There is a tactic used by psychological abusive people that involves restricting the activities or actions of somebody else. Restricting activities actually attempts to control the boundaries that the spouse operates within.
The psychologically abusive person uses this strategy of withholding in order to restrict an activity that might cause them to feel as though they are losing control. They may be suspicious of the people or the activity the spouse is engaged in, fearing the influence of certain people and organizations. Therefore they restrict their partner from participating in what has been decided is not the right groups or friendships.
This like trying to train a spouse as you would train a young child; as though the spouse cannot make up her own mind about who to see or what groups to be involved in. It is of course necessary to place restrictions and boundaries on young children but in the case of restricting activity of your partner, the restrictor believes he knows what is best for her, and he justifies his restrictions as legitimate even believing that it is for her own good if he keeps her from having contact with certain people.
There are different reasons that people place restrictions on each other. Not all of them are wrong and I give an example in this video of one such time when a woman asks her husband not to flirt with a certain woman at a party. This request is about how it makes her feel when he does that and is not about her controlling his behaviour.
Have a look at this video about using the abuse tactic of restricting the activity of another and as always I welcome feedback and comments.
With You in Mind,
Norm Quantz
10 Responses to “Psychological Abuse ~ Restricting Activity”
This clip is so true, Norm! I can think of at least a dozen examples over the years where restricting activity was abusive in nature and in outcome. In my circles of origin, this type thing was referred to (or viewed) as “headship” or even “leadership.”
I have been following your blog and it seems that you most often assume the male as the perpetrator and controller (not just having more power which is true). It is possible to have much perceived power and very little control as one may choose not to or is unable to exercise their personal power. Careful scrutiny of your vernacular in the videos nearly always show “he” or “his” in the negative, implying the male is abusive. Perhaps some examples of where a women is perpetrator or even dynamics of two men or two women with power difference would be suggested to really illustrate the point? Why the sole focus on male/female interactions? Clearly in churches there seems to be much control dynamics with the men in “power” positions etc. Why not draw from that? Or for that matter within women’s groups- this is not exclusive to sexual difference; it is more indicative of the human condition. Even your elephant and mouse scenario is false- in nature it is the mouse that has the largest impact on the elephant- watch the Myth Busters for their experiment
I believe your analogy is out of context and really quite irrelevant.
What is your explanation for a wife who starts an illicit affair or controls through emotional tactics the self determination of the husband? Is it that he should most often defer to her wishes simply because he has more power? By your logic, failing to comply with her wishes could be a control issue and perhaps abuse if she simply perceives it that way- never mind about the reality of the situation.
It seems that your examples are often with the wife not able to see self actualization yet in my case the opposite is true. I would suggest that your videos have an inherent bias to them. Perhaps in the future you can present cases that are more balanced and realistic to the norm (no pun intended) of equal offenses by the sexes or within the sexes which is based on research and the reality of society vs. your “grid” of twisted reference and empty logic. I hope it is not simply talking “nonsense” on your part.
(ps. I would actually be pleasantly surprised if this was published on your site- hopefully you wouldn’t resort to control tactics of censorship)
I appreciate the thoughtful points, for or against, being made in the comments. It can contribute to the overall understanding of what I’m trying to expose and bring clarity about abuse and its link to power and control. The person called “Questioning” has acknowledged that men have more power which is a huge hurdle for some to believe. This will help in understanding that when women are in relationships of less power, their abusing seems to come primarily as a reactive response to the abuser with more power. I describe that in my up-coming book in the chapter on the Reactive Cycle.
The reason I am putting more emphasis on male abuse is that since males have more power, when they abuse, they have a significant influence on relationships more so than the less powerful in the relationship (especially as women are concerned)
I will continue to emphasize this point because the evidence is overwhelming of how abusive relationships are resolved. When substantial improvement takes place in abusive relationships it mostly happens through the improvement in the powerful man as they stop abusing in all their ways including the use of withholding, deception, and crisis-risk strategies. Then the less powerful person’s reactive abuse (I mention women here) starts to reduce because there is nothing to react to, nothing the less powerful needs to protect themselves from.
Warmly,
Norm Quantz
Thank you for your response and for publishing my queries.
You state that women react to the abusive tactics of their partner. Obviously there are always exceptions. I think it is naive and narrow minded to overlook serious past experiences that shape a person’s life and focus only on current circumstances. I know you have stated earlier in your blogs that the most significant shaping of one’s life occurs in the childhood years so clearly a relationship later in life does not have the same impact. In fact, it is well documented in the research how childhood trauma can even color the judgement and perception of later experiences.
I believe that if those early issues are not dealt with, there is very little hope of reconciliation (and I believe that this would be in agreement with your thoughts that have been previously posted here).
I believe that it is naive to generally group all men as abusive given the fact that so much pain and trauma from childhood can impact the lives of women. Truly, the controlling of behaviour and restricting of activities is equally seen in both men and women (at least this has been my significant experience working with a variety of mental health initiatives).
