Controlling your life starts with controlling you

You know sometimes you start a blog post about an idea that hits you that you can relate to and before you know it, it becomes deeply personal to the point of being a little vulnerable.  But, here goes.  As a CSA (childhood sexual abuse) survivor who was raised in a dysfunctional home with alcoholism and domestic violence, I became aware at a young age of idea of powerlessness and the idea of having any control over anything was ridiculous to me.   Add to that the fact that our house looked run down and just not generally presentable, that I wore worn clothes to school, that I was bullied and that I never felt like I fit in and then you can see even more clearly why I would feel that way.

Had someone said control starts with you, I would have laughed at them.  The idea of 'being in control' would have sounded utterly absurd to me.   As previously mentioned, I didn't have control over what I could wear or what eat, the home in which I live in and its state of repair or disrepair.   In my house, I didn't have control over the dysfunction--the yelling, the screaming, in some cases the domestic violence.  On my person, I didn't have control over the sexual abuse that happened to me and the bullying in the neighborhood and at school.   So, to me the idea to me that I controlled anything would have met with like a "yeah, right" type stare.  Before I go on, I just want to state that I'm not focused on what I "didn't have" but am setting up a point.   I do realize that I am still fortunate in some ways living in the wealthiest country in the world.   But, I digress.  I didn't realize it then, but I realize these days that in some ways I had much more control than I understood. 

Let's move forward into my adulthood.   I was always the 'peacemaker' which in some ways is another way of saying "approval seeker" or "people pleaser".   I had started that role in my childhood and played that role in my adult life too.  It didn't help that I developed a moderate to severe anxiety condition as a 17 year old and as such sought calm as a result.  In any case,  this desire for approval (or better yet to not be disliked) led me to not properly stand up for myself.   I didn't stand up for myself as a kid and as a young adult I continued this pattern.  In some ways, I let those closest to me continued to control me by using my need for approval and my need not to be disliked or unwanted.   So, in some ways to me it felt like a progression from my childhood with the manipulation and being controlled that was part of needing acceptance.

--

Despite having the sense of 'powerlessness' in my early years and my earlier adulthood,  I believe I gradually have awakened to a different view or perspective of control (or power).  I used to be view power or control as:

• Something that is given or allowed.  
• Something we have to grab aggressively to gain.
• Necessarily involve or interact with that which is outside out.

I've seen the results of a child who had everything taken from him.  This child ended up being a bully.  He felt like he needed to try to control others to gain control himself.  Instead of realizing that he was just a kid and as such his authority was limited, he felt like he needed be pushy with adults to get his way and he needed to demand that he get to do what or get he wanted when he wanted.   When he felt his 'authority' being challenged he would get belligerent.  When he felt like what he had was at risk, even if that wasn't the case, he felt the need to make proactive threats.  In short, he was relying on trying to control others, being aggressive to get and 'keep' power, and blatantly involving outside forces.  As you might imagine this didn't work out well for him.   If anything he pushed others away, he tended to not get what he wanted in the long run and in many ways lost some of the control or power he had had.  In short, he represented the downfall of viewing power the way I had.

As I've grown and matured, I've come to realize that power or control can be:

• That which we can implicitly gain or earn.
• That which we can find within ourselves.
• It isn't necessarily something we are given or allowed, but what we own.

As a teen, when my parents divorced, I was my dad's helper.  He wasn't very good at the 'bachelor' thing.  I had somewhat taken over cooking near the end of my parent's marriage as my mom spent a lot of time out trying to escape her unhappiness.  My dad noted this and when they got divorced, I had 'earned' the role of cooking and shopping.  For someone who didn't feel like he had any control that is pretty significant.  I had gained my dad's trust in 'taking care of' the house in some ways.

While I've had to push back on family and friends who I felt took me for granted or in some cases took advantage and had to assert control.  I've come to realize that control also comes is not necessarily asserting power externally.  For this young person I'd met, he often didn't think his behaviors through.  He was captive to his emotions.  In other words, he wasn't even in control of himself.   Often times, control is as simple as making a decision not to let your emotions rule and ruin your day as well as cause conflict.  In other words, control in your life is to put yourself in the best position to succeed.  When I trained over the summer running during high school, I exhibited control.  Running was never easy, especially by myself.  But, in order to perform well, I would have to do that which was not comfortable.  In a sense, I made a conscience decision to control my actions and in the process exert control over my own future (performance).  In short, control here is a conscience decision to what I needed to and try to avoid doing things which were harmful to me.

