Veering off subject before the previous one was thoroughly discussed -> "We can talk about [that] later, if you’d like. I want to circle back to [previous subject.]" + continue where I left off
So here, "Veering off subject before the previous one was thoroughly discussed" is the manipulation tactic. A real example of this that I can provide you is me saying to him, "I have concerns about our child's nutrition while I'm away," and we get as far on that topic as the expression that she needs to eat often and to have nutritious foods, but before we get to the part where we're supposed to address the issue, he veers off subject by introducing another one: "Well, at least I don't let her watch TV all day long like you do!" This shifts the focus of the conversation so that he doesn't have to accept fault for not feeding her properly, to something that I'm not doing well enough, before he agrees to make changes. That's manipulative.
No it’s not. It’s him feeling defensive that you don’t like how he parents. He is deflecting yes, manipulating no. This is not abuse. This is typical when both people want to be right and feel understood.
"'We can talk about [that] later, if you’d like. I want to circle back to [previous subject.]' + continue where I left off" is the response formula for preventing the manipulation. Here, that would sound like:
"We can talk about the amount of TV I let her watch later, if you'd like. I want to circle back to her nutrition... Are you able to make sure she has three meals a day and a couple snacks, and that she's getting fruits and vegetables during at least two of her meals?" This keeps the conversation on track so that we can address the issue. I care about the fact he doesn't like how much TV he watches and I'm willing to address that issue as well, just not at the expense of addressing her nutrition. Does that make sense?
How often are you really gone? What did he feed her this time?
I mean unless he is truly not feeding her, it’s better to let him parent his way, especially if it’s a seldom thing. When I used to travel my husband was bad about quick meals. Especially hotdogs, which I was not crazy about. But you know my kids kind of thought it was like a break from being serious and it gave them an opportunity to bond their way.
I would go through the other examples but it’s all the same. You two bicker, and equally escalate.
He is defensive, and sometimes doesn’t like you much. That’s normal for someone who has been cheated on twice, and trickle truthed.
If you want him to like you and be kinder then the only study guide you need is be likeable and kinder.
Don’t sweat the small stuff. Drive to understand and not to be understood. Avoid putting him on the defense for the foreseeable future and try instead to do things that bond the two of you, like friends.
I would never want a friend to hound me the way you both do to each other. But the only thing you can do is stop inviting him to a power struggle. One you are in a better place then start new boundaries. Put away all of this for a while. Wave the white flag and perform a truce.
Misconstruing what I say, such that I have to go back and re-explain what I meant or where we took a wrong turn in the conversation (making conversation meta so we don’t get anywhere) -> "Originally when I said [repeat what was said] I meant [summarize what was specifically meant.] Can you respond with that in mind? That would help me feel heard and understood." If misconstruction continues -> exit conversation: "This conversation has become unproductive and I don’t feel heard. Let’s take a break and try again later" + start over again later with same initial point and evaluate if he’s willing to adjust his response.
Here, "Misconstruing what I say, such that I have to go back and re-explain what I meant or where we took a wrong turn in the conversation (making conversation meta so we don’t get anywhere)" is the manipulation tactic. A real-life example of that is:
BH asking what we should do about dinner, because it was getting late,
Me responding by asking, "What do you want to do? I bought chicken and pickle juice so you could make those chicken nuggets you said you wanted to make, and it'll go bad if we don't cook it soon. I know the countertop is a mess, but I could move everything to the sink and do dishes while you cook. Or I could move everything to the sink, make something else with the chicken, and do the dishes in between tasks or afterwards..."
And his response was, "I don't understand why the expectation is for me to come home and have to cook dinner." (Here is the misconstruction of what it is I actually said.)
Now I'm back tracking and re-explaining, "That's not what I said. I said the chicken was going to go bad; I didn't freeze it because I thought you still wanted to make chicken nuggets. We need to use it up. You told me you didn't mind cooking dinner some nights, and so I asked you if you wanted to cook. I didn't say that I expected you to."