Finally, at some point, everyone needs to accept personal responsibility. It is truly sad and twisted to continue to blame others for everything that happens to one’s self. We all have immense personal power. We can all choose to partake in any activity we wish. Of course there will always be consequences (either good or bad and perhaps both in a trade off) and having made a choice, one MUST accept personal responsibility for that choice and it’s outcome. This is a plague on our society right now- people making a choice and then failing to accept the outcomes and take personal responsibility. It is so much easier to blame everyone else. I think there should be far less attention spent on looking at power dynamics and sobbing over the apparent inequality of it’s distribution and far more attention spent on using whatever power you have to make a positive impact on other’s lives.
There are simply some people out there who, due to tragic childhoods, are completely incapable of the trust and acceptance of friendship and goodness and will find the negative in everything. The self pity party is what truly shackles one to the past. I guess this would be one of the biggest reasons why I “question counsel”. I believe there are causal effects however to continually dwell on them only perpetuates the perceived victimization. I encourage all to look forward and overcome- we are our own worst enemies at limiting ourselves out of fear of failure and blaming others etc. Good luck to all and thank you for this forum.
QC
To “Questioning”,
What I sense you are saying is that yes, we all have childhood trauma, but that to really live happily we need to “get on with it” and not dwell on it, stop “sobbing”. I’m confused because you say at the beginning of your post that we have to deal with our childhood trauma in order to have reconciliation in our current relationships.
Drawing from your significant experience with mental health initiatives, how much time do you think is generally appropriate to deal with our childhood trauma? And what are the indicators that a person has healthily dealt with the trauma?
Also, from your experience, have you found that men and women are controlling for the same reasons? It seems to me that if men and women were equally controlling in the same way, as you say, then we would totally understand each other and not have so much disconnect between the sexes.
Hello Marie,
I hope I can clarify. What I am saying is that childhood experiences and upbringing do shape our outlooks. If trauma is experienced, this can have a significant impact on trust, relationship development and even basic cognition. The problem with it is that there is very little scientific evidence of credible memory prior to age 3. And often, with suggestion and prompting, false memories can be created that do have a significant impact on personal development if the individual continues to perpetuate that memory and it’s impact. In the research I have read, the physiological evidence of brain and neural development just doesn’t support very early memory recall- either positive or negative. Therapists who dwell on the 0-3 years are, in my opinion, using questionable science. Even false memories from later childhood can be created given the correct prompting. These memories (whether true or false) can and do have a significant impact on the perceptions of the individual and thus the development of healthy relationships.
See
1.Desperately seeking memories of the first few years of childhood: The reality of early memories. Loftus, Elizabeth F. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Vol 122(2), Jun 1993, 274-277.
2. How Pleasant was your Childhood? Beliefs About Memory Shape Inferences From Experienced Difficulty of Recall. Piotr Winkielman & Norbert Schwarz. Psychological Science
Volume 12 Issue 2, Pages 176 – 179 Published Online: 8 Feb 2002
3. False memories of childhood experiences.Ira E. Hyman Jr. , Troy H. Husband, F. James Billings. Applied Cognitive Psychology Volume 9 Issue 3, Pages 181 – 197 Published Online: 13 Feb 2006
Indicators of people who have significant relationship issues appear when many or most of their relationships are dysfunctional. If the “victim” cannot maintain relationships with a variety of people, especially of both sexes, this clearly would point to some deeper personal issues beyond the sexual power differences described above. What I hear being described in this blog is that, especially in marriage or intimate partner relationships, the husband/wife dynamic is the most significant indicator; I would question this as a narrow focus and believe one should look broadly at the patient’s relationship “IQ”. When the “victim” is able to acknowledge how the actual (as opposed to false) trauma has shaped their lives but no longer uses it as an excuse to limit themselves or others, or negatively impact themselves or others (e.g. “Well, I was abused as a child so that is why I reacted that way- you just have to understand”) this would be indication that the person has dealt with the trauma in a healthy way. False memories then must be rooted out by a skilled therapist and “debunked”. When they are given value and credibility, it only serves to deepen the mental and emotional instability in the individual.
In terms of control, I would say that generally, humans want things their way but well adjusted and ethical citizens do have empathy, sympathy, mutualism as do most social animal groups. There is always an “alpha” member and depending on a matriarchy or patriarchy, the “power” resides with a sexual difference. Simply having “power” does not make one abusive and does not cause one to control. Again, perceived “victimization” cannot be solely determined by said “victim” as has been suggested in this blog.
As far as the method of controlling, my experience is that there are differences in how the “power plays” are enacted by men and women, however there is no difference in the perceived mental and emotional wounding that can take place. While the specific tactics may be different, the impact is the same (although withholding, deception and crisis- risk tactics have all been observed in both sexes). The only place that I have seen a difference is in the degree of physical injury (as men are generally stronger. Having said this I have seen significant trauma at the hands of fit women and in addition femailes are more likely to use a weapon so as to “even the physical playing field”); to clarify, the incidence of physical injury is nearly the same, only the degree of physical injury is different. In terms of mental trauma and emotional impact, both men and women report similar “abuse”.