When my daughter's mom was pregnant with her, often I didn't feel like I was given the respect or taken as seriously as I should have been.  I had wondered exactly how I would the "parenting authority".  In time, I came to realize it does not have to be something that I would given.  Such as voters give to the winning candidate for public office.  Nor does it have to be something allowed, like my parents letting me hang out with my friends.  What I realized in time was this little person, my infant daughter was learning something profound.  In her own infant (and then toddler way), she sensed that her parents were taking care of her, were meeting her needs,  we being supportive of her.   We didn't really ask for permission so much as we accepted the role of parents.   We owned our responsibility.  In her own way our baby/infant daughter had learned that she should mind us as she 'knew' that we were there to meet her needs.  So, we owned the role and therefore the power or authority that comes with it. 

--

So, what is my takeaways?

• When someone in your life tries to control you, to a large degree the control over you is what you allow or tolerate from them.
• Control doesn't need to be something achieved via threats over others.  It is best achieved or earned by doing the right things for the right reason and therefore gaining authority or power with that role. 
• You can't control how people treat you, but you can control your response.  You can influence your outcomes positively with control of yourself.

Anyway, just another perspective on control when others in position of power raise endless sum of money trying to essentially 'buy' it.   In many regards we are more free than those who seek to gain power.  

Thanks for reading and I hope you took something from it.

Sincerely,

Rich

The illusions of control - A take on controlling/controlled people

To any of my faithful readers who've ever been accused of being a controlling person or a control freak, don't worry.  Regardless of what anyone else thinks, you aren't truly in control anyways.  So, the claims of others to that effect, don't fully matter anyway.

In a way, you are being accused of trying to do something you probably don't or wouldn't succeed at anyway.  I firmly believe that control is largely an illusion and that to the extent we have control, it is short term and passing.  On January 5th of this year (2017), I was once again reminded of just how illusory control can be.  On January 4th, I was thinking about getting another year or so out of my 2006 Ford Focus before I would buy a new car.  By shortly before 8am on January 5th, I was staring at the reality that I would need to buy a new car imminently.  Another driver's failure to control her car, led to the destruction of my car, something whose timing I couldn't have predicted. That being said, just because we don't always have control over life's events doesn't mean that we should just throw up our hands and 'cast our fate to the wind'.  Rather it means we should factor in some uncertainty and keep in mind that despite our best plans, we have to be flexible enough to adjust them if the need arises.

But I digress. Regarding relationships, in order for control to be seriously attempted, there has to be someone who could feasibly be controlled.   That is to say, there has to be someone who is tends to be controlling and someone who tends to 'fall prey' to a controlling person.

I am going to ponder the delusions, illusions and mindset which I believe controlling people and 'controlled' people to be be under.

