Continuing the self respect and open warfare thread #2

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

This topic seems to have such resonance that it seems worthy to continue the discussion.

[Cat Familiar]

This topic seems to have such resonance that it seems worthy to continue the discussion.

[Cat Familiar]

I find it interesting how this topic has struck a nerve for a lot of people here. I see two distinct themes emerging in the comments:

1. The desire to maintain structure and boundaries

2. The concern about collateral damage to the children and marital relationship

To me, both of these issues are important and neither ought to be sacrificed for the benefit of the other. But how to accomplish that?

One issue that has been universally spoken about is "respect." I think this is key. FF felt disrespected by his wife's verbal behavior i front of the children. Some posters pointed out that FF's wallet maneuver would have caused his wife also to feel disrespected in front of their kids. And it's possible that the kids might have felt disrespected when their father drove off without leaving them funds for dinner.

Trying to imagine being in FF's shoes, it seems like it's a no-win situation. It's so easy for us reading about this experience to offer alternative strategies, but, in the moment, he did what he thought was the best choice.

Knowing that this sort of issue is likely to reoccur, how can we help him maintain the respect and dignity for himself, his wife and his children?

[Harri]

IMO, respect, safety and the needs of the children trump any adult.  Again, I think I am the only one horrified by the fact that the children are habitually left alone with a raging mother.  Taking up the war analogy and the duty of the leading officer, the children are the soldiers under your command.  Stop leaving them to fend for themselves.  You are deserting your troops.

Someone earlier said that no one was abused.  I am calling that out.  The kids in this family and every other family with a BPD parent is being abused.  apparently emotional abuse is considered secondary to some people here.  news flash:  it is the most damaging of them all.  Growing up in a stressful chaotic environment is hellish and causes damage.  Manipulation, PA, emotional incest, paranoia... .all of you adults find them difficult if not impossible to deal with and spend months to years and decades in some cases trying to recover.  What do you think is happening to your kids?

I am not saying any of this to get FF to divorce or anyone else here.  I am saying it because if you are going to parent or co-parent with a pwBPD you need to be aware and stop minimizing and rationalizing and denying.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for all of you in this position.  I have greater respect and consideration for your kids though and if I can get one person to break through the generations of denial and dysfunctional behaviors to see what is right in front of them, any feelings I offend here will be worth it.

For the record, I am not at all horrified by wwhat happened at the church with the money.  That is simply a smaller issue that is the result of much much larger problem with the family structure.

This can be very empowering information to have.  It allows you to see reality and different perspectives and may even open avenues to more effective ways of interacting and less damage to everyone involved.  Even if nothing changes on the outside and the same things have to be repeated over and over again with the wife, perhaps the eyes will open and some extra time talking with and listening to the kids will happen.  Someone, maybe chump, mentioned things escalating to WWIII level.  Been there and done that many many times as a kid.  The fallout after the war was actually a relief and a break from the constant skirmishes for me at least.  I do not say that to challenge but to show that any opinion or individual experience can be used to sway a position.  What matters is the needs of the specific family involved in this discussion.  Not one of us here know what those needs are.  What FF has been doing has had some success with Mrs. FF and very little with the kids.  A change in focus and strategy is what is needed.

[Notwendy]

Harri,

I hope you don't feel your position about the children is unsupported here. The focus on this incidence between the parents does not discount the needs of the children.

I believe most parents are concerned about their children and probably all parents make errors in their relationships with them from time to time but they also have opportunities to recognize and make attempts to repair if they choose.

This can extend past childhood. I too could report about the unhappiness caused by issues bettween my parents, but I can also recognize that our basic needs were met by a father who was most likely stretched to his capacity and I want to commend FF and other fathers here for that. I recognize the needs of the children and what seems like an extraordinary task of a father. I have no doubt FF loves his kids and so did my father.

Kids don't need their parents to provide basic needs forever, but I think all children long for a relationship with their parents no matter how old they are. For me the only possibility for that was with my father. I do have a relationship with my widowed mother. It is not much different than the one I have had with her since I was 12. I'm useful to her- only as an adult I can have boundaries I was not allowed to have then.

Growing up , I felt if I approached my parents I was some sort of burden to them. My father was probably overwhelmed. Finances were a concern. My fantasy as a child was that when I grew up I would pay them back for any money I cost them and not bother them anymore.

As an adult I see things differently and their situation was complicated. I have great empathy for both of them - my father- and for FF- and for children. Still I think one has to meet the basic needs of the family and this may be all a parent can manage with a large family and disorder wife.

I just want to point out that even along the way there are opportunities to connect with the hearts of children along the way- so they don't miss them. These will continue long after they are grown.