Perhaps this response will illicit more conversation and opinion.
QC
On the earliest comment from Dan, I concur with your connection with the withholding strategy of restricting activity being used at times to justify the leadership role. Leadership or in some circles “headship,” is an excuse that, for example, a man may use to justify treating their spouse like a child. I have found that when that is present in a marriage, there are usually other tactics that show this is a pattern in their life, not just a single issue item. Have you also found that true?
It is the pattern that reveals the depth of commitment to controlling as a way of life.
Norm Quantz
Response to “Questioning”
After days of recovering from golf ball sized hail that “traumatized” our house (hail, wind and rain damage – inside and out) I’m finally able to take a few minutes to respond to your thoughts.
First, I’ll make a comment on the issue of false memory in the first 3 years of childhood and following. In my practice, in dealing with early childhood memories, I have found it quite useful to ask clients about the memories they know are their own (first person memories) – not those prompted by family stories or pictures of their early childhood, or what-if or maybe memories, or suspicion that something tragic has happened. I have found that approaching childhood memories from their first person recall has proven to be quite useful to help establish their primary belief system. This is often closely connected to their current belief default system that keeps them stalled from making healthy progress personally and relationally. False memory syndrome, although I have had some experience with clients using it as a manipulative tool, I find that rarely do my clients have false memory. Inaccuracies, if any, are in the contextual interpretation of their memory. Usually clients downplay and doubt their early traumatic memories. One lady relayed over 30 events that were a sexual violation towards her but she grew up believing this was normal for any girl to experience.
It seems to me that the False Memory Syndrome (FMS) movement helped squash the momentum of the late 1980’s of exposing child abuse (especially sexual abuse). The date of your reference book by Elizabeth Loftus – 1993 – falls right in the time period when FMS gained popularity. I disagree with therapeutic practices that expect clients to find a memory of being victimized in early childhood. Some clients have only fond memories of early childhood. That can also be helpful to understand adult issues, for instance, adult naivety (gullability).
Secondly, in reference to your “no difference in the perceived mental and emotional wounding” between men and women, I believe both genders have capabilities of the same sense of woundedness but men seem more likely to feel they are wounded much more than women tend to. Women often blame themselves for causing harm while men often blame women – or anything else – for causing them problems. This, I believe, is a direct reflection on the huge power of men in that they don’t comprehend what impact they have on those less powerful in their relationships. I would disagree with the writer’s tendency to emphasize the equality of victimization or perpetration between women and men with such references to “no difference” and “same”. This tendency follows societies propensity towards assuming things are the same when the preponderance of evidence contradicts that assumption.
Yes, all abuse strategies are seen in both women and men, but in my book I am making a point that men, having more power, use their strategic planning to bring others in line with their sense of order (hierarchical in nature). On the other hand, when women use manipulative control tactics, they more often than not do so from a reactive stance, attempting to bring attention to the lack of relational connection. Women are often dispelling the myth that a close, partner/marital relationship needs a pecking order (hierarchy). This is not to justify the use of abuse in any form, but when men take personal responsibility for their abuse, most often, women tend to reduce their use of tactics because they have less abuse to react to any more.
I trust this helps towards further understanding and discussion.
Norm Quantz
You mention that any errors or falsities are mainly due to contextual misinterpretations of the client. Who is responsible for “aligning” these misinterpretations and how is it possible for a therapist so far removed from the actual event to re-interpret these contexts? It would seem to the writer that any interpretation risked being just as inaccurate. Even law enforcement personnel know how varied “eye-witness” accounts can be.
To Questioning:
Thanks for your question about who is responsible for “aligning” these misinterpretations. It is not so much that anyone aligns these (like the therapist you mention) but that the client relays ‘their’ interpretation of the context. It is their interpretation of everything that they respond to, learn to cope with, and eventually weave those interpretations into their belief system, that remains into adulthood. I said, “Inaccuracies, if any, are in the contextual interpretation of their memory.” In getting the client to relay what happened, it is their perception of the event and any contextual memories that are most important. Whether remembered accurately or not is not the initial issue. What is perceived is.
Even though your comment about the inaccuracies of eye-witnesses, their perspectives are not ignored, but woven together to add what they can to the accurate picture. Personal, eye-witness testimony is very powerful in our system of justice. Even so, eye-witnesses are also not as personally involved as in the nature of the cases a therapist deals with. The client is relaying their own personal experience with events, not as a second person observer. It is their interpretation of their experience that is the key focus.
That information, combined with what is known already about their patterns of behavior/thinking/feelings, help connect the developmental influences with the current reasons they struggle with certain areas of life today. It helps answer client questions and is what they are often so appreciative because it addresses the “why” of their current ways of living.
Warmly,
Norm Quantz