O, the basic trap of enmeshment and co-dependency; when we think we’re responsible for someone’s happiness, for doing what they want.  Both men and women willingly give up their lives to serve others. Of course, overt and covert (sneaky, manipulative, narcissistic, critical, controlling) bullies try any way they can to get us to shoulder that burden.  Sometimes they just want to be catered to but often they actually believe that they’re entitled to our serving them.  Both men and women can be demanding.

Tom’s ex had jerked him around for years before Tom finally couldn’t take any more and divorced her.  Even though he got custody of their son, his ex continued to try to make Tom do what she wanted.  She called him when she needed home chores and repairs, car repairs and computer fixes.  She wanted him to change the visitation times to suit her whims or convenience.  She wanted him not to find anyone else to be interested in.  Of course, she wanted money from him.

Why do we take on the responsibility to serve others? Tom had all the usual reasons:

  • He had made marriage vows. It was important to honor his pledges, to never go back on his word.
  • He was raised to adjust and accommodate to what other people wanted.  Some of his old rules, values and beliefs were that he shouldn’t push what he wanted, that nice people tried to make others happy before they made themselves happy and that he shouldn’t be selfish.
  • One way she’d previously controlled him was by vindictive retaliation; she’d harass and abuse them relentlessly.  He was afraid that if he disagreed or upset her, she’d blow up like she’d always done and attack him and his son verbally, physically or legally.  He didn’t want to make it harder on his son, even though he was now 16.
  • The other way she controlled him was through blame, shame and guilt.  If he didn’t do what she wanted, her feelings would be hurt and it’d be his fault.  He couldn’t stand to make her cry by asserting himself over matters he thought “trivial”.  He convinced himself that it was easier to give in; then he’d waste less time defending himself from her emotional outbursts.
  • He didn’t think he should ever say anything bad about her to his son.  He thought that boys need to love their mothers.  Even though his son was a teenager and didn’t want to see his mother, Tom felt he should force them together.
  • He looked for the path of least resistance.  He still hoped that if he was nice and forgave her, if he appeased or gave in to her, she’d reciprocate and give in to him graciously next time.  Why fight when he could simply do what she wanted?  He’d learned that she’d never give up, never forgive or forget.

Intellectually, Tom realized that none of his approaches had ever worked with her.  She’d never relent or reciprocate in return for his appeasement, begging, bribery or reasonableness.  He knew she was a negative, critical, controlling boundary pusher who kept trying for more once she got something she wanted.

But emotionally, he still looked for the easy way.  It was as if the fight over the divorce had used all his strength, courage and determination.

Underneath all the psychoanalysis, he still felt responsible for making her happy.  She’d once been his wife.  She was the mother of his son.  He was an enmeshed, co-dependent caretaker.

Children are often the reason people finally act. Eventually, Tom realized that if he gave in to her desires he and his son would never be able to live lives of their own.  Also, he’d be giving into his cowardice and a false sense of responsibility.  If he gave in to her narcissism and self-indulgence, he’d be exposing is son to a lousy mom.  He’d be setting a terrible example for his son.  His son came first.

Finally, he realized that she was not the center of his world or his son’s.  We’re all responsible for anything a court requires, like alimony, child support and insurance.  But she was responsible for her own happiness.  He and his son were responsible for theirs.

People divorce to go their separate ways as much or as little as they want, but they are no longer responsible for and intimate with each other.  Tom can wish her well but it has to be from a distance and he has to be not responsible for her.  He has to protect himself and his son from her clutches.

He realized that he’d trained her to think that she would eventually get her way if she forced him angrily or manipulated him through blame, shame and guilt.  Now he’d have to train her differently – and legally.

Some common variants of this care-taking pattern are:

  1. Elderly parents – even though they were bullying, abusive, demanding, harassing and crazy; even though they brutalized you sexually, verbally and physically all your life, now they say you owe them or they plead poverty or helplessness.
  2. Adult children – they may be incompetent or crazy; they may be lazy, greedy or narcissistic, but now they want to be dependent and they want you to support and cater to them in any way they want.
  3. Extended family – they know better than you do about what’s right and they’re totally demanding and/or totally needy.  They say, “You wouldn’t want to disrupt family unity and cohesion by being difficult and uncaring, would you?”
  4. Toxic friends and co-workers – they need you to help or rescue them, to make their lives work for them.
  5. Clients – many mental health professionals, body workers and healers feel responsible for curing their clients.

Nora Ephron (“Silkwood,” “Sleepless in Seattle,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “You’ve Got Mail”) said that as she got older she decided she needed a list of people and things she simply was not going to think about any more.  In many ways it’s the opposite of a bucket list and just as important.  She started by putting a lot of celebrities in her “Ignore Bucket.”

In order to have the physical, mental and emotional space we need to make the life we want, in order to stop bullies and our self-bullying, we also need an “I’m not responsible for” list.  As a start, Tom put his wife on his list.

Who and what are on your list?

Dana thought her new friend Tracy had a strong personality.  Tracy always knew what was right and knew how she deserved to be treated.  She could always justify why her standards were the right ones.  If anyone didn’t live up to Tracy’s rules and logic, she let them have it. She was even right when she told off Dana’s next door neighbor.  But Dana had to live with the consequences of Tracy’s tirade.

