Childhood caregiver using different names for us?

Not sure exactly what I am asking here.
I'll talk this through with our T tomorrow, so no stress if you all haven't any input on this one..

yesterday I had our childhood caregiver on the phone. the one who inadvertently caused us a lot of trouble.

On the phone they asked to speak to (nickname from when we were a toddler).
They then said to "tell her" and told me the message (praise).

[none of the kids were present for the conversation. We go to great lengths to ensure the kids are far away when we have contact with this caregiver]


The whole thing freaked me out no end.
Especially because one of us keeps insisting that this caregiver "made us".
Not sure what he means by that but I wonder if it has something to do with this. I don't much like the thought but it feels to me that this isn't the first time they have addressed us in the third person.
"Tell her". How is that not messed up?!

Did someone in your life do that when you were little?
I see it as a form of splitting, no? Not just one daughter, but a multitude.

Just out of interest, do you know if there is any correlation between children repeatedly (if indeed it was commonplace) being addressed as different people and actually developing DID?

Of course the alternate answer is that the caregiver subconsciously knows we are multiple after all and adjusted the way they address us accordingly?

Meh.
How awkward I am thinking along these lines again.

The one inside that said the caregiver 'made you' may not be meaning they made you because of what they named you, but that they are the one who hurt you, caused you to divide/create more personalities etc

Is it possible when you were on the phone, that she thought you were someone else, a friend/family etc who she just wanted to pass on the message to you? or did it sound like she knew it was 'you' asking you to tell another part a message. It is possible that she knows you are multiple, some people just seem more aware of it. When you answered the phone and told her x wasn't there, who did you say you were, was it a name she would have known was 'you'

I'm not to sure on the front of addressing people differently causes them to develop DID, I would have thought it was there in the first place. I've worked with children a lot in the past and they can act very differently at home to at an after school group, to in school etc. And in each different place they can have a different 'name' such as Stephanie, Steffie, Steph etc - they are not multiple, but in your cause it may be not a coincidence, but that, for those parts, they really were different people.

debetoile wrote:The one inside that said the caregiver 'made you' may not be meaning they made you because of what they named you, but that they are the one who hurt you, caused you to divide/create more personalities etc

You're right, all the bits we're working through with our T were directly affected by this caregiver.

I think we know a lot about our past but Mal keeps making comments about mind control/brain washing. I can see some similarities but this was one person, immediate family, who meant well even though that motivation was not reflected in their actions back then. I just keep thinking he is overreacting or blowing things out of proportion but also I am curious as to what they could have done he would use such a strong term to describe?

debetoile wrote:Is it possible when you were on the phone, that she thought you were someone else, a friend/family etc who she just wanted to pass on the message to you? or did it sound like she knew it was 'you' asking you to tell another part a message. It is possible that she knows you are multiple, some people just seem more aware of it. When you answered the phone and told her x wasn't there, who did you say you were, was it a name she would have known was 'you'

They knew I was on the phone and that I was the only one listening to the phone call. They suddenly addressed me in the third person, effectively telling me to tell my child self that they are a good girl. There seemed to be no expectation of me physically getting someone else on the line. The message was just for toddler me.

The caregiver had caught us animatedly talking amongst ourselves (out loud) when we were a pre-teen. That event was very traumatic for us, especially one of us who spent the next 15 years preventing us from ever finding out that we are "crazy" (this is how we first found out the way our mind works is different and "wrong").

I guess they have made some headway working through their own traumas. So maybe they only just remembered catching us like that? I've never had any reason to believe they know we're a group before (well apart form that one time). Keeping it from them has always been a prime directive in here.

Thanks for providing some focus for me.
I guess really it's back to addressing Mal's claims of brainwashing.

Hi Teatime,

You mentioned "inadvertently":

Teatime wrote:yesterday I had our childhood caregiver on the phone. the one who inadvertently caused us a lot of trouble.

How is that so? Not for me this answer, but for you guys.

Teatime wrote:On the phone they asked to speak to (nickname from when we were a toddler).
They then said to "tell her" and told me the message (praise).

