is she truly clueless or is it a power play?

[Guest guest]

I'm in Very, Very Low Contact with my nada, for about the last 3 years now. I

send her 3 cards a year, and phone her maybe twice a year. I do not read or

respond to her cards, and I do not answer her phone calls.

*I* choose when and if to initiate contact, now. I need to have this control:

contact on my terms only; that's the best I can do.

On the drive home today I phoned her to wish her a happy birthday. I kept it

brief; I said I just wanted to say hello, I hope she had a nice birthday, and to

let her know that I sent her a birthday card with a CD in it of a vocal group I

think she will enjoy.

When she got over the initial surprise, she assumed that tone of voice I have

come to detest: that " I have no idea why you are angry at me (because I am

perfect) but I'll pretend to not be deeply hurt and just overlook that you are a

horrible, selfish, person " tone. Its sort of half-Waify, and half Queen-like,

seems to me.

Plus, she did her usual thing of interrupting me which I also detest, so this

time I decided to just plow ahead and finish my sentences even though she

couldn't hear me because she was talking over me. I've always hated that: not

even being allowed to finish a sentence, and its NOT like I go on and on and on.

I know how to make a point with some brevity and then pause and let the other

person speak or respond. Ack!

So, having got that over with I made it home, had some supper, and was catching

up on posts and e-mails... when she tried to call me.

I didn't answer, as usual. Instead, I let it roll over into voice mail, and

then deleted it without listening to it, as usual.

I don't think its really registering with my nada that I want to remain in very

limited contact with her, and my terms are that I control contact.... even

though I've set it up like this over two years ago, now.

I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I send her a card or

phone her she interprets that as a " signal " that I want to re-initiate regular,

frequent contact (?)

Nothing about this is easy. I guess I should not have expected anything RE my

nada to be easy.

I wonder if it would be better for her if I just stopped contact altogether? I

don't like the idea that I'm " teasing " or " tormenting " her; maybe she can deal

with absolutely No Contact more easily than with limited contact on my terms?

Or... I also don't like the idea that nada could possibly be attempting a

" one-upsmanship " kind of power play with me; its rather characteristic of our

relationship (up until recently) for her to have ALL the control, so, it could

be that she decided to call me back just to... its hard to explain... *make* me

pick up the phone?

Make me answer her, as though I am still a child, as in, " You come here/do

that/answer me/pick up that phone this INSTANT, don't you dawdle around when I

call you, YOU HEAR ME? "

Neither option is palatable. I don't want to be a bully, and I don't want to be

bullied, either. But with nada, there just doesn't seem to be a neutral ground

in which we can simply relate to each other as equals. She does not share

power.

Or, maybe I just have to carefully and clearly spell this out in a letter;

perhaps she truly doesn't " get it " and I just have to explain it to her. " I

will send you three cards a year, and I will call you twice a year, but I will

not be accepting or returning calls. "

(She of course has the option to not accept my calls either.)

((((sigh of frustration and resignation))))

-Annie

[Guest guest]

Dear Annie,

This is quite the difficult situation! I really feel for you. So lose/lose

for you. You want a relationship on your terms, meaning control (?). She

wants control. Maybe the LC makes you feel less guilty than NC? It's really

about what you want. I feel so much guilt so I understand how powerfully

painful the feeling can be. Maybe your LC isn't bringing her any pleasure.

It's not bringing you pleasure. Perhpas something in you hopes she'll

appreciate your small efforts and then she'll love you. The most hurtful

part of being an ACON/KO IMO is the " my parent won't love or see/hear me "

part.

Since your mother won't see or love you, the last vestige of any tie

whatsoever is this feeble power struggle. Maybe a power struggle is the

N/bpd version of a relationship. They want to be connected probably even

more than we do. They also get abandoned by most people their whole lives.