CONTROLLING PEOPLE

• Often they live fear-based.
• It may be cliche to say controlling people are often driven by fear, but many cliches are true.  
• The fear may take a number of shapes.
• Fear of humiliation.  Obviously, you inherently have control over your own behavior as you have free will and can make choices.  However, those that you perceive that represent you--employees, children, spouse, family--are external to you and they have free will also.  So, as the thinking of a 'control-freak' goes, I will be judged based on those around me, therefore, I must do everything I can to pressure them into conforming to my standards of acceptable behavior.  
• Fear of making a costly mistake/missing a deadline/losing it all.
• Their fear can cause themselves and/or others around them to be wound too tight.
• Their fear can cause themselves and/or others around them to be too conservative or risk-adverse.
• Their fear can cause themselves and/or others around them to second guess too much.
• Their fear can cause themselves and/or others around them to micromanage.
• They can't read the minds of others, so they can't 'take a chance' of failure.  This is especially true when if the other(s) have EVER 'failed'.  Even if they risk failure when in control, they have more 'certainty' as to success.
• Often they live all about them or narcissist-based.
• A controlling person I believe tends analyzes everyone and everything as to how it affects them.  How does it make me look or feel?  How does it help, hurt or inconvenience me?
• They do not want to deal with the feeling of uncertainty that giving up control seems to unleash in them.
• They often seem to need to positive validation tied to success at whatever situation they are 'taking-charge' at.  That is to say they seek situations to run or control (and therefore people) so they can get the praise associated with 'success' at them.
• Instead of quietly seeking to do the right things, they seek to the opportunity to make sure others see it.
• It can be a symptom of an underlying low self-esteem.
• Instead of being comfortable in their own skin, they require more and more confirmation of their goodness or worth.
• Often they are 'groomed' to be controlling.
• They have either seen or felt the affects of when one isn't in 'control'.  They don't want to feel that.
• They have often been 'taught' or learned from influential people in their lives that they can't count on others and that they have to be in charge.
• Often they have rationalized their controlling nature.
• MARTYR complex - Thinking they are just doing "the Lord's work", even when they have pushed others out of the opportunity to help.  
• SOLOMON complex -Thinking they are just doing what is best for all parties. Justifying their behavior based on what they deem to be best for all, rather than asking or accepting the input of others.
• HERO complex - Thinking or worrying that without them, things may not go off right.  That is to say, the situation "requires" them. 

CONTROLLED PEOPLE

• They often live fear-based
• They worry about being rejected totally.
• Thinking if they stand up for themselves, the other may dump, fire or similarly completely reject them.
• Thinking perhaps that they do not deserve better and/or cannot find better.
• They worry about being partially rejected.
• Thinking if they stand up for themselves, the other may withhold positive attention and/or ridicule them.
• Once again thinking they don't deserve and/or cannot find better.
• They mistake keeping the controlling person happy as being 'accepted' by them.  In reality, such a mindset can often lead to rejection by the controllers as they don't respect them anyway.
• They are often what I call "negative narcissist". 
• Think they can't do it right anyway.
• Think they deserve what they get.
• Think they can't please the other(s) anyway.
• They are often 'groomed' to be controlled.
• They have had their voice shut down at some point by a controlling person, often a parent, from an early age.
• They have been often told or implied that they are not capable aka are a failure.
• Too ignorant
• Too clumsy
• Too weak
• Not as good
• Too much of a risk
• Too mistake prone
• While sometimes they may lack initiative and seem to 'crave' being controlled, often it may just be that they are just beaten down by being shut down and/or being implied that they are a failure.
• They often rationalize their controlled nature.
• PEACEMAKER complex - They are the peacemaker and/or don't want to make waves stir up trouble or make life more difficult for anyone.
• HELPFUL complex - They want to be seen as being helpful and not argumentative.
• EMPATHETIC complex - I should be more understanding of the other, given their situation (tremendous workload/responsibility they have, victim of abuse, etc.)
• You can be understanding without allowing yourself to be walked all over.
• You have to remember that often times you didn't cause that situation or problem for them (or at least were not fully responsible), so while it is okay to empathize, it is not okay to let it be a tool to control you. 

This is not meant as a comprehensive study or take on controlling people (and controlled people), but really a discussion piece on what I see in these people/situations.  As they say, "You Mileage May Vary" (YMMV).  

The world is full of leaders and followers.   Inherently, neither role is necessarily a bad thing.  Being a leader doesn't inherently mean one is a 'controlling' person no more than being a follower inherently means one is a 'controlled' person.  It is often times the mindset behind why they are taking that role and how they are treating others.

LEADERS/FOLLOWERS:

• The best leader leads because he or she wants the best for those whom they lead, not to satisfy a craving for power/validation.  That is to say they lead not because they wish to control others, but rather they see a need that they can help with and it concerns them enough to 'take charge'.
• The best followers follow as they realize they want to help, but realize that 'too many cooks spoil the broth'.  They are content helping behind the scenes and not getting 'leadership' credit.  They may share the vision of the leaders and realize that they can help out with the vision.  That is to say, they follow not out of a need to be validated (by the leader) or out of a sense that they don't deserve better or even out of a fear that they can't lead.  Instead, they understand that being a follower is a role.
• Leaders can be followers at times and followers can be leaders at times.  It really depends on the needs of the situation and the strengths of the parties involved.

