So now we are in the thick of battling with the ex. I think I hinted in the last post how every action or things we do as steps, can be misconstrued or even used against us. I still remember DW’s ex lawyer grilling me on the stand about my fondness for beer, suggesting that the myriad of articles I wrote on the beers I have sampled is ample proof that I am an alcoholic. Or that my fondness for a certain type of music is conclusive proof that my lifestyle must involve illegal narcotics (even if I was involved in illegal narcotics *WHY* would I admit to it in front of a judge? I mean, DUH! All this to say that there is no “Geneva Convention” on what is considered as fair game in the war with the adversarial ex. If the mandate of the adversarial ex is simply “refusal to co-parent” then the attacks on you and your SO will most likely be kept to a minimum. If however, the adversarial ex is hell-bent on getting some kind of revenge, then expect that person to willfully and spitefully make low-blows. Sun Tzu teaches us how to analyze these blows.
Lesson 5: “Just as there are only two outcomes to a battle, there are only two maneuvers in battle; the direct, and the indirect. There are however, an endless combination of these indirect/direct manoeuvres”
When we are talking about direct manoeuvres, we are referring to situations that places us in direct confrontation with the adversarial ex. An indirect manoeuvre is like moving a piece on the chess board. A direct manoeuvre is like capturing one of your opponents’ pieces. There is an infinite combination of moves and attacks. Each are equally important in ensuring the end game.
In a war with the adversarial ex, phone calls, letters, texts, emails, are all manoeuvres. Each of these are done to illicit a reaction. Let’s analyze an email as an example
Indirect manoeuvre:
“If you are going to the park, could you please make sure little Johnny wears his sweater?”
Direct Manoeuvre:
“If you are going to the park, you better make sure little Johnny wears his sweater. Last thing I need is to nurse little Johnny from a cold because you keep forgetting to dress him warmly on cold days!”
Do you see a difference? The first is a simple request made in a civil manner. In fact, it may not even be seen as adversarial at all. The second has an underlying accusatory tone. While the message may seem different, they are both maneuvers in the war. This is important to realize because when the adversarial ex stands before the judge, this is likely to come out of their mouth.
“Your honor, I am the better parent here because I always look after my children. My ex cannot even remember to dress our son warmly. See? *holds up email* Even after I politely asked him to remember to put a sweater on little Johnny he STILL doesn’t do it!”
There are other maneuvers that don’t necessarily involve communication. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is an indirect but very powerful tactic if one does it correctly. It is very difficult to combat. Remember, that with children it is FAR easier to play on their emotions than their intellect. They’re children and that is just how they are wired. But if you watch them closely, keep tabs on what it is that interests them, you can see sparks of intelligence beginning to flourish. I believe this is where I have an advantage over my DW’s ex. I am capable of engaging SS whereas his father doesn’t. I am sure his Dad loves him on some level, but he doesn’t understand him (that, and he is more concerned about spiting us than actually caring about his son). I, on the other hand, understand my SS very well and by fanning the flames of his burgeoning intellect, I assure that SS will always want to come to me to discuss matters that interest him. I didn’t do this on purpose, nor am I stealing anything from his father either. His father has, and will probably always be, a passive person. He makes no plans to do anything with SS, whereas I do. He doesn’t bother to talk to SS about anything that SS finds interesting, whereas I do. In a way, I am filling the void that the father has left.
What this means is simple. The best way I found to deal with PAS (or any indirect attack) is to not respond to it directly but take pause and listen to the child.
I hate to use Anakin Skywalker as an example but look at what Senator Palpatine did. He ingratiated himself as a "grandfather" like figure, stroking Anakin's ego "You're the most talented Jedi I have ever seen!". Children who hear praise from you will want to come back to you. This is not a child mentality, it is human nature. Don't believe me? After you eat at a restaurant, ask to speak to the manager. Then say that your waiter/waitress gave you the best service you have ever had! Next time you go to that restaurant, I almost guarantee that person who served you will be scrambling to serve you again!