It's not their fault in their minds so they must be incredibly hurt and

angry about that. The calling might be her compulsion to force you to stop

abandoning her. Since she can't see or hear or love you maybe the only thing

she can perceive is her own abandonment. If she can force you to pick up she

has relieved her own pain of abandonment. If I were you I would not act out

of guilt. I would " follow my bliss " . Good luck! (I hope this isn't

unsolicited advice :-)) I also deeply hope you find something in this

helpful. You help so many people on here it would make me feel good if I

could return the favor a little.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:59 AM, anuria67854 wrote:

>

>

> I'm in Very, Very Low Contact with my nada, for about the last 3 years now.

> I send her 3 cards a year, and phone her maybe twice a year. I do not read

> or respond to her cards, and I do not answer her phone calls.

>

> *I* choose when and if to initiate contact, now. I need to have this

> control: contact on my terms only; that's the best I can do.

>

> On the drive home today I phoned her to wish her a happy birthday. I kept

> it brief; I said I just wanted to say hello, I hope she had a nice birthday,

> and to let her know that I sent her a birthday card with a CD in it of a

> vocal group I think she will enjoy.

>

> When she got over the initial surprise, she assumed that tone of voice I

> have come to detest: that " I have no idea why you are angry at me (because I

> am perfect) but I'll pretend to not be deeply hurt and just overlook that

> you are a horrible, selfish, person " tone. Its sort of half-Waify, and half

> Queen-like, seems to me.

>

> Plus, she did her usual thing of interrupting me which I also detest, so

> this time I decided to just plow ahead and finish my sentences even though

> she couldn't hear me because she was talking over me. I've always hated

> that: not even being allowed to finish a sentence, and its NOT like I go on

> and on and on. I know how to make a point with some brevity and then pause

> and let the other person speak or respond. Ack!

>

> So, having got that over with I made it home, had some supper, and was

> catching up on posts and e-mails... when she tried to call me.

>

> I didn't answer, as usual. Instead, I let it roll over into voice mail, and

> then deleted it without listening to it, as usual.

>

> I don't think its really registering with my nada that I want to remain in

> very limited contact with her, and my terms are that I control contact....

> even though I've set it up like this over two years ago, now.

>

> I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I send her a

> card or phone her she interprets that as a " signal " that I want to

> re-initiate regular, frequent contact (?)

>

> Nothing about this is easy. I guess I should not have expected anything RE

> my nada to be easy.

>

> I wonder if it would be better for her if I just stopped contact

> altogether? I don't like the idea that I'm " teasing " or " tormenting " her;

> maybe she can deal with absolutely No Contact more easily than with limited

> contact on my terms?

>

> Or... I also don't like the idea that nada could possibly be attempting a

> " one-upsmanship " kind of power play with me; its rather characteristic of

> our relationship (up until recently) for her to have ALL the control, so, it

> could be that she decided to call me back just to... its hard to explain...

> *make* me pick up the phone?

> Make me answer her, as though I am still a child, as in, " You come here/do

> that/answer me/pick up that phone this INSTANT, don't you dawdle around when

> I call you, YOU HEAR ME? "

>

> Neither option is palatable. I don't want to be a bully, and I don't want

> to be bullied, either. But with nada, there just doesn't seem to be a

> neutral ground in which we can simply relate to each other as equals. She

> does not share power.

>

> Or, maybe I just have to carefully and clearly spell this out in a letter;

> perhaps she truly doesn't " get it " and I just have to explain it to her. " I

> will send you three cards a year, and I will call you twice a year, but I

> will not be accepting or returning calls. "

>

> (She of course has the option to not accept my calls either.)

>

> ((((sigh of frustration and resignation))))

>

> -Annie

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Annie,

First of HUG HUG HUG HUG HUG! I know how traumatic an interaction like that

can be.

Second, let me say that I personally think one of the main problem with BPDs

is that EVERYTHING is a power struggle. They don't know how to really

connect with someone. It's all just one act of dominance after another. It

reminds me of the way my dogs behave sometimes. For instance, their dinner

is late - and they can't control that - so they try to reestablish their

position in the pack by peeing in the corner. . . Grown women (and men)

should evolve past this, but BPDs don't. They have thumbs, why don't the

BPDs go and open the cabinet and get their own dinner? I have no idea! But

they don't. Maybe because as long as they act helpless they can be served?

