Discreet out of shame or privacy?

amother

Ivory

Tue, Sep 20 2016, 10:50 am

I am a very not private person except on two subjects--my child's abuse story, and my marriage. That is because it is not my secret, it is a secret that affects other people. There is nothing shameful about abuse--it wasn't his fault and we couldn't have prevented it--but people WILL think whatever they want and possibly treat him different. (BH my marriage is good, but even the good I wouldn't share to friends, it is private).

Misplaced "being open" is when you have nothing that you deem private. Some call it "word vomit" like my sister who tells me about her zex life all the time, for no constructive reason.

There is no reason to be ashamed of miscarriage, but it is deeply painful and personal, so it would only be appropriate to share with those close to you. Martial issues should never be shared because no one other than you, your spouse, or your therapist can help you with no bais. Also, you can get rid of your therapist when you are over your problem, but your friend will always remember what you said. Death is the same as miscarriage--it is deeply painful and personal. You share with those close to you about deeply emotional topics, not your "grocery story" friends or "park ladies."

There is also a difference if you can get support by opening up. For illness, there is a lot of chessed and support you can get by opening up to people you don't necessarily know at all. If there is a constructive reason, like that, I would do it.

My in laws are from Europe and are private about EVERYTHING. They are ashamed of EVERYTHING. They wouldn't so much as share that they have a headache. Even with people that are very close, they would never say the words "I am in pain. I am so sad about my father's death." They smile and move on and be strong and polite. It is extreamly unhealthy. I see this because I have seen the blow ups after a year+ of holding resentment in. They ruined a certain relationship when they let loose about the pent up frustration they had towards them for a few years.

In short--it is always appropriate to feel negative emotions. It is always appropriate to share and communicate negative emotions with those that are close with you. It is not admirable to share heavy emotional feelings with people you hardly know.

Chayalle

Tue, Sep 20 2016, 12:41 pm

sourstix wrote:

I doubt anyone is ashamed of cancer.

I wouldn't call it shame exactly, but you'd be surprised, sourstix. I know a family where the father recently had a bout with cancer, and it was very much hushed up, the kids weren't allowed to know much or talk about it (teenagers). The family very much carried on as if all was normal, and it seems there was alot of fear re: future shidduchim for the kids, that was tied up in all of this.

IIRC I heard that the Belzer Rebbe (previous?) was the one who started calling it "yenneh machlah" and said that if you don't say the name, it's a segulah for not getting it.

amother

Lavender

Tue, Sep 20 2016, 3:42 pm

I didn't want to talk over my miscarriages at the time with the same yentas at work who'd been trying to guess if I was pregnant since two months (!) after my wedding. I told a couple of close friends and my mother, because I'd told them about the first pregnancy already. I still feel it's private, and my choice with whom to discuss them, but I'm happy to talk about them with others who've gone through (or who are going through) the same thing, because feeling alone is a hard part of the experience.

Regarding cancer, I think there's a difference among generations. As a comparison, when I was doing nursing clinicals, one of my instructors was very paranoid about a patient on the ward who was HIV-positive. The instructor wanted us to wear gloves when dealing with the patient, as I recall, and for something like taking their blood pressure/temperature where we wouldn't normally. I tried to reason with the teacher, since hospital protocol as to when to use gloves or other protection while dealing with any patient was based on the assumption that anyone could be HIV-positive and not know it. The only difference between a patient with HIV and one of unknown status (I.e. everyone else) is that if you get pricked with a dirty needle, the patient doesn't need new HIV testing- you get the prophylactic treatment either way.

I still maintain that I was right, and think it's potentially insulting to patients to use extra (pointless) protection while treating them, but that teacher had been working as a nurse since the 1970s and her attitude towards HIV was roughly the same as when it was first discovered in the 1980s, when it was a clear-cut death sentence. I, starting to deal with patients in the late 2000s, first saw HIV as one of many diseases I did not want to catch from patients, and one that I was unlikely to given its methods of transmission and the availability of emergency prophylaxis. MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria? I felt like I needed to boil my scrubs when I got home, even after using gloves and disposable gowns.