For me this is weird, and caught my attention. For me it sounded as if this person know you are multiple and not like you've told them, but rather "I know and I want to get in contact with her". Even thought I have 2 first names, no one that I recall has approached me that way, nor I've seen that with other people.

Teatime wrote:Especially because one of us keeps insisting that this caregiver "made us".

I think this is powerful. And it is great that you're talking it to your T today. I don't know much bout your story and this caregiver of yours... But since you all are putting a lot of effort to have your littles away from him/her (?) and since one of you has insisted he "made you". Do pay attention to what there is there about.

Good therapy today.

People who spend time with people with DID may well pick up on different parts. And they may be aware that one part has a specific relationship with them that the whole doesn't.

Jonathan and Jack in childhood were there because of the father. We have clear memories for how they came, both from incidents of SA. But Jonathan developed into a sort of co-host, going to school for me, while Jack continued to take abuse and led a parallel life, hanging out with his own set of friends. Jonathan's role was also to spend non-abuse time with the father. When the man wanted his son to go somewhere with him, like to a farm or gun show, he would call out "Jonathan" and Jonathan would switch in. We know that the father called him that because he asked to be addressed that way. The father was dissociative and may have understood naturally. Also his wife, my mother, had DID.

My mother told us a few dozen times the story of how her father (an abuser) would refer to her by different names, always Priscilla and Mabel, never other names, supposedly because he couldn't remember her real name. To whatever degree he himself was dissociative (and he would disappear for days at a time), I believe he knew exactly who he was talking to. My mother also repeated that people called her Steve in high school, and photos indicate a masculine tomboy appearance. It's as if the echoes of alters, whom I could recognize by name (some in hindsight), needed to be acknowledged in stories about her life from time to time. She turned everything into a cute story.

My sister and I once fulfilled my mother's lifelong dream of her children growing up and taking her to Europe. In Paris, we spent time with her alter Priscilla. We knew then, years before any awareness of dissociation, and brought it up often, that the person sometimes there in Paris was a giggly, innocent little girl. Too bad I didn't add things up so I could call her by name.

Una is correct in her observations. People who've wondered about my sexuality, since I never seem to be with anybody, have offered that I seemed asexual. Jonathan is quite heterosexual and has none of the blocks on sexuality that I do, other than me being the host and putting a damper on most sexuality.

Hi Seangel Thanks for your reply.
Yeah, it's funny - we can't refer to her as an abuser and if we mention trauma in relation to her the word "inadvertently" always has to be in place or else. Le sigh. Sometimes we can say "her" other times it seems to much even to give away her gender for fear she will happen across what we've written and recognise it is us "badmouthing" her. We're still getting to grips with the duality of it all: Good mother. Bad mother. All in one.

Thanks Johnny-Jack
I hadn't quite considered just how much she might be picking up on our past preferences regarding nicknames. I guess on some level she must know, I am just hoping she hasn't formalized those thoughts. I hope she only has a vague sense of it. I think it would knock her for five if she really knew. She deals with a lot of guilt as it is.

Mal used to be convinced the mother was multiple herself but more recently he has changed his mind and we're thinking she is probably a singlet after all. You never can tell. I think it was just too "easy" an explanation for her variable needs, wants and unwritten rule books in our case. But then our DID-Dar is forever on the fritz

Thanks guys

I believe my grandmother was a multiple. Like Johnny-Jack with his mother, after I found out about myself I saw many clues about my grandmother. I will share just one. In her 90's my husband and I took her to another country to visit distant relations. The relations told us, in fact regaled us, with stories of how when she was with them and we were not there, she was "like" a different person. At the time we were baffled. Now we understand.

Teatime, it sounds to me like this caregiver is very aware of your multiplicity, although the awareness is not necessarily very sophisticated or conscious. And clearly a part of you thinks this caregiver is the cause of your DID, or at least of that part. This is not necessarily true but does merit attention. For your personal safety it may be wise to proceed as if both thoughts are true.