And as long as they are being served they are in the dominant position?

So yes, I do think it's a dominance behavior. And yes, I think she slipped

into victim mode as you described, but with an eye on the first opportunity

she had to (in dog terms) jump up and hump your leg to show it whose boss. I

agree. Forget about nada and follow your bliss. I feel bad for BPD people,

in a way, when I'm not furious with them. Sometimes I have a terrible day

where I get in a fowl mood and I don't feel like doing normal things for

myself and I sit in a rumpled mess and cry and order my boyfriend around,

and then reject everything he offers me, and I cling to my dogs for dear

life. It usually lasts - oh 30 min before I realize I'm behaving like a

jackass and that I can take care of myself. I guess BPD is being that way

100 percent of the time.

XOXO, Girlscout

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Millicent Kunstler <

millicentkunstler@...> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Annie,

>

> This is quite the difficult situation! I really feel for you. So lose/lose

> for you. You want a relationship on your terms, meaning control (?). She

> wants control. Maybe the LC makes you feel less guilty than NC? It's really

> about what you want. I feel so much guilt so I understand how powerfully

> painful the feeling can be. Maybe your LC isn't bringing her any pleasure.

> It's not bringing you pleasure. Perhpas something in you hopes she'll

> appreciate your small efforts and then she'll love you. The most hurtful

> part of being an ACON/KO IMO is the " my parent won't love or see/hear me "

> part.

>

> Since your mother won't see or love you, the last vestige of any tie

> whatsoever is this feeble power struggle. Maybe a power struggle is the

> N/bpd version of a relationship. They want to be connected probably even

> more than we do. They also get abandoned by most people their whole lives.

> It's not their fault in their minds so they must be incredibly hurt and

> angry about that. The calling might be her compulsion to force you to stop

> abandoning her. Since she can't see or hear or love you maybe the only

> thing

> she can perceive is her own abandonment. If she can force you to pick up

> she

> has relieved her own pain of abandonment. If I were you I would not act out

> of guilt. I would " follow my bliss " . Good luck! (I hope this isn't

> unsolicited advice :-)) I also deeply hope you find something in this

> helpful. You help so many people on here it would make me feel good if I

> could return the favor a little.

>

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:59 AM, anuria67854 wrote:

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > I'm in Very, Very Low Contact with my nada, for about the last 3 years

> now.

> > I send her 3 cards a year, and phone her maybe twice a year. I do not

> read

> > or respond to her cards, and I do not answer her phone calls.

> >

> > *I* choose when and if to initiate contact, now. I need to have this

> > control: contact on my terms only; that's the best I can do.

> >

> > On the drive home today I phoned her to wish her a happy birthday. I kept

> > it brief; I said I just wanted to say hello, I hope she had a nice

> birthday,

> > and to let her know that I sent her a birthday card with a CD in it of a

> > vocal group I think she will enjoy.

> >

> > When she got over the initial surprise, she assumed that tone of voice I

> > have come to detest: that " I have no idea why you are angry at me

> (because I

> > am perfect) but I'll pretend to not be deeply hurt and just overlook that

> > you are a horrible, selfish, person " tone. Its sort of half-Waify, and

> half

> > Queen-like, seems to me.

> >

> > Plus, she did her usual thing of interrupting me which I also detest, so

> > this time I decided to just plow ahead and finish my sentences even

> though

> > she couldn't hear me because she was talking over me. I've always hated

> > that: not even being allowed to finish a sentence, and its NOT like I go

> on

> > and on and on. I know how to make a point with some brevity and then

> pause

> > and let the other person speak or respond. Ack!

> >

> > So, having got that over with I made it home, had some supper, and was

> > catching up on posts and e-mails... when she tried to call me.

> >

> > I didn't answer, as usual. Instead, I let it roll over into voice mail,

> and

> > then deleted it without listening to it, as usual.

> >

> > I don't think its really registering with my nada that I want to remain

> in

> > very limited contact with her, and my terms are that I control

> contact....

> > even though I've set it up like this over two years ago, now.