I share your wish to spare even one child. Mine is similar but from another perspective.  Perhaps it is to spare just one well meaning father from missing the chance to have a meaningful relationship with the kids.

[teapay]

I gave my advice to FF and would suggest he continue doing what he is doing.  He seems to have it covered as best he can.  There is no magic wand or silver bullet, but a long slog with no guarantees.  He is not new at the game.  He listen to people comments seriously.  He just seemed unconvinced to some by his personal experience and simply disagrees it.  I dsagree with many of them  also based on personal experience.

Folks expressed several concerns about impacts on children, collateral damage ect…  The teapay protocol takes all this into account.  It expects extinction bursts and how to see them through.  It knows the relationship might end by implementation which might ultimately be the best result.  It monitors children, talks to them, makes sure they are okay emotionally and understand what is going on.  It is not bump free and not a quick fix, but ultimately moves everyone in a better direction.  Again, it is directed at male nons married to women with clinical BPD who have children and not necessary other groups.   It is a voluntary program for husbands who want a better life.  It is based on attraction through success rather than promotion.

[chump]

Thanks Cat for keeping this thread going.  As I said in an earlier post, there seems to be some folks here, and yes some of them are women, who are quite “invested” in getting FF to change his perspective.  As I wrote once before, I come from the point of view that “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

Which got me thinking.  Why is it so important that FF change his point of view here?  Of course, the children right?  Pretty hard to argue with someone who is speaking up for the welfare of children.  They’re absolutely right of course, children are our most precious gift.  They are defenseless, impressionable, they depend on us entirely and represent the hopes of all of us for a better future.

As soon as someone introduces the welfare of children, it pretty much settles the argument, or so it seems.

I simply have no problem with FF saying to his wife, in effect, “You have your own money, at this moment you need some of mine, I get it, no problem, I can help, happy to…just be nice and it’s yours.”  Whether children are present or not.  FF’s wife is needlessly creating this confrontation, and the children are learning that life is way harder if you don’t learn how to be nice, particularly when you need something, particularly to the people closest to you.  I’m fine with that, it happens to be true.

The interpersonal dynamics of a BPD relationship often (almost by definition) include situations that seemed designed by the pwBPD to create a lose/lose proposition, either walk on eggshells to avoid escalating the situation or enforce a boundary, which of course almost always ends badly.  We often say don’t WOE, and further don’t JADE, don’t explain yourself, it will only make things worse.

Now introduce children into this dynamic.  A BPD spouse is on the warpath, looking for a fight, almost NEEDING a fight to externalize the cauldron of pain and rage that’s brewing within them.  The target of this rage is the intimate partner.  So should the non hold the pwBPD spouse accountable for their behavior, confront them and insist on mutual respect?  Or walk on eggshells to avoid bringing the kids into it?  So now the children are internalizing this dynamic and learning very unhealthy, co-dependent relationship dynamics.

So what does FF do?  Leave?  Leave permanently and began a protracted bitter divorce and custody battle.  Or leave temporarily until the situation cools down.  It seems, at least for now, that FF has opted for a sustained pattern of small tactical retreats hoping that in the long run this will be the right strategy.  He’s keeping his family of eight children intact, and avoiding greater harm to everyone.

FF’s lion’s den analogy made perfect sense to me as a man.  His boundaries are constantly being tested at home, and further challenged here.  As if the simple act of hanging on to his wallet was one of aggression.

I think there may be a fundamental difference in perspectives here, maybe it’s not completely gendered, but maybe in part.  Perhaps a way of framing it, rather than purely gendered, is the fundamental mindset through which you approach relationships.  Maybe it comes down to something as simple as how we view being “difficult” or testing our relationships.

I believe that all relationships between consenting adults are fundamentally conditional, and should be.  Love is not conditional, but relationships are.  That means that all of us are ultimately responsible for how we conduct ourselves in relationships.  Adult relationships are strictly voluntary.  And our laws reflect that, either side is free to leave at any time, period.  There are legal and financial implications of leaving if the two are married, have minor children, shared assets, income disparities, etc., but in the end, both parties are there voluntarily and free to leave at any time.

I think where people (i.e. men and women) may differ somewhat is their default.  My default is the open road.  If someone in relationship to me harms that relationship, chronically tests it, undermines it, sows discord, distrust or doubt, that’s a person I need to distance myself from.

Using FF’s wall analogy, if my neighbor keeps throwing things over the wall, I need to build a higher wall.  For some people that simple act is viewed as further provocation.  That somehow trying to reduce the impact of a neighbor’s behavior is an aggressive act in itself.  No, an aggressive act is to start throwing things back over the wall or escalate further.  For men, I think, at least with women, we lean toward disengaging from a threat, because to engage means a fight, and a fight can have devastating consequences.

