Manipulators ad inconsistency. 2 part

Manipulators and inconsistency. 2 Part

At the beginning of the chapter devoted to incoherence in her book Les manipulateurs sont parmi nous, Dr. Nazare - Aga  relates, according to me, a very indicative episode. Véronique is a cashier in a shop and complains about her excessive work; so the shop would need another employee. But during a meeting with her superiors, since she keeps silent, a storekeeper decides to talk for her. Véronique cries: "I never said that!".This is a typical example of the inconsistency from manipulators. Obviously, the poor storekeeper will have been astonished and asked himself whether he had seen things: especially when he found himself in front of the strong reaction by Véronique, who seemed unable to remember what she had stated the day before. But the inconsistency of these pathological personalities can appear evident in many ways: first, they don't keep their promises. On work I saw manipulators who promised to perform a task and then skipped it deliberately, or performed it in waytotally opposite to what had been agreed; not to mention their "double standard" attitude; they proclaim values ​​and qualities (diligence, fairness, sincerity) they do not practice at all.

Years ago, when I was working in Florence, I had organized an educational visit to Ferrara, my place of residence: students liked it a lot. A year later, when I returned to work in Ferrara, I promised that I would organize another one for my ex-class; so I was obviously waiting for news from colleagues of my original school. The teacher organizing the trip (ie, the one who claimed that task without any reason) did not contact me and organized it very poorly: for example, she booked the meal in an uncomfortable restaurant, next to the highway, rather than in downtown, she did not include some important monuments in the visit, but preferred to stop at ...the Certosa (the cemetery of the city). It was a disaster. Other colleagues protested vigorously, but it was too late: the "leader" had acted behind their backs, first of all behind mine, reversing the whole program without any logic; what's more, she deprived me of the opportunity of seeing my students. In fact, as I had not been consulted, she organized the visit in a day when I was to be absent. I was furious: for more, manipulators often give proof of incompetence. As you see, being inconsistent, manipulators often act behind the back of others, or without communicating transparently. But you know, transparent communication is an impossible dream with them.
Moreover, when it comes to promises, manipulators prefer to be vague and do not express explicit commitments; in fact, their inconsistency is dictated by their selfishness and convenience. In another case, after a prior arrangement, a class of mine was specifically left out of an educational trip to Milan without my knowledge. What happened? The organizer (an M.) settled in my place another colleague, who was unaware and not directly interested in the journey: indeed, while bypassing me, she "pursued" him weeks long to make him join the initiative at every costs, while she ignored my repeated requests. But, if my innocent colleague had come, she would have stayed at home to enjoy her day off...The examples above concern a kind of, so to speak, "chronological" inconsistency: manipulators, over time, diametrically change their attitude, out of the blue; and this can undoubtedly cause chaos, especially in the workplace. But there is a kind of, so to speak, "situational" inconsistency: for example, the "seducer," says Dr. Nazare - Aga, is affable (too affable) with others, then she radically changes after the home threshold. A jeu de masque incroyable, the author adfirms [1]. That is why extremely plaintive people play the victims or, conversely, the tyrants in private, but become very pleasant in public.

One of the areas where manipulators are most evidently inconsistent, though, is the family, both in the couple and with children. The artificial attitude described above, so that M. is very kind (even mellifluous) outside home, then suddenly changes inside, is amplified during visits: usually (I have witnessed it with my own eyes) M. kills morally  her guests as soon as they have set their foot outside the door, after being treated friendly (apparently). Similarly, once the aforementioned door is closed, abuse and insults against the partner begin. We'll see the topic "insults" in a following post: M. alternates a few compliments and many insults, sarcastic and humiliating phrases, destabilizing comparisons, she sistematically criticizes your tastes, habits etc. 

After some rare compliments, the poor partner hopes to find again the "old spouse", because this delusion is, as I mentioned, the tragedy lived by those who are paired with a manipulator. At some point in the life of the couple, in fact, in occasion of a highly significant event (usually the wedding, but not only: I saw manipulative women changing dramatically after the birth of their son, who gave them higher power according to their distorted mentality; in other cases, it may be the start of a cohabitation, or purchasing a house or something else), in occasion of a highly significant event, the personality of a manipulator drastically changes. So, would she have a double personality? Bystanders wonder alarmingly. No: she has simply a bad personality, manifested at convenience. When a manipulator feels safe in her relationship and knows she has her partner at her mercy, she can afford to reveal her true self. This is very different from what happens in a normal falling in love, when everyone tries to show her best face: here is square pathology: le manipulateur séduit en trompant l'autre sur sa vraie nature [2], since this seduction is based on lies. Manipulators are great liars.

Then the poor partner resists, resists, deluded by the seductive side that rarely re-appears (especially when the victim partner threatens to leave or divorce: this coaxing is aimed to trap again), always hoping to recover the partner known years before. That's why many women regularly return home to husbands beating them; and that's why men who have stumbled on a manipulative woman, stay faithful to the one who is destroying them. Here I open an indispensable parenthesis. It's very popular among people the idea that living together can prevent such disasters. It's totally false, indeed: cohabitation helps manipulators. Among the specialists of family psychology it is indeed now very well known, after several decades of research, that cohabitation doubles the odds of divorce or failure of the couple and statistics, compiled on data collected around the world, are clear: if you want a stable marriage, don't move in for a cohabitation (and this has nothing to do with the good will of individuals). But, apart from that, it is well known from the media that many cases of femicide are consumed not during marriage, but during cohabitation: just follow the news to see that. So? How could it happen that victims stayed in such dangerous situations and did not leave, although they preferred to live together, probably, to form an opinion before the wedding, ?