> >

> > I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I send her a

> > card or phone her she interprets that as a " signal " that I want to

> > re-initiate regular, frequent contact (?)

> >

> > Nothing about this is easy. I guess I should not have expected anything

> RE

> > my nada to be easy.

> >

> > I wonder if it would be better for her if I just stopped contact

> > altogether? I don't like the idea that I'm " teasing " or " tormenting " her;

> > maybe she can deal with absolutely No Contact more easily than with

> limited

> > contact on my terms?

> >

> > Or... I also don't like the idea that nada could possibly be attempting a

> > " one-upsmanship " kind of power play with me; its rather characteristic of

> > our relationship (up until recently) for her to have ALL the control, so,

> it

> > could be that she decided to call me back just to... its hard to

> explain...

> > *make* me pick up the phone?

> > Make me answer her, as though I am still a child, as in, " You come

> here/do

> > that/answer me/pick up that phone this INSTANT, don't you dawdle around

> when

> > I call you, YOU HEAR ME? "

> >

> > Neither option is palatable. I don't want to be a bully, and I don't want

> > to be bullied, either. But with nada, there just doesn't seem to be a

> > neutral ground in which we can simply relate to each other as equals. She

> > does not share power.

> >

> > Or, maybe I just have to carefully and clearly spell this out in a

> letter;

> > perhaps she truly doesn't " get it " and I just have to explain it to her.

> " I

> > will send you three cards a year, and I will call you twice a year, but I

> > will not be accepting or returning calls. "

> >

> > (She of course has the option to not accept my calls either.)

> >

> > ((((sigh of frustration and resignation))))

> >

> > -Annie

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Annie,

I think it is possible that the answer to your subject line

question is " both " . I think our nadas can be clueless about

stuff like this because their brains just don't work like ours

and they just don't seem to understand that there is anything

wrong with the things they do to us. The problem is everyone

else, not them, and understanding why anyone might want to limit

contact with them just doesn't fit into that way of thinking.

Plus life is all about imposing their wills on everyone around

them, so everything tends to be a power play.

I think NC is sometimes better for both sides. You deserve peace

of mind and to not be mistreated. She might be better off if

you're not available as a target for her mentally ill thinking.

You could try sending her a letter outlining what you're willing

to do but I fear it won't do any good. You may well be right

that she interprets each contact as a willingness to have

frequent contact again and I doubt a letter would change that.

If she's anything like my nada she'll conveniently forget the

contents of the letter as soon as it suits her to do so. Or

she'll claim the letter said you wanted contact, thus justifying

her cards and calls to you.

At 12:59 AM 03/09/2011 anuria67854 wrote:

>I'm in Very, Very Low Contact with my nada, for about the last

>3 years now. I send her 3 cards a year, and phone her maybe

>twice a year. I do not read or respond to her cards, and I do

>not answer her phone calls.

>

>*I* choose when and if to initiate contact, now. I need to

>have this control: contact on my terms only; that's the best I

>can do.

>

>On the drive home today I phoned her to wish her a happy

>birthday. I kept it brief; I said I just wanted to say hello, I

>hope she had a nice birthday, and to let her know that I sent

>her a birthday card with a CD in it of a vocal group I think

>she will enjoy.

>

>When she got over the initial surprise, she assumed that tone

>of voice I have come to detest: that " I have no idea why you

>are angry at me (because I am perfect) but I'll pretend to not

>be deeply hurt and just overlook that you are a horrible,

>selfish, person " tone. Its sort of half-Waify, and half

>Queen-like, seems to me.

>

>Plus, she did her usual thing of interrupting me which I also

>detest, so this time I decided to just plow ahead and finish my

>sentences even though she couldn't hear me because she was

>talking over me. I've always hated that: not even being

>allowed to finish a sentence, and its NOT like I go on and on

>and on. I know how to make a point with some brevity and then

>pause and let the other person speak or respond. Ack!

>

>So, having got that over with I made it home, had some supper,

>and was catching up on posts and e-mails... when she tried to

>call me.

