, we need to start from the beginning.

Yes, we need to celebrate solo accomplishments. They are signs of growth and they’re worthy of being honored. 

But if we get carried away celebrating the solo, we risk brainwashing our children that they’re flawed if they need assistance. 

Life is about balancing many different things. These two opposite, yet equally important messages must be balanced. 

1. Doing something myself is a sign of growth 

2. Seeking and/or receiving assistance is not only ok, but it can also be a sign of growth

As it says in Koheles (Ecclesiastes), “There is a time and place for everything under the sun.” 

There is a time to do things alone and there is a time when one will need assistance of some type.

One is not greater than the other, it is all about knowing which applies when.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

Cognitive Dissonance & Child Sexual Abuse

 “A mind that has no conflict, is not alive.”

― Abhijit Naskar

The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People desire consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict will cause a feeling of discomfort. In order to correct this discomfort, one will alter their attitude, belief or behavior to reduce their distress and restore the desired balance. 

Cognitive dissonance is a term that was coined by psychologist Leon Festinger. He was studying members of a cult who believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. He was fascinated by what he saw from its members after the predicted flood did not occur.

Fringe members were more inclined to recognize that the cult was wrong, while committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (e.g. the earth was not destroyed because of the piety of the cult members).

In other words, despite the fact that they were predicting a flood and the flood didn’t happen, the committed members steadfastly held that the cult was correct and didn’t see any reason to leave the cult.

As the old phrase goes: “What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?”.

Obviously something has to give.

Same thing here, a person has two beliefs which they perceive to be true, yet they cannot coexist. So one perception must give way to the other.

This can also be applied to a case of child sex abuse when the abuser is someone who has gained the trust of the victim, as well as others.

What does this internal conflict do to the victim?

It makes them question how to balance the two conflicting pieces of data in their brain. On the one hand, their abuser was someone whom they were told cares about their well-being, is honorable, trusted and would never do something to harm them. Their abuser might have been a rabbi, priest, therapist, doctor or a family member (or many other examples). On the other hand, they know that the abuse done to them was very wrong.

Which one of these two conflicting pieces of data to be redefined? 

Is the one who abused them not as perfect or admirable as was previously thought, or should the abuse be marginalized and downplayed, allowing the abuser to keep their lofty status?

This might sound like a very easy decision for an outsider reading this on their phone, but trust me, for a 10-15 year old computing this in their brain, it is anything but simple.

Cognitive Dissonance is also used by society to defend sexual abusers of children. 

This is due to society’s desire to look up to people. We want our clergy to be holy, we want our teachers to be caring towards their students, and we want our doctors to “do no harm”.

So how do we as a society manage when we are presented with a claim that goes against the aforementioned perceptions?

Regretfully, many will resort to victim blaming.

“The clergy is still holy, the victim is troubled and making it up!”

“The teacher cares for the student, the victim is upset about a grade and trying to seek revenge.”

Abusers can be very manipulative, not just to their victims, but also to their communities.

It is quite common for an abuser to put themselves in a position of power or respect, in order to readily manipulate their community into refusing to believe accusations of abuse.

If we keep insisting that there is a single profession or personality type that cannot be a child abuser (due to our perception of them) then we’re no different than the cult followers who remain faithful to the cult despite the lack of a flood.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

The Journey that is Reporting

“We find after years of struggle that we do not take a trip; a trip takes us.”

-John Steinbeck

It isn’t easy for a victim of child sexual abuse to come forward. 

It also isn’t easy for the family of the child to encourage them to come forward.

Sometimes the reason is because of stigma. 

Sometimes the reason is because of denial.

Sometimes the reason is because of lack of strength.

It takes courage for both the victim and their family to come forward about the abuse. Part of that is because of community backlash, but part of that is because the perpetrator will also do as much as possible to make the journey extremely difficult and costly to the victim and their family.

Abusers will carefully select the type of victim who is least likely to get them into trouble. That can mean someone who is too shy to come forward, that can also mean someone who is in a situation where they are unable to come forward.

Over the years a number of stories have come my way which illustrate how difficult it can be for the victim and their family when they come forward with the abuse.

In one case, the victim and their family were in the United States illegally. The abuser knew that and used it to his advantage. When the child finally came forward about the abuse, the abuser immediately called the relevant federal authorities to “alert” them about a family who was in the country illegally who should be deported. 

Suddenly, this family wasn’t just facing the legal battle of trying to assist their child who was just sexually abused, but they simultaneously needed to deal with the federal courts trying to deport the entire family.

