Marriage is not a contract—not unless there is a prenuptial agreement. As I have expressed in my belief, this relationship of marriage is a covenant or binding agreement. Certainly the couple (and individual) has needs and desires but, in this relationship, expression or clarification of all of them is not specified upfront as "terms and conditions". In all fairness and understanding, needs and desires should be presented and pursued under the protection of love. Love covers a multitude of sins and, in marriage, can (and should be) the source of strength over the invariable challenges and disappointments of both the individual and couple. Can or should we expect more from our spouse than we honestly can offer ourselves? Can we overlook or deny the mystery of love that enables two people to fulfill the obligation and commitment of a covenant—in view of the inability to meet all the other's needs and desires?
Love is a powerful force, of course; and one that has to be present (and growing) in a marriage or covenant. If love is faltering—to include stagnating (or not maturing)—than the relationships becomes nothing except a set of imposed or implied laws (limits or constraints). When the marriage or relationship is largely measured on the perception or assessment of following or complying with these laws or rules, love has been subordinated by the one or the other. At the risk of being misunderstood (as endorsing some form of an "open-marriage"), let me clarify that my beliefs are predicated on a relationship of grace that, while having guidelines, is not holding the other to the letter of some contrived law aimed at control more than love. "Demarcation Drawing" is not about love (in the matter of marriage); it is about command and control as one form of abuse.
In "Wind Watching", I introduced this belief (or observation) of control; and in "Oar Over-Easy", I introduced the expression of her anger as the apparent infusion of fear in our children lives. Having introduced this observation and expression, I now will make attempt to draw the relationship between this behavior (and lifestyle) with the limits described as "Demarcation Drawing".
One of the few examples that I have pertains to my oldest child. In 2006 (six years after the divorce), my parents attempted to see him play in the band at a ball game. He and his sister play (or played) in the marching band. The grandparents had planned to visit friends in the area and decided to attend the game on a very rare possibility of seeing two of my children. At the end of the game, they (the grandparents) tried to approach each of my children: my daughter actually ran from her grandmother; and my son showed the expression of fear when approached by his grandfather. In a brief expression, my son told his grandfather that if his sister saw them (the grandparents), that she would tell her mother and that I (their father) would be arrested.
I do not believe that my son was lying; but that he was sincerely truthful (though fearful) of any contact with his paternal family. He was being honest because such fear has been infused in his life. My son (and children) have been deceived (or otherwise disposed) into believing (or accepting) that he should fear his paternal family. If he (or the children) have not (or will not) accept their mother's instruction, than she has (or will) use other forms of fear to drive home control. My son did not believe that he had reason to fear his grandparents; but he evidently did believe that his father would be arrested—as his mother has taught him. One fear or another is still fear…and control.
The limits or constraints imposed on the children did not begin in 2006, but had become a tool or method of ensuring her command and control over the post-divorce relationships. Even prior to the divorce, she was already forming a basis. In 2000, at a divorce hearing, she asserted that the grandparents had been abusive toward the children—because they (and the children) camped-out in the garage of their house. The actual details of this experience or event: the children were supposed to camp-out in the backyard, but foul weather spoiled these plans; cots were set-up in the garage for some semblance of the camp-out. There was nothing remotely abusive about their grandfather's decision or alternative. My ex-wife's assertion was ludicrous to the point that the judge overlooked it; but as far as motive, the assertion was only another means to her methods. Ironically, the fear my ex-wife (and now, my children) expressed in the form of affidavits or testimony is in part the impetus of this book and much of my writings. Above all—and beyond the limits and constraints imposed on my role as parent—is the desire to reassure my children that they do not have to fear their parent, grandparents or paternal family. I remind the reader of the related discussion of Robert Warshak in his book, The Custody Revolution: "Then there are some divorced mothers who would do everything possible to keep their ex-husbands away from the children."
How does fear and control relate? Perhaps more discussion and examples would be helpful for me (and potentially for you) to understand; but to start, the basic definition of anger is: frustration experienced when control is not possible over situations, individuals or groups. From Gary Smalley's book, If Only He Knew, anger occurs when we cannot obtain what we think will make us happy (or when our objectives are blocked) and fear results from this perception of blocked objectives. Obviously, fear and control are in close relation.