--

My takeaway on this subject is to recognize your role, why you are in your role, recognize your need to be respected, but also to respect others.   We have to understand that we can't control everyone and everything nor should we want to.  Life is full of uncertainty.  We can't live with complete uncertainty, but we also can't expect to live no uncertainty.   While it is important in many cases to minimize uncertainty, it cannot be at all costs.  We cannot control others for our own selfish needs, nor can we allow ourselves to be controlled for our own selfish needs either.  We have to respect that each of us has a role.  We have a time and place to lead and a time and place to follow.  We have a voice to be heard and we have voice to be silent and to hear others.  Based on our gifts, the types of roles and the size of our voices may be different, but we should not let it devolve into a controlling situation.

While respecting our own needs, we need to be able to take ourselves out of the picture and let our role come naturally rather than be forced.  I believe God will, if we listen, direct us to our roles making it not so much of a matter of control, but rather doing or being open to the right thing.

Just some thoughts.  I've hope you've gotten a little out of this posting.

Giving in relationships: Controller rescuer, fixer rescuer, useful partnership OR healthy supportive?

In relationships, I believe most people wish to be helpful/supportive to their significant other.  Sometimes, it is in the form of emotional support and sometimes it is in the form of money and sometimes it is in the form of 'things' that money can buy.  e.g., paying another's bills, buying items, etc.

This blog entry will explore what I think are the types of giving, common aspects of them and the motives behind them.  Granted, sometimes we fool ourselves about motives and sometimes we have mixed motives, but I digress.

1. Controlling rescuer

• Focus is on dominance.  
• It may be subtle or it may not, but there is an 'or else' feel to this person.
• Buys things, helps their significant other out financially.
• e.g., gives an allowance, gives jewelry, pays many if not all of the bills.
• Offers 'helpful' advice, that is not necessarily 'helpful'.
• e.g., advice in dealing with family and friends will often be portrayed as 'reasonable', but practically speaking is a measure of manipulating dominance.
• Behind the financial help lies a darker motive.  Effectively, a controller rescuer tries to buy control.  The implied deal is if you let me run the show MY WAY and just go along I will 'take care of you'.
• e.g., if you don't complain about my drinking/womanizing/gambling/etc. I will give you what you need.
• e.g., I will take care of you as long as you obey my requirements.  Don't talk to others, go out with friends, etc. WITHOUT my permission.
• e.g., I will give you an allowance/give you some freedom IF you do what I need.  Instead of organically and lovingly coming to a split of duties/tasks that the partnership requires, a controller often strongly implies if not outright demands the type of help her or she requires.
• Often positions the 'rescuee' in a position of continued dependence.
• Independence is a threat, to a controller.  So, the controller will be careful of how much and what type of help they will give the rescuee.   Such as giving them an allowance, but not 'allowing' them to work or go back to school.

2. Fixer rescuer

• Focus is on heroism.  Looking like the 'loving hero'.
• He or she doesn't use dominance, but rather 'heroism' to manipulate.
• Literally, the fixer rescuer may give until it hurts.  On some level, he or she hopes the fixee sees how much they give and feels compelled or guilt-ed into 'loving them back'.  
• Characterized by 'idiot compassion'.
• Idiot compassion is the highly conceptualized idea that you want to do good to somebody. At this point, good is purely related with pleasure. Idiot compassion also stems from not have enough courage to say no.
•  Manifestations of idiot compassion.
• Buys things, helps their significant other out financially.
• e.g., gives an allowance, gives jewelry, pays many if not all of the bills.
• Often when he or she cannot afford it to do so.  Once again, giving until it hurts literally.
• Offers 'helpful' advice, which is designed to make them look or feel heroic.
• Wants to sound loving and heroic, but often is hidden manipulative.  However, once again the manipulation can be subtle.   They want to sound 'understanding' when under the surface, what they want is to be leaned on.  The trade off is if I am understanding enough, the other person will be compelled to love me.
• This relationship is often characterized by strong codependency and can slide into a controlling rescuer relationship IF the fixer rescuer doesn't get what he or she 'needs' out of the relationship and the fixee is dependent enough.
• In a way, a fixer rescuer may be seen as trying to 'buy low'.
• The one he or she is attempting to fix and rescue may very well be someone who he or she would 'not have a chance with'.  But, the hope of the fixer is that through heroism, the fixee will love him or her.