And with that, I am leading right into the next Sun Tzu lesson…
Next lesson “A Warrior is great not because he fights bravely but because he wins battles effortlessly”
Comments
So now we are in the thick of
So now we are in the thick of battling with the ex. I think I hinted in the last post how every action or things we do as steps, can be misconstrued or even used against us. I still remember DW’s ex lawyer grilling me on the stand about my fondness for beer, suggesting that the myriad of articles I wrote on the beers I have sampled is ample proof that I am an alcoholic. Or that my fondness for a certain type of music is conclusive proof that my lifestyle must involve illegal narcotics (even if I was involved in illegal narcotics *WHY* would I admit to it in front of a judge? I mean, DUH! All this to say that there is no “Geneva Convention” on what is considered as fair game in the war with the adversarial ex. If the mandate of the adversarial ex is simply “refusal to co-parent” then the attacks on you and your SO will most likely be kept to a minimum. If however, the adversarial ex is hell-bent on getting some kind of revenge, then expect that person to willfully and spitefully make low-blows. Sun Tzu teaches us how to analyze these blows.
Lesson 5: “Just as there are only two outcomes to a battle, there are only two maneuvers in battle; the direct, and the indirect. There are however, an endless combination of these indirect/direct manoeuvres”
When we are talking about direct manoeuvres, we are referring to situations that places us in direct confrontation with the adversarial ex. An indirect manoeuvre is like moving a piece on the chess board. A direct manoeuvre is like capturing one of your opponents’ pieces. There is an infinite combination of moves and attacks. Each are equally important in ensuring the end game.
In a war with the adversarial ex, phone calls, letters, texts, emails, are all manoeuvres. Each of these are done to illicit a reaction. Let’s analyze an email as an example
Indirect manoeuvre:
“If you are going to the park, could you please make sure little Johnny wears his sweater?”
Direct Manoeuvre:
“If you are going to the park, you better make sure little Johnny wears his sweater. Last thing I need is to nurse little Johnny from a cold because you keep forgetting to dress him warmly on cold days!”
Do you see a difference? The first is a simple request made in a civil manner. In fact, it may not even be seen as adversarial at all. The second has an underlying accusatory tone. While the message may seem different, they are both maneuvers in the war. This is important to realize because when the adversarial ex stands before the judge, this is likely to come out of their mouth.
“Your honor, I am the better parent here because I always look after my children. My ex cannot even remember to dress our son warmly. See? *holds up email* Even after I politely asked him to remember to put a sweater on little Johnny he STILL doesn’t do it!”
There are other maneuvers that don’t necessarily involve communication. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is an indirect but very powerful tactic if one does it correctly. It is very difficult to combat. Remember, that with children it is FAR easier to play on their emotions than their intellect. They’re children and that is just how they are wired. But if you watch them closely, keep tabs on what it is that interests them, you can see sparks of intelligence beginning to flourish. I believe this is where I have an advantage over my DW’s ex. I am capable of engaging SS whereas his father doesn’t. I am sure his Dad loves him on some level, but he doesn’t understand him (that, and he is more concerned about spiting us than actually caring about his son). I, on the other hand, understand my SS very well and by fanning the flames of his burgeoning intellect, I assure that SS will always want to come to me to discuss matters that interest him. I didn’t do this on purpose, nor am I stealing anything from his father either. His father has, and will probably always be, a passive person. He makes no plans to do anything with SS, whereas I do. He doesn’t bother to talk to SS about anything that SS finds interesting, whereas I do. In a way, I am filling the void that the father has left.
What this means is simple. The best way I found to deal with PAS (or any indirect attack) is to not respond to it directly but take pause and listen to the child.
I hate to use Anakin Skywalker as an example but look at what Senator Palpatine did. He ingratiated himself as a "grandfather" like figure, stroking Anakin's ego "You're the most talented Jedi I have ever seen!". Children who hear praise from you will want to come back to you. This is not a child mentality, it is human nature. Don't believe me? After you eat at a restaurant, ask to speak to the manager. Then say that your waiter/waitress gave you the best service you have ever had! Next time you go to that restaurant, I almost guarantee that person who served you will be scrambling to serve you again!
And with that, I am leading right into the next Sun Tzu lesson…
Next lesson “A Warrior is great not because he fights bravely but because he wins battles effortlessly”
Your welcome! Yes, I find
Your welcome! Yes, I find good old Sun Tzu rather soothing at times when my DW's ex starts beating his chest.