                                                           M.Caravaggio, Cardsharps

Simply because cohabitation entangles and breaks down defenses. When you go to live with an M, you are in her grasp and she can do whatever she wants. Although some (few) are able to leave, however, perverse mechanisms of guilt often come into play, that make you feel guilty if you leave: that's why victims stay, against every kind of logic. And if children arrive ... The inconsistency of M. helps to tighten the trap. Moreover, even if you manage to leave, you will have still suffered a lot: some wounds leave their mark for a long time. During cohabitation, it is even easier that mechanisms of physical violence may be triggered, mechanisms that are often reported in the media; simple: the victim is in the hands of his /her executioner! Ultimately, going to live with a person that you know very little is just a very high risk (which many today take recklessly), while, hopefully, we should prepare for marriage more carefully (at least in theory, but it is something that often, too often people do not do!). And it's useless to move in with a person if you are not really convinced: whether you are married or not, living together with someone is highly challenging: it is much better to do it when you are really ready for a definitive bond.

The only solution is to prepare yourself to distinguish manipulators and harmful personalities. Hence my posts. You can recognize them by their inability to admit mistakes, their arrogance, their capricious behaviour, by lies, by their lack of self-control and, of course, by their inconsistency (see my other posts). Moreover, it is naive to think that we must necessarily live with a person to know her / him: it is as if we expected that cohabitation did the work for us, for the simple fact that we live together. But without an active discernment, as already mentioned, cohabitation may be a trap from which it is very difficult to get out later: discerning after moving in together is too late. Philosopher Simone Weil said: Love is a quality of attention; ie, true love is intelligent and tries to understand the essence of the beloved person. This attitude of attention and discernment must start immediately: no waiting passively for cohabitation making the discernment for us or bringing the evidence under our nose. Moreover, without an active attitude of attention, we will never understand anything, even by living together.

One telling detail: partners of manipulators, after the storm, often remember being hesitant, resisting to engage with them, even when everything seemed going well: something already revealed their behavior .... Do you see that our stomach warns us in advance? We just need to listen to it....

                                              

And who has a bad surprise after the wedding? Alas, it may happen .... I have seen some cases myself (but not due to failed discernment, but, simply, to never done discernment). Unfortunately, even the best possible discernment could humanly get wrong (even if it could eliminate the vast majority of mistakes and save a lot of people). At that point you have to remember that a marriage concluded in these conditions, with a liar who has trapped you with lies and psychological violence, is almost certainly NULL, whether it is a religious sacrament, or a civil marriage. It is a trap. It would be good to recall the concept of null marriage and our society should give more attention to it: I am afraid that divorce has muddied the waters of what is right to do in cases of serious marital problems. The really important cases, such as these, very likely were never marriages and society should be ready to recognize them, to free and assist the victims. If a marriage is null, there is no need for divorce, which, however, ruins true, recoverable marriages; on the other hand, it is pointless to claim the indissolubility of marriage without considering these tragedies. The partner of a manipulator literally risks his / her life and certainly has not chosen freely and consciously such condition.

Before concluding, I should mention the inconsistency practiced by manipulators with their children. They usually follow a double standard, as well as about the values ​​they boast (by the way: do you know that the best speeches about chastity are pronounced in prison by....sex offenders? Rapists not seldom belong to this category). Children are often treated in opposite ways, with grave injustice. So M. does not choose the same gifts, but for one child she chooses very poor things; inequality in the division of inheritances or in handling are very frequent. Our Isabelle Nazare - Aga, as usual, tells the story of Lucie, married to a doctor M., who placed his son on a "pedestal" and refused categorically his daughter [3]; some children happen to receive a gift after a travel abroad, while their brothers are systematically forgotten; the same applies to birthday parties. Also in this case, there are not rational reasons for this behavior.

Needless to say, these differences could create incurable rifts in the family and often divide brothers in an almost definitive manner, for years, if not for decades. I personally witnessed the effects of some manipulative behavior by parents: without realizing it, brothers reproach each other for years because of faults that are actually  created by a manipulative parent. For example, if the first child is favored unfairly, the second will feel a sense of injustice and hostility toward the other, even if the elder son has no responsibility. The firstborn could in turn accuse the other of alleged faults, repeating unjust accusations heard from their manipulative parent. And so divisions go on.... Similar attitudes I found among some fellow teachers who gave marks absolutely randomly and students were somehow valued by completely incomprehensible criteria, weakened by prejudices, while others were favored instead. The unfortunates could not possibly aspire to see their merits recognized: I observed consequences even in final exams.

G.Lazzerini, Rinaldo and Armida, 1690 (Rinaldo is manipulated by sorceress Armida ...)

A manipulator creates chaos in a family, sowing discord: where they walk, they have the effect of a flamethrower. And, unfortunately, a child can not defend himself: these are the most vulnerable and defenseless victims. That's why, it is necessary that adults learn to recognize this kind of abuse: and to do the right thing, to defend themselves and the victims.

Bibliography

I.Nazare-Aga, Les manipulateurs sont parmi nous, Montréal, Ed. de l'Homme, 1997 = L'arte di non lasciarsi manipolare, Milano, Ed.Paoline, 2000.I.Nazare-Aga, Les manipulateurs et l'amour, Montréal, Ed.de l'Homme, 2000 = La manipolazione affettiva. Quando l'amore diventa una trappola, Ultra, 2014.
I.Nazare-Aga, Les parents manipulateurs, Montréal, Ed.de l'Homme, 2014 = Genitori manipolatori. Riconoscere e fuggire l'amore malato, Ultra, 2015.