In another case, the abuser, despite not losing pay (suspended with pay, pending investigation) decided to sue the victim’s family for slander and defamation. 

Being that the victim was a member of a low-income family. They themselves didn’t have the money to even hire a lawyer to help them fight this ridiculous claim.

So the next time someone asks “If this person worked with kids for so long, why is this the first time that we are hearing of such a thing?” or “Why is it after one person comes forward, suddenly others come forward totally out of the blue?” or “If the accuser was telling the truth, why did they drop the case?” the answer is quite simple. The journey that awaits one after reporting child sex abuse is long, emotionally exhausting and financially draining. Many would rather just keep quiet. There are also those who do step forward only to reverse course due to the exhausting nature of the saga.

Sadly, some of the most meticulous abusers know this and will select the children and families who won’t have the courage and strength required to finish this legal quest until the end. 

What can we do?

At the very least, we need to help the victims and their families. We need to give them the support that they need. We must stop enabling the accused to continue their abuse of the victim (and by extension, their family), albeit this time via the legal system.

Also, we need to realize that just because someone didn’t follow through with their claim of abuse, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. 

It can also mean that they didn’t feel safe enough to continue, and that falls directly upon us as a society.

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here

Flip-Flopping

“Occasions when you can change your mind should be cherished, because they mean you're smarter than you were before.“

-Malcolm Gladwell

A number of years ago, there was a trend to label someone with the negative term “flip-flopper” if they changed their opinion of something after a period of time.

Due to this negative connotation, many people felt forced to stick with their original stance, lest they be branded a flip-flopper.

Despite the fact that calling someone out for flip-flopping is no longer trending, for many the damage is already done. They believe that they cannot, or should not change from their original stance.

These same individuals also have very unfavorable views of people who flip-flop.

In my opinion, not only is this wrong, but it is also quite sad.

Sometimes the issue might be that you didn’t have a specific piece of information at the time of your original decision. Other times you had all the facts, but things changed after choosing the chosen option.

Things change, people change and situations change. What was a wise choice last year might not be the smart option now.

Regardless of the process, it is not only ok to periodically reevaluate whether your initial choice is still the best option, it is ideal to do so.

Here is an example:

For the 1997 Super Bowl, Tostitos bought a 30 second commercial slot at a cost of just under $1.3 million dollars. A lot of time, money and effort went into creating what they believed was going to be the perfect advertisement for their product. Tostitos ultimately decided on a commercial that concluded with an actor bungee jumping with a Tostitos chip in his mouth, dipping the chip into Tostitos salsa at the bottom of his jump.

The commercial was all made and all the executives were excited about how this commercial would help sales soar to levels that they’ve never yet seen.

In the opinion of many, the commercial that they made was the best commercial for both the company and the products being advertised.

Then, three days before the Super Bowl, a bungee jumper who was due to perform at the Super Bowl halftime show died during a practice jump gone wrong.

Tostitos decided it was necessary to reevaluate whether this commercial was still best for the company and the products being advertised 

Even though Tostitos had nothing to do with this tragedy, days before the ad was due to run, they decided to shelve the commercial that they had created specifically for this special occasion.

Tostitos ended up using a very basic and forgettable commercial in its place. Making all the time and money on the research and development of the original commercial a total waste. 

There are many lessons from this story that we can learn both for ourselves, as well as to pass onto our children. 

First, it is okay to change your mind. 

Second, just as one should evaluate the situation before making a decision, one should also gauge as to whether they should stick with their decision or whether a change is the best course of action. 

Third, sometimes you will need to give up on something you’ve invested in, due to zero fault of your own.

Finally, one should never feel handcuffed to a decision due to their investment of time, money or emotions. A person can always walk away from a choice they’ve made.

Side Note: There is a professional term for one who ignores change and insists on sticking with their original plan, despite it no longer being viable. That term is called Continuation Bias, and there are airline pilots who have killed themselves and others due to it. (e.g. refusing to divert to a different airport when bad weather makes landing at the scheduled airport impossible).

 

Yisroel Picker is a Social Worker who lives in Jerusalem. He has a private practice which specializes in working with people of all ages helping them understand their own thought processes, enabling them to improve their level of functioning, awareness, social skills and more.

To speak with Yisroel about presenting at a child safety event or to discuss a personal case, email him at yisroel@ympicker.com

Follow Yisroel on LinkedIn Here

Follow Yisroel on Facebook Here