I could take the stong stand and tell her to modify her tone and pull herself together and not treat me like a doormat. I've been there. It accomplshes nothing except to elevate her anger and vitriol to a new high.
One word for you: boundaries. you "stuck up for yourself" verbally. but you were not as "strong" as you could have been. you still allowed her to continue to treat you that way.
What you can do in the future, is to first again say, "You are talking to me in an insulting way." But then CONTINUE with, "I wont put up with that any more. If you continue to disrepect me in that way, I will hang up".
Then... if she continues to be insulting...hang up.
THAT, shows strength. THAT, shows that you wont allow yourself to be treated by her in the same way that you have been before.
Just make sure that you keep things to fair boundaries. Dont make it, "give me [whatever i want right now] or I'll hang up".
Fair and appropriate boundaries are, roughly speaking; "If you try to behave towards me in a way that is hurtful to me, i choose not to allow you further opportunity to excercise that specific behaviour towards me".
To put it another way: they are self protection, against someone else directly hurting you.
(warning: some people abuse this type of attitude; For example, WAS's and MLCers may claim they are "enforcing a boundary" by leaving, because "you arent giving me what I want/letting me do what I want/making me happy. that's 'hurting me', so I'm going to leave you".
That's abusing the "boundaries" concept. There's a big difference between "the spouse is involved in actions that directly hurt the WAS", and "the spouse's presense is inhibiting the WAS/MLC'r from living it up." Leaving, in those cases, is not an act of "self-protection". It is an act of, "I choose to look for happiness outside our marriage, instead of within it")
Last edited by Dom R; 02/15/0808:47 PM.
My current status: june 2006. Wife ran out and filed D. Finalized Jan 11, 2010, after 12.5 years M. 3 wonderful sons caught in the middle
I'm of the opinion that some anger is good for us because it prevents us from making the same mistakes over and over again. If I had never gotten angry at my X I would have continued to sit in my house and cry about it all. If I had not become angry about what he was trying to do to me and his children, X would have taken everything we had both worked 17 years for. If I had not become angry with him, I would never have started to protect myself from him.
The anger fades FL, and eventually it goes away. But that's only after we've taken care of business and give it enough time. If we don't do that, we sometimes retain that anger forever.
What matters IS how we deal with our anger. We can choose to have a good attitude regardless of what happens or we can choose to go through the rest of our lives with bad ones. It's entirely up to us.
It does go in cycles though and I applaud your telling the truth here about how you feel. That's key. You're saying it here where it will do no harm.
I agree with Dom R that boundary setting is necessary. I do have a little bit of a different take - I avoid using emotionally charged labels that to characterize the person or the dialogue when setting a boundary. I also stay issue focused. Perhaps it is the lawyer in me.... This is something I learned again from Michele and actually use it at work as a very effective tool.
It is harder to set boundaries with non-specific terms like - do not insult me or do not hurt me b/c words like insult and hurt are subject to individual interpretation - and may lead to an argument of what constitutes insulting or hurtful. It is easier on a case by case, issue by issue, fact by fact basis.
For example, if W says no, you cannot put $650 in a separate account. I would respond: I have looked into apartments. According my calculations, I will need X dollars/month. I am willing to listen what do you think is a reasonable amount to put aside that will enable me to afford my own apartment when I get back. (Do not bring up garage apt, the D, or your pain - just focus on what you are asking for.)
If W says: I can't afford x, y, z, if you spend X dollars on yourself with some ranting and raving thrown in. Then I would say: Having two separate living establishments costs more than a single one. We are going to have to make adjustments to the budget b/c we simply do not have the money to do x, y, z, and have my own place.
If W starts accusing you of doing things to her - simply say: I am sorry that my actions made you feel that way. And NOTHING ELSE.
If W says other stuff - I would filter before it gets processed by my brain as white noise and detach. Respond with perfunctory non-emotional phrases like - I see, I will think about it, I will consider it, etc - and NOTHING ELSE. Or if it continues - I would simply excuse myself and say. I hate to interuppt you but I have to go to attend to xyz, let's discuss this again tomorrow. Keep your voice calm, steady, relaxed and pleasant. And you have not given, the discussion is not over.