Cancer is similar, I think. BH BH BH, it isn't always the death sentence it once was. Many people die of it, but many also survive it. I'm scared of getting it or seeing loved ones get it, but not to the point that I can't talk about it. I'm guessing it's ingrained as scarier still for those who grew up a few decades before I did.

eschaya

Wed, Sep 21 2016, 9:40 am

Great. So next time I'm giving report I'm going to say, "the patient has metastatic female yenna machla" so that I reduce my risk of getting cancer. I think this attitude contributes to the shame that unfortunately does still exist in our communities regarding cancer, specifically breast/ovarian/uterine cancers, which may lead women to be less proactive about getting screened and treated early. We perpetuate the feelings of shame and guilt by refusing to call it by name, by refusing to identify it for what it is; a disease of the body that is not "earned" and does not reflect in any way on the character of the person suffering through it.
There is no doubt that we do have shame in our communities regarding illness, especially mental illness, and abuse, loss and addictions. I had postpartum depression after one of my children, and initially I told no one (not even my parents) but with time - and as I've become more involved in both healthcare and women's needs - I've opened up and shared it. Not on a soapbox, or as part of general chatter, but whenever relevant. And I've found that all other women need is that opening, a breach in the dam, and then their own stories and need to communicate and share and gain support come forth.
I think shidduchim play a large part in much of the silencing today. We all want to portray our families as perfect, free of medical and mental illness, emotional dysfunction and even financial problems. But there is no family that is free of problems and perfect... and honestly, I think we'd all rather know what we get than be surprised by that hidden gift.
The silence that may surround miscarriage and other loss may have some underpinnings of shame, but may also be largely embedded in grief, which for many people is a private thing. Some are the wail-out-loud type who want obvious pity, and there are others who prefer to nurse their grief in silence. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Lastly, there is the idea of tznius with regard to privacy. There is a modesty in not sharing every detail about our lives with others, and this is a valid and important middah. At the same time, we just need to make sure that our discreetness does not become extreme. So no one needs to know how many squares of toilet paper I use per trip, nor would I share how much my furniture costs, or exactly what day I became pregnant. I also would not share any details that pertain to others (kids, spouse) or can harm others. But verbalizing that I had PPD in a forum where I can support and help other women, or mentioning that a relative has cancer and here is his name for tehillim (provided that the patient wants this), in these cases speaking up is far from a lack of modesty.

eschaya

Wed, Sep 21 2016, 10:01 am

amother wrote:

Definitely an interesting question. If you're comparing to what I said, I'd stick to diseases with a near-100% risk of mortality. On an additional note, we have so many euphemisms for death. How many people say "passed away" rather than "died"?

Interesting, current practice (at least in healthcare) is to use the "D" word and avoid euphamisms. It makes dealing with the loss/impending loss so much easier for families.

Not calling something for what it is causes so much confusion and grief later on. I had a patient once who had a terminal condition and the family was being so difficult and unreasonable (completely understandable, of course) and demanding procedures that couldn't be done.The family was suffering so much and the patient was so tortured and confused. So I asked the team, "has anyone told the family that the patient is dying" and they told me "well, I don't know if we used that word, but we've been talking about hospice so I'm sure they know." Well, after conferring with palliative care, who reiterated what I suggested, the doctors told the family - clearly - that he was dying, there was no more treatment for his condition. THe family was shocked! They had no idea! Denial is a really strong thing, especially for a loved one.

(with regard to sticking to diseases with high mortality, until the invention of antibiotics, infection carried a huge mortality)

amother

Lavender

Wed, Sep 21 2016, 2:39 pm

eschaya wrote:

Interesting, current practice (at least in healthcare) is to use the "D" word and avoid euphamisms. It makes dealing with the loss/impending loss so much easier for families.

I know; I was talking about general society, not the medical community.

Quote:

(with regard to sticking to diseases with high mortality, until the invention of antibiotics, infection carried a huge mortality)

Huge mortality, yes, but in most cases somewhat less than 100%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....rates
Of the diseases with at least 90% mortality listed in that link, most are tropical diseases or as in the cases of HIV and ebola, modern. Rabies, smallpox, and black plague were all described as especially terrible in any historical accounts I've read over the years, but that's only been light reading- I haven't done any serious research that would show their having being called (or not) by euphemisms. As I said, it's an interesting topic and I'd love to hear if anyone knows more about it.