Him: "You sure made it seem like you did. And what I said was that I don't mind cooking dinner when the counter tops are clean" (Here he is doubling down on his interpretation of my words, rather than acknowledging that he misunderstood what was said.)
Me: "I didn't expect you to cook. I said I would clean off the countertops if you wanted to cook, or that I could cook--"
Him: "Why are you making crazy eyes and using that tone with me? You know what, I want an apology."
Notice how in that conversation, the focus shifted from what we were doing for dinner, to what was previously said and meant (i.e., the conversation becomes about itself, or 'meta') and we don't actually decide on what it is we're doing for dinner. All the while, it's getting later and later.
Back to the study guide. "Originally when I said [repeat what was said] I meant [summarize what was specifically meant.] Can you respond with that in mind? That would help me feel heard and understood." is the first step in the prevention response, to be used after my words get misconstrued. That might look like:
"Originally when I said, "What do you want to do? I bought chicken and pickle juice so you could make chicken nuggets. We need to use it up," what I meant was that I was asking you if you wanted to cook. I also offered to cook. Can you respond with that in mind? That would help me feel heard and understood."
The study guide then says "If misconstruction continues," which might look like BH responding with "You sure made it seem like you expect me to cook,"
The follow up step is "exit conversation: 'This conversation has become unproductive and I don’t feel heard. Let’s take a break and try again later' + start over again later with same initial point and evaluate if he’s willing to adjust his response."
Which, in practice, looks like saying just that, and then after a brief break, re-initiating the conversation with something like, "Okay, let's figure out dinner. We need to use up that chicken. Would you like for me to clear the countertops so you can make chicken nuggets, or would you like me to cook?"
Then see how he responds to that. If he again returns to "Why do you expect me to cook?" it would suggest to me that he is intent on misconstruing what I'm asking, and the manipulation tactic is being used on purpose.
Does that make sense? Hopefully that clears up and contextualizes the study guide a bit for you.
Turning back to the next part of your response...
He didn’t misconstrue something important here. He heard "I would like you to cook the nuggets" and didn’t want to. That is a valid subjective summary of what you said, but stated in a negative way.
Did it make sense he should cook the nuggets, yes. He said he would like to make them, and you bought ingredients that he could do so. But you were suggesting he cook them.
Now, did he put a negative spin the way he said it. Yes. Because you two have a terribly antagonistic relationship and fight about shit that doesn’t matter.
If it were me, trying to reconcile. I would have answered his annoying "why am I expected to cook?"
I would have said "sorry, you are not expected. Would you like me to try the nugget recipe or are you in the mood for something else."
Would I live like that forever—-hell no. But I would model the behavior for some period of time, and if he didn’t start responding better in a few months of being consistent I would say "I think we need to learn to communicate better, I would like to go to MC together work on those skills with you because I love you and I think it’s important we work on our marriage."
If he doesn’t improve or agree to Mc then I would have to look at my boundaries.
Nothing you have described looks like abuse.
Manipulation can be being benign or abusive.
It looks like very poor communication skills due to excessive bickering. And bickering since you like concrete:
bickering
Bickering refers to the act of engaging in petty, peevish, or trivial arguments. It is typically a back-and-forth, repetitive exchange over minor matters rather than a serious, constructive debate.
Key Characteristics
Subject Matter: Often involves insignificant, daily details (e.g., who does the dishes, whose turn it is to drive, or misplaced items).
Tone: Generally ill-tempered, irritable, or sarcastic, rather than physical or deeply malicious.
Underlying Causes: Psychologically, it can act as an emotional shield; constant bickering often masks deeper, unresolved feelings like neglect, stress, or feeling unappreciated.
You are both doing it. It’s making both of you miserable with the other and it’s not modeling great behavior for your daughter or providing her with the environment she deserves and that’s worse than feeding her less nutritional meals or letting her watch tv. You are teaching her about relationships.
[This message edited by hikingout at 7:05 PM, Friday, May 22nd]