I think some people (maybe women) may approach this dynamic with a different default.  They might default to the relationship, and the unresolved emotions of the situation.  So if a woman throws something over the wall, she may see it as an opening gambit for a conversation about something that’s bothering her.  She may feel perfectly justified in being “difficult” or confrontational.  Fair enough, she is perfectly entitled to conduct herself however she wants, but I am equally entitled to decide whether or not, and the degree to which, I want to allow her choices to impact me.  Including walking away, either permanently or temporarily.

And I think for many women that’s the equivalent of the nuclear option, to walk away.  For many men the “nuclear option” looks very different, it means war.  And sometimes war means people end up dead.  A man’s anger, and the havoc it can create, is always in the back of his mind.  So to walk away is the kinder choice.

Now of course, we all make mistakes, we get stressed, tired, irritable, hungry, whatever.  Not a problem, just apologize and make it right, and we move on.  But any time, I mean any time, we act against another person, we risk losing that person.  That’s the truth of all adult relationships, and it’s the reason why so many pwBPD end up alone.  Frankly, even people without personality disorders often end up alone for a similar reason, not recognizing that in order for relationships to thrive, they need to be cultivated, nurtured, invested in.  And children benefit from learning this lesson.

So maybe this is just the nature of the dynamic between people (men and women).  An asymmetric approach to relationships, one that defaults to “Be nice or I’m out” and another that defaults to “I’ll be nice once you prove that you won’t leave.”

Chump.

[KateCat]

I gave my advice to FF and would suggest he continue doing what he is doing.

Why so many multiplying problems in his life? Surely there is something to modify.

Formflier, keep up the hard work. I think your psychologist is a practical individual who will have specific advice for you, and hopefully pretty soon. Her statement that the goal is to "stabilize" the family seems to indicate that more work needs to be done, in her view.

[Notwendy]

Trying to change anyone's mind is mostly futile, sometimes codependent. A motivator for posting is to voice an opinion with the hopes it might help someone somewhere. Multiple posts with different perspectives add to the value.

If a poster asks for advice - them it is up to them to consider it or not or decide if any of it is of value.

[Cat Familiar]

I was not attempting to get FF to change his mind. I'll repeat something I said in the last thread:

If you had said something like, "Well, her (Mrs. FF--about not having dinner money) embarrassment was not my concern. I wanted to be consistent with my boundaries," I would have felt that you actually considered her emotional state by your response and I would have respected that and not attempted to rephrase my thought.


Why I think numerous people reiterated the same point was that I think many of us didn't feel that FF was taking time to consider our opinion, not that he needed to change his. Instead, he seemed to double down (JADE) on his opinion.

The following comment was a linguistic response to what I think might be a common pattern in FF's communication, one that might possibly create issues he doesn't intend to start:

Really, all it would take would be a phrase like, "I hadn't thought of that (or I had thought of that or I don't care that person felt that way)... .but I still think what I did was right for me." Respect and done. That way the person giving you the suggestion feels like you've actually taken a moment to consider what they've said.

[Cat Familiar]

Chump said, So should the non hold the pwBPD spouse accountable for their behavior, confront them and insist on mutual respect?

What do we know about BPD? One of the defining principles is that pwBPD have difficulty regulating their emotions. And when dysregulated, all bets are off. Does it seem likely that a dysregulated person could abruptly turn the switch from nasty to nice simply because they were asked to do so?

I've never experienced that. That's why the wallet maneuver seemed so provocative. And leaving his wife without money at the church was likely to make things worse. And who was in her presence in public when she was amongst her peers at church with no husband and no money? The kids! Do you think it was likely that she was able to quickly compose herself and behave like a mature parent at that moment? In a nutshell, this is why I thought FF's choice was so toxic.

The interpersonal dynamics of a BPD relationship often (almost by definition) include situations that seemed designed by the pwBPD to create a lose/lose proposition, either walk on eggshells to avoid escalating the situation or enforce a boundary, which of course almost always ends badly.  We often say don’t WOE, and further don’t JADE, don’t explain yourself, it will only make things worse.


Yes, I totally agree. It sounds like Mrs. FF often uses the kids as stage props for her drama.

[flourdust]

Chump said, So should the non hold the pwBPD spouse accountable for their behavior, confront them and insist on mutual respect?

No. This appears to be the wrong boundary to be enforcing. If you start with basic needs such as food, shelter, and safety from violence and abuse, then "respect" is very far down the list. It might be something to work on in a relationship that is otherwise going smoothly and not entangled in paranoid ideations, legal threats, fights over sleeping protocols, fights over employment, and fights over which outsiders will be privy to information about the marriage.