What I found—and particularly noticed as we passed through the phase of child-bearing—was the growing application of fear in our marriage through, among other things, the threat of divorce. It seemed that this method was the final solution for re-establishing some sense of control and power. I acknowledge that a wife does (and should) exercise a degree of control in the family and home; but what I present is not a constructive form aimed at supporting a healthy relationship, but a destructive form that—whether intended or not—destroys a relationship through the invocation of fear and flight rather than love and commitment. I also propose that this method or "device" (as I have called it) was learned in part from a very young age from her parents.
On the matter of fear and its application in families, I also need to distinguish between healthy fear that is genuinely aimed at protecting children, from the fear used as leverage to control persons or situations. In realty, the later form is used commonly in society; for example, if you don't meet the obligations of the contract, you lose the business or suffer penalties, etc. But I'm not really talking about business and contracts, but instead, about families and covenants. As another example, if you invoke caution in your child to reduce some risk in their life, than you are truly attempting to protect them; but if you deceive them by defaming others or you threaten them in measure and method— as described earlier with my oldest child—than fear is being used in the worst sense.
As often as Nazi Germany is covered in books and documentaries, the question I have often ask (myself) is: How did the people accept (or tolerate) the atrocities and aggression of the politic, military and authorities? I have come to believe that—for those who ultimately did not resist—the authorities used fear in one of two ways: either fear of failure through economic or national ruin (Versailles Treaty, hyper-inflation, international condemnation), or fear of rejection (to include arrest, torture and death) in the growing power and prominence of the Nazi party. I believe these two forms of fear are (or were) very effective in attaining and maintaining control (for some) as described in Erwin Lutzer's book, Hitler's Cross.
The character of Hitler has been described as "promising and passionate" (though history has presented him as the picture of evil). He imbued these qualities to the degree that his rise ushered in promise on the perception that a race of people, victimized on international scale, would not be defeated or destroyed. He gave the people hope, but as history bears out, he also deceived the nation by posing as the bearer of peace when war was the doctrine of his (or the parties) philosophy and plan. It was the perception of being a victim that so fueled fury in the nation; a fury or anger to commit atrocities and aggression seemingly to survive as a "purified people", a party and perhaps something more. Another wolf in sheep's clothing….
No doubt that my assessment or summary is off-base and, to suggest that this historical period has any parallel to my ex-wife, does seem farfetched. What I am suggesting however, is that fear comes packaged in a variety of ways. Real fear cannot be overlooked and, in fact, may consume our lives.
When a child is threatened by an adult—to include a parent with such intensity as I have described—he is experiencing real fear as a method of control. When a person presents themselves as a victim in a vein of which they knowingly are not in fear, than they are experiencing what I call a "pseudo fear". They do indeed have a fear—not of victimization—but of being exposed for who they are…or what they've done or said—contrary to truth. Pseudo fear has an element of fear cloaked in an outcry of victimization—though with the possibility (or risk) of being exposed as a villain or wolf.
Were the Germans real victims of a world plot or international oppression; or did they is some way and degree create this condition based on circumstances of WWI and other global events? I don't know; but what I do believe is that this pseudo fear was employed to invoke the passion of the people—such that their deepest sentiment could be conjured-up to accept and even support the political party. I believe that individuals can and do use victimization—with all its public services—to dupe and deceive even their own children, if that is possible. Victimization enables one to garner the expected empathy of other (victims), the support of public services (law enforcement, courts, etc.) and the allegiance of those seemingly closest to them. Yes, the Nazi party was profound its ability to win the allegiance of its people, but also, to pacify other powers as to the purpose and plan.
The trouble with vouching as a victim is that there are (or exist) real victims; and like real fear, real victims are authentic and truthful in the presentation or condition. Real victims are why real laws and statues are put into place—to help or protect them. The trouble with real laws and statues (of this kind) is that, like other public services, there is always some who misuse it—who do not truly qualify (as victims), yet lie or falsify information to do so. I call this behavior or lifestyle "abusing the system designed to aid the abused." Meanwhile, the real victims of society must compete (to some degree) with the charlatans and, as far as the children are concerned (in this case), pseudo fear and real fear become so entwined as to be inseparable—rendering another generation of potential, pseudo victims.