3. Useful partnership

• This is a give and take relationship.
• This can be an element of a healthy relationship.
• Motives can be mixed.
• This can be a cynical tradeoff.  I'll do this for you, only if you do that for me.
• This can also be a healthy division of labor.  e.g., I am handy and you are good at cooking.  So, I don't mind doing the fixing things around the house and you don't mind making sure I eat right in return.  Both of us win.
• While motives are not necessarily pure, at least it is not a destructive relationship.  It is a relationship where 1+1 could equal more than 2.  That is, the relationship is a little more than the sum of the parts, but isn't a full potential relationship.
• Alone it is not the basis for a good marriage, but a strong, cooperative partnership can be an important part of one.

4.  Healthy supportive

• This is where each partner is supportive of the other because they truly care about their partner and his/her well-being.
• They are attuned to their partner's needs.
• They are attuned to the overall relationship as well.
• They do not compromise their own needs in the process.
• This sort of giving relationship will tend to positive aspects of a useful partnership, but will tend to minimize the selfish aspects of it.
• This type of giving tends to maximize the relationship's potential.  It tends to be more altruistic.

Most people like to think of themselves as having the best motives.  You know, we want to think positive about ourselves.  We'd like to think we are the good partner or spouse.  It is best if we can be truly supportive of our significant other, but it is imperative that we at least try to have a productive if not 100% pure motive partnership.  Sometimes, in a relationship, our partner is struggling and perhaps we may even need to 'come to the rescue', but it is imperative that we 1) are grounded enough that we can afford to give of ourselves that way and 2) that our motives for 'rescuing' are not controlling or manipulative.  i.e., not self-serving.

Just my thoughts...

98% rule: someone has to take blame...

98% is an excellent percent on a math or spelling test.  It is an out of this world free throw percentage in basketball.  It is an excellent level of purity of gold.  However, in terms of how often one side in a relationship is right, it is a terrible percentage.

A few years ago, I came up with something I call it the 98% rule.  The point of it is that when you find yourself admitting you are wrong most all the time with an occasional concession by your partner, you are likely in an unhealthy relationship.

The way I see it, 98% blame either means one of two things:

1. Most likely, you are in codependent relationship where someone has to take the shame or blame for the ills of the relationship.  In reality, the blame could/should be split more equally.  Generally speaking, 'blame' won't be shared 50/50.  It might be 60/40 or perhaps 30/70, but still each side has culpability.
2. One person in the relationship is a real jerk or narcissist.  He or she is actually mean/controlling/abusive.  In this case, he or she is actually wrong most of the time.  If you can look at a relationship honestly and say, this is how I feel about the other person, it's probably time to move on from it. In other words, if the other person is actually a big enough narcissist to be wrong most of the time and let you take the fault instead, it is an unhealthy relationship

Never let another person use your flaws to control you with shame.  I don't mean to avoid talking about the tough subject matter or to shut down another when they speak frankly about you.  What I mean is do not allow yourself to be manipulated to where you seem to boxed into taking the blame or admitting fault where it isn't appropriate.  Guilt over mistakes is a healthy grieving process.  Shame over them is treating yourself as if you are the mistake.  Don't let anyone take a sore point and beat you over the head with it to control you.

The controlling person may win the battle, but they eventually will lose the war.  They will be seen for who they are.  Just don't let yourself be dragged down into their manipulation, their insecurities, their fear.

---

A friend once said to me that "healthy people don't tend to marry sick people".  I am not sure where he got it, it might have been from AA?  Anyway, he made an excellent point.  This supports my above point.  If, in a relationship, there is a degree of unhealthy in both parties, it is likely that each has the ability to make mistakes and therefore are wrong from time to time. If each person recognizes it and can own up to it, there is hope for the relationship.

Just some thoughts...