Do you know any quick-tongued people who are sure they’re right?  How do you deal with them?

Dana’s neighbor was having a pretty loud party the evening Tracy was visiting.  Dana would have let it go because the neighbor usually was quiet or she would have sweetly asked the neighbor to tone it down a little.  As part of their good relationship the neighbor would have apologized and made her guests quiet down.

But Tracy got livid at the noise and shifted into action.  She raced over to the neighbor with Dana following behind.  When the neighbor answered the door, Tracy lit into her.  The guests were looking on but that didn’t stop Tracy for a second.  She yelled that the neighbor was discourteous, arrogant, crude and trailer-trash.  When the neighbor reacted defensively and angrily, Tracy cut her off, called her a string of dirty names and said she was getting the police on her.

Tracy ran back to Dana’s house, called the police and complained loudly about the noise next door.  The police did come.

When Dana said that she thought that was overkill, Tracy got angry at her; no one was going to disrespect Tracy.  The neighbor was too loud and she had a lot of nerve to get angry when she was in the wrong.

When Tracy left, Dana was stuck.  She’d always had a nice relationship with the neighbor and she didn’t want to start a spite-fight with someone who lived next door.

So what would you do?

When Dana and I talked the next day, we began by separating the three people she had to deal with; the neighbor, Dana herself and Tracy.  We went through each one separately and then Dana took the action she’d decided upon.

That evening, she went to the neighbor’s house and apologized for Tracy.  The neighbor was furious and wouldn’t accept Dana’s apology.  She told Dana off and slammed the door in her face.

Dana waited and after about five minutes she knocked again.  The neighbor wouldn’t answer until Dana had knocked for what seemed like another five minutes.  Again Dana groveled.  She explained that she hadn’t known that Tracy had called the police, she would never have done that and she still wanted to be neighborly.  They’d always gotten along before and they could still talk to each other reasonably in the future.

Again the neighbor slammed the door.  But an hour later, the neighbor called and acknowledged that the party was a little loud.  She said she understood, but she never wanted to see Tracy again.  Dana was satisfied with that arrangement.  She and the neighbor actually got along better after that conversation and the neighbor didn’t have a loud party again.

The second person Dana had to look at was herself.  She was shocked and stunned when Tracy threw her fit.  Dana finally realized that she wasn’t a bad person for letting Tracy attack the neighbor; she didn’t have a character flaw.  She simply hadn’t trained herself.

When humans are surprised and shocked, we often revert to our childhood reactions or to one of the three primitive reactions we have – fight, flight or freeze.  Dana froze; she called it “brain freeze.”  Maybe Tracy reverted to “fight” mode.

Since Dana didn’t like brain freeze, all she had to do was to train herself to make a different response.  She had known that she’d wanted to stop Tracy.  Actually, she knew how Tracy was and that if she’d prepared herself, she wouldn’t have allowed Tracy to go to the neighbor’s house.  Or, she would have stopped Tracy in mid-tirade.

Now she had to make her boundaries clear and stand up to Tracy.

When Dana told Tracy how much trouble she’d caused with the neighbor, Tracy attacked Dana.  “I was right.  Your neighbor was way too loud.   I had a right to be angry.  Nobody’s going to bother me any more.  Someone needed to tell her off.”

When Dana told Tracy she didn’t want to deal angrily with a neighbor over one incident, especially when the woman had been a good neighbor for a long time, Tracy again attacked Dana.  “When I get angry I have to get it off my chest.  You’re trying to repress me and put me down.  I have a right to my feelings and I won’t be stifled.”

Dana she recognized that Tracy was bullying her.  Now, Dana was prepared.  She said, “You know, you seem to think that you’re entitled to throw a fit if you feel like it; if you feel righteous, right and justified.  Did you grow up getting your way when you threw fits?”

Tracy yelled that it was none of Dana’s business how she grew up.  “Anyway,” she spat out, “I feel better when I let people have it.  They deserve it.  And it helps me get what I want.  You’re just a coward if you don’t tell people off.  You’re asking them to take advantage of you.”

Dana repeated, “Usually, I don’t have the strong feelings you do.  And even when I do, I think of what will get me what I want, instead of just throwing a fit and spilling my guts.  I wanted to start off nice with the neighbor.  When I simply ask, she always takes care of things.”

Again, Dana challenged Tracy, “Is it more important for you to throw a fit than to get what you want?  I wanted to tone the party down and I wanted to keep a good relationship with my neighbor.  Whenever you feel right and righteous, do you beat people with your tongue or do you think of what else you might want?”

Tracy blew up again.  “I was right, your neighbor was wrong.  I can do whatever I feel like when people are treating me bad.  And if you don’t like it, I’m not your friend.”

After careful consideration, Dana decided that Tracy wasn’t interested in changing her reactions and that not being friends with her was a good idea.  She didn’t want to get drawn into fights because Tracy had the self-control of a child.  Rage, bullying and verbal abuse weren’t her usual style.

Coaching helped Dana clarify how she wanted to act and what she’d allow in her personal space.  Our talking and her learning from “How to Stop Bullies in Their Tracks” helped Dana maintain her boundaries with the neighbor and her former friend Tracy.  They also helped Dana stand up for herself against other bullies in her personal life and at work.

I hope this case study and the techniques Dana used will alert you to areas in which you’re not taking charge of your personal ecology.