Am I contriving some sort of ridiculous association; or is the tacit analogy of the Third Reich completely absurd? I am really not; but I do believe that, in my limited understanding of the one and the greater understanding of the other, some similarities exist in behavior, fear, and control. Both the historical example and the family dynamic are rooted in anger, and both involve real fear and pseudo fear in an attempt to achieve control.
My children are actually afraid of me and my family—as evidence has been (and will be) presented; their fear is not because of what I (or we) have done, but because of what she has expressed and infused into their lives. As with much of the German populous, the children may be on a course of similar behavior that depends on a lifestyle of lies and illusions to justify their decisions—however destructive to themselves and those they claim to care about.
As listed in a previous chapter, control has several forms; but to this point, I may not have presented or discussed the reason or need. I did mention that some level of control is customary and, for a household and family, is essential. At the same time, control may be out-of-control when the method(s) include unreasonable or unexplained bouts of anger or rage as described in a previous chapter. Referring again to the book Why Good People Do Bad Things, Erwin Lutzer addresses "the roots of rage" as:
- People who feel cheated often have an overwhelming sense of anger toward those who have "done them in." They seethe with resentment and want to "show them a thing or two." (91- )
As a destructive form of control, her anger was developed at an early age, I believe; and as already described, her anger was learned through her parents' relationship. The command and control disposition of her mother is also part of this learning— which includes a very dim view of men.
Whether she was telling the truth or not, my ex-wife once confided in my father (her father-in-law) that she had been abused as a child (by her father). Again, I cannot say that her claims were true; but accepting this possibility does add some credence to the early-development of her anger.
From the same chapter and book, Why Good People Do Bad Things:
- A woman who has been abused by men will carry that anger into her marriage unless the root of the resentment is identified and dealt wit. Like all of us, she must forgive those who have taken advantage of her, or her anger or distrust will be passed on to those around her…An angry woman will make her husband jump through all kinds of hoops, and should he succeed in meeting her expectations, she will change the rules so that he will fail again. (91- )
He mentions one example of this anger where a wife threw the flowers (her husband brought her) to the floor because they were not properly cut. I can recall more than once where flowers were crushed, through down, or otherwise deflowered—but I don't know if stems or color had anything to do with it.
In the closing of this chapter, Lutzer describes the choice of forgiveness in more detail: "Without both honesty and forgiveness, there can be no freedom from the fits of rage." What happens through the years when such anger is left unattended or is unresolved (or forgiveness is not pursued)? Without forgiveness, does the anger dissipate or possibly fade away? I don't think so; but instead, anger continues in one's life and is carried into their adulthood. What kind or level of control can manifest (or grow) in this unresolved anger; and as for the person or carrier, what can be expected of their heart and soul?
Here it is: the anger from childhood, left unresolved, will grow into adulthood as a more intense effect of possible abuse and certain, unachieved objectives or control in these early years. Although not clinically confirmed in my ex-wife, anger and control has the potential if not certainty of being evil. The evil controller uses lies to benefit and protect only self…and not others.
To describe someone as "evil"—even someone once so seemingly close to me—is a bold and risky assertion. After all, who am I to judge her; and how can I categorize her as evil? Perhaps the pages and chapters to come will present a more compelling argument for my description or judgment.
"Demarcation Drawing" is just another name for control—but structured with similarity to some of the other chapter titles. Draw a figurative line in the sand and say to the other person (or persons), "I dare you to cross it." Then the waves roll-in under the aid of the wind and the line is practically washed away; though spontaneously, another line is drawn and, before the other person has moved, the line appears beneath or behind him. Yes, he has crossed the line—not because he accepted the challenge— but because the line was washed away, and then redrawn beneath or behind him. He has failed regardless of his action (or inaction).
The "evil controller" uses such a device as the illusive line to keep the other off-balanced, uncertain or otherwise unable to meet the mark. But if such a mark exists is really at issue for discussion. When you can use another device of lying, does such a line even exist, however illusive?