To use another analogy -- triage. If the patient is bleeding out from a chest wound, don't treat his ear infection. If you want a military analogy - pick your battles. As long as you focus on executing your pre-planned strategy on the immediate fight, you won't notice that you are losing the war.

As for the children's role in the fight -- here is another military term. Collateral damage. How many civilian casualties are acceptable to achieve the objective? A famous unattributed quote from the Vietnam War: "To save the town, it became necessary to destroy it."

Is it necessary to destroy the family in order to save it? Are you picking the right fights or just blindly applying "protocols" no matter how much collateral damage is done? You need to triage this marriage - where's the chest wound?

[KateCat]

Thank you for the eloquence, flourdust. I think the psychologist is going to say the same thing, in a grandmotherly milk-and-cookies way.

[Harri]

Hi Notwendy.  No I do not think my concern for the children is unsupported here. 

I do think there are huge blind spots in the eyes of a lot of people here.  I am not saying to stand and fight every battle nor am I saying to walk on eggshells.  I *am* wondering if the blindspots, the dysfunctional behaviors of the Non that have been born from years of generational 'soft abuse' have clouded people eyes.  The attitudes that state that no abuse occurred, that do not recognize the emotional damage that is being done.

I do not expect people to be able to fight on every point with their spouse.  I expressed my concern poorly here.  I simply want people to get rid of the blind spots.  To acknowledge, at least, that your kids are going to be impacted as will your relationship with them. 

Yes, there may be opportunities to repair/mend a relationship later on.  Or maybe not.  I am glad it worked out that way for you.   It did not for me and my father and not for many others. 

Yes, kids can be viewed as collateral damage.  I am telling you though that that is a view that is myopic at best.  Collateral refers to something that is an accessory, a sidebar so to speak.  It is a term that minimizes and marginalizes the damage that is being done when applied to discussions about kids and it depersonalizes the how the parent experiences the kids in these situations.  They are little people, not collateral.

Notwendy, you said that your basic needs were met as a child.  So were mine.  All meeting the basic needs of a child does is keep CPS away from you door (assuming the broken system is working at its best).  It is not parenting.  It is not even okay parenting.  It meets basic needs.  If that is all that is possible, go with it.  But what if it is not all that is possible?

The key message I am trying to make is to clear your vision.  Stop minimizing, marginalizing and thinking of the kids as being secondary in these situations.  Change how you incorporate their needs into how you enforce boundaries and set limits with your SO.  If you can't put the kids needs first, for the love of God, at least let their needs be somewhere towards the top of the list of concerns in terms of damage control and care.

[Notwendy]

Harri,

It didn't work out for me and my father. He took care of us when we were children, but by the time I was an adult, my mother saw me as a rival. She controlled every aspect of our relationship- any money he could or could not give me for college. She listened in on our phone conversations and read e mails.

She painted me black to him. In her world, people are either on her side or not. He couldn't have a relationship with both of us. I was expendable.

This is one reason I support boundaries but not with blinders on when it comes to the kids. It's a hard balance.

What has worked out for me is looking at him through his shoes as man who struggled to do his best with a difficult situation. I am not angry, nor do I blame him. I am only sad that he couldn't see the kind of love a child has for a parent, whether that child is 4 or 44.

[Cat Familiar]

I think dealing with my mother's mental illness caused my father to check out emotionally. He was there for me as a young child, but I think it was easier to disengage over time, rather than fight the constant battles.

By the time I was an adult, he had pretty much thrown in the towel and retreated to his own private world, focusing upon things he was interested in and having only a superficial relationship with my mother and me. I was held at a distance by him, probably because I was such a focus of her worry and paranoia. I just became an unpleasant reminder.

I lost one parent to mental illness. I lost the other one to exhaustion from having to cope with the mentally ill one.

[formflier]

You need to triage this marriage - where's the chest wound?

This is huge question.

Honestly... .I don't know the answer.

Follow up question... .if I can identify the chest wound... .can I put a bandage on it?

FF

[Notwendy]

Cat, I think my parents were in the same boat as yours. I recall my father being "there" for me at some times and he even was there for my kids. However as he aged, he surely got tired and like your father, retreated into his own world.  

After he died, I frantically reached out to some of his friends for information about him. He had a lot of e mail correspondence. One of them send me his e mails. It was like finding a treasure, getting to see a side of him that I hadn't before. I am glad he was able to make connections with some of his friends through e mail.

[formflier]

  However as he aged, he surely got tired and like your father, retreated into his own world.  
 

There is a little bit of this with me. 

In joint family functions (with my wife there)... .I am different than when it is just me with kids.

For instance.  D6 was home from school today.  We had "the best day ever" together.  Lots of fun and talking.  I'm not that way with her when mommy is around.  It doesn't take long for mommy to launch some zingers and shut things down.

FF