>

>I didn't answer, as usual. Instead, I let it roll over into

>voice mail, and then deleted it without listening to it, as

>usual.

>

>I don't think its really registering with my nada that I want

>to remain in very limited contact with her, and my terms are

>that I control contact.... even though I've set it up like

>this over two years ago, now.

>

>I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I

>send her a card or phone her she interprets that as a " signal "

>that I want to re-initiate regular, frequent contact (?)

>

>Nothing about this is easy. I guess I should not have expected

>anything RE my nada to be easy.

>

>I wonder if it would be better for her if I just stopped

>contact altogether? I don't like the idea that I'm " teasing "

>or " tormenting " her; maybe she can deal with absolutely No

>Contact more easily than with limited contact on my terms?

>

>Or... I also don't like the idea that nada could possibly be

>attempting a " one-upsmanship " kind of power play with me; its

>rather characteristic of our relationship (up until recently)

>for her to have ALL the control, so, it could be that she

>decided to call me back just to... its hard to explain...

>*make* me pick up the phone?

>Make me answer her, as though I am still a child, as in, " You

>come here/do that/answer me/pick up that phone this INSTANT,

>don't you dawdle around when I call you, YOU HEAR ME? "

>

>Neither option is palatable. I don't want to be a bully, and I

>don't want to be bullied, either. But with nada, there just

>doesn't seem to be a neutral ground in which we can simply

>relate to each other as equals. She does not share power.

>

>Or, maybe I just have to carefully and clearly spell this out

>in a letter; perhaps she truly doesn't " get it " and I just have

>to explain it to her. " I will send you three cards a year, and

>I will call you twice a year, but I will not be accepting or

>returning calls. "

>

>(She of course has the option to not accept my calls either.)

>

>((((sigh of frustration and resignation))))

>

>-Annie

--

Katrina

[Guest guest]

Hi Annie,

I could relate to what you said: [When she got over the initial surprise, she

assumed that tone of voice I have come to detest: that " I have no idea why you

are angry at me (because I am perfect) but I'll pretend to not be deeply hurt

and just overlook that you are a horrible, selfish, person " tone. Its sort of

half-Waify, and half Queen-like, seems to me. ] Ugh I hate when my mother does

this voice, the suffering-with-dignity martyr voice. Puh-leez.

Just based on the dynamics with my mother, I wonder if this part of what you

said: " I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I send her a

card or phone her she interprets that as a " signal " that I want to re-initiate

regular, frequent contact (?) " is the most likely.

I wonder if your mother, through her phone call to you, is attempting to see if

" maybe this time we can go back to the way it was. " Hopefully, your not

answering was her answer. Has she called you since that evening?

i really do feel your struggle. Same here. Whenever I see my mother's # on

caller ID, I ignore it. The only time I pick up is if she's calling several

times in a row, in case it's an emergency, since I live so close to her.

Good luck. You definitely hit on it when you said nothing about it is easy.

Sigh. No, it isn't.

Fiona

>

> I'm in Very, Very Low Contact with my nada, for about the last 3 years now. I

send her 3 cards a year, and phone her maybe twice a year. I do not read or

respond to her cards, and I do not answer her phone calls.

>

> *I* choose when and if to initiate contact, now. I need to have this control:

contact on my terms only; that's the best I can do.

>

> On the drive home today I phoned her to wish her a happy birthday. I kept it

brief; I said I just wanted to say hello, I hope she had a nice birthday, and to

let her know that I sent her a birthday card with a CD in it of a vocal group I

think she will enjoy.

>

> When she got over the initial surprise, she assumed that tone of voice I have

come to detest: that " I have no idea why you are angry at me (because I am

perfect) but I'll pretend to not be deeply hurt and just overlook that you are a

horrible, selfish, person " tone. Its sort of half-Waify, and half Queen-like,

seems to me.

>

> Plus, she did her usual thing of interrupting me which I also detest, so this

time I decided to just plow ahead and finish my sentences even though she

couldn't hear me because she was talking over me. I've always hated that: not

even being allowed to finish a sentence, and its NOT like I go on and on and on.