The goal is to communicate what you want while cutting opportunities for the other person to whine, complain, communicate in a generally unconstructive manner. If you de-escalate, the other person no longer has the foundation to escalate.
In the beginning, the calmer I became, the angrier The X became So you take a time out - let them think about it and then readdress the issue. I use this at work all the time with contentious opposing counsel. They eventually get that you will not be engaged in a discussion on their terms - it will be on your terms.
It takes awhile to master. When I was DB'ing, I detached and it was almost like a game to me... Can I control what The X is saying simply by what I say. I got to the point where I really stopped caring about what he was saying - and I no longer allowed him to control my reaction. I acted - as opposed to reacted. I know cold and manipulative - but very effective.
I hope this makes sense - it is hard to communicate how to do this.
Interesting, AG. I'd say what you describe, is not so much boundary setting, as tactfully managing the conversation.
verbal boundary setting, is for those of us who are not so skillful at on-the-spot wordsmithing, I think
AAAANd... i gather that you are female females are usually better at conversation manipulation, whereas us males more often have to resort to more blunt tactics (you have 20% more verbal related brain area or something, after all)
I know that I personally tend to be waaay more articulate on the boards here, then when confronted by my wife in an "immediate" conversation. I can always think of great ways to respond.... a few hours after the conversation is over and done with
My current status: june 2006. Wife ran out and filed D. Finalized Jan 11, 2010, after 12.5 years M. 3 wonderful sons caught in the middle
FLTC, I hope you don't mind while I hijack your thread for a moment.
Hey Dom:
Quote:
females are usually better at conversation manipulation, whereas us males more often have to resort to more blunt tactics
I have to confess that sometimes when I am upset, I make absolutely no sense. I rant and rave about 20 unrelated things that are bothering me - when in fact it may be none of those 20 things actually are that it is really a 21st thing I haven't identified. The poor male tries to follow what I am saying and gets increasingly frustrated. And when he does try to say something - it is never really right b/c quite frankly I really don't know what I want to hear - just that what I am hearing is not right! LOL!
I will have to reluctantly confess that I probably have sounded like FLTC's W on occassion when interacting with a male R...
Men in general seem to be more articulate when confronted by pretty much everyone when compared to their wives. I work in a male dominated environment and the men are sometimes more emotional chatty than the women. Us women are frozen b/c we are not allowed to display emotion or be chatty for fear we are labeled "acting just like a woman."
Quote:
I can always think of great ways to respond.... a few hours after the conversation is over and done with
I hear you on that one. Sometimes when I figure out item #21 that is the true source of my angst - I am very organized and focused but by then the poor male is licking his wounds somewhere and has gone into hiding!
During my relatively saner moments when I am calm enough to use DB techniques. I try to detach and figure out the outcome first - in other words what do I want. Then I figure out how to get there. If you detach from the process of getting there, it is easier to manipulate the situation. I suppose that is why it comes more easily to me at work - I am not as emotionally invested.
In my civilian job, I am a high school administrator. I have absolutely no issue taking on out of control parents, never lose my composure, never blink an eye, and can deliver "ornance on target" with EVERY encounter. If you go to AGs page, I posted how I dismantled another officer that worked for me who was preying on single, enlisted Soldiers. Every word I used was measured, right on target.. laser-guided precise, no stammers, no rambling. I had him stammering, stutterring, physically shaking.
Now, this is the same FLTC who does the avoidance technique not to discuss anything with W. Emotional involvment clouds everything, and I, like many of you need to apply my officer/administrator filter to talking with W. I have to stop believing that each encounter is the proverbial "STRAW"
Your interactions at work do not affect the infrastructure that defines your life.
You trusted W. W is betraying that trust by threatening to disassemble that foundation and forever alter the vision of what you thought your life was going to be.
We are more reactive when things that are closer to the core definition of our being are threatened.
If you do end up D, it will take time to redefine your life and rebuild the infrastructure. And when you do that - W will matter less and less, and you will react less and less.
females are usually better at conversation manipulation, whereas us males more often have to resort to more blunt tactics 