I know how to make a point with some brevity and then pause and let the other

person speak or respond. Ack!

>

> So, having got that over with I made it home, had some supper, and was

catching up on posts and e-mails... when she tried to call me.

>

> I didn't answer, as usual. Instead, I let it roll over into voice mail, and

then deleted it without listening to it, as usual.

>

> I don't think its really registering with my nada that I want to remain in

very limited contact with her, and my terms are that I control contact.... even

though I've set it up like this over two years ago, now.

>

> I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I send her a card

or phone her she interprets that as a " signal " that I want to re-initiate

regular, frequent contact (?)

>

> Nothing about this is easy. I guess I should not have expected anything RE my

nada to be easy.

>

> I wonder if it would be better for her if I just stopped contact altogether?

I don't like the idea that I'm " teasing " or " tormenting " her; maybe she can deal

with absolutely No Contact more easily than with limited contact on my terms?

>

> Or... I also don't like the idea that nada could possibly be attempting a

" one-upsmanship " kind of power play with me; its rather characteristic of our

relationship (up until recently) for her to have ALL the control, so, it could

be that she decided to call me back just to... its hard to explain... *make* me

pick up the phone?

> Make me answer her, as though I am still a child, as in, " You come here/do

that/answer me/pick up that phone this INSTANT, don't you dawdle around when I

call you, YOU HEAR ME? "

>

> Neither option is palatable. I don't want to be a bully, and I don't want to

be bullied, either. But with nada, there just doesn't seem to be a neutral

ground in which we can simply relate to each other as equals. She does not

share power.

>

> Or, maybe I just have to carefully and clearly spell this out in a letter;

perhaps she truly doesn't " get it " and I just have to explain it to her. " I

will send you three cards a year, and I will call you twice a year, but I will

not be accepting or returning calls. "

>

> (She of course has the option to not accept my calls either.)

>

> ((((sigh of frustration and resignation))))

>

> -Annie

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Fiona, and my other fellow KOs, for responding. To answer your

question, no, nada hasn't tried calling me again since last night, but

apparently she did leave a long voice mail last night which I've deleted

unlistened-to. I live 2K miles away from nada so I am not in a position to

respond to any emergencies she might have.

I think I'll talk to Sister about this. Sister lives only about an hour's drive

away from our nada and is in much more contact with her than I am. Sister sees

nada about once a month and I think phones her about once or twice a month also.

I'll get Sister's take on whether my having extremely low, one-way contact with

nada is in effect torturing nada; if anyone would know, it would be Sister.

I don't want to torture nada. If nada is incapable of comprehending that I only

want and will allow one-way contact (if she interprets each card or phone call

as the " signal " that I want regular, frequent two-way contact) and if my

maintaining this rule with nada is... the equivalent of tormenting a caged

animal by poking it with a stick through the bars... then I think I need to go

total No Contact.

Thanks,

-Annie

>

> Hi Annie,

>

> I could relate to what you said: [When she got over the initial surprise, she

assumed that tone of voice I have come to detest: that " I have no idea why you

are angry at me (because I am perfect) but I'll pretend to not be deeply hurt

and just overlook that you are a horrible, selfish, person " tone. Its sort of

half-Waify, and half Queen-like, seems to me. ] Ugh I hate when my mother does

this voice, the suffering-with-dignity martyr voice. Puh-leez.

>

> Just based on the dynamics with my mother, I wonder if this part of what you

said: " I'm thinking that possibly what happens is that every time I send her a

card or phone her she interprets that as a " signal " that I want to re-initiate

regular, frequent contact (?) " is the most likely.

>

> I wonder if your mother, through her phone call to you, is attempting to see

if " maybe this time we can go back to the way it was. " Hopefully, your not

answering was her answer. Has she called you since that evening?

>

> i really do feel your struggle. Same here. Whenever I see my mother's # on

caller ID, I ignore it. The only time I pick up is if she's calling several

times in a row, in case it's an emergency, since I live so close to her.

>

> Good luck. You definitely hit on it when you said nothing about it is easy.

Sigh. No, it isn't.

>

> Fiona

>