Stalkers and Stonewalling

[ADF]

As someone who works in the field of family law, I often come accross cases that involve stalking. The stalker is usually an estranged husband or boyfriend, the victim the stalker's ex-wife or ex-GF. We see cases of female stalkers as well, but far less often.

 

Advice about how to deal with a stalker, whether it comes from law enforcement agencies, social services agencies, women's rights groups, ect, is remarkably uniform. The bottom line is to stonewall the stalker. Refuse to see him, refuse to talk to him on the phone, refuse all contact in any form. Women are often encourgaed to change their phone numbers, move to a new address, and so on. All in an effort to allow the stalker no contact whatsoever with his (or her ) intended tagret.

 

Now, in some cases this is wholly appropriate. Especially if the stalker has been threatening, abusive or violent. But it strikes how often I see cases where, so far as I can see, the advice to stonewall made matters worse rather than better.

 

At every level of society, stonewalling somebody is viewed as a gesture of utter contempt. In polite society, it is called "snubbing," and is regarded as unspeakably rude. In not so polite society--say in a prison yard--this kind of behavior can get someone killed.

 

Too often, I see women (and occasionally men, though as I said above, women are more often the victims) begin to stonewall a husband or boyfriend long before he does anything that would make such action appropriate. Husbands try to reach their wives to talk about custody disputes, child support issues, and so on, only to find their wives refuse to speak to them, will only communicate through a lawyer, if at all. This seems like a HUGE mistake. I have seen so many cases where perfectly normal, non-threatening men were turned into stalkers as a result of this kind of treatment.

 

I guess what I'm saying is this: have we reached a point where any and all expressions of male anger and frustration are deemed unacceptable? Can we draw a reasonable line if distinction between anger and aggression? Unless a man has a demonstrated propensity for violence, stonewalling him is the WORST thing a woman can do. It doesn't defuse problems. It escalates them.

[Rearden Metal]

And yet, isn't NC exactly Stonewalling?

 

Sorry to not add more, I feel like I mostly agree with your points.

[LovelyDaze]

And yet, isn't NC exactly Stonewalling?

 

Sorry to not add more, I feel like I mostly agree with your points.

 

I wonder that myself. But there are some people who can't be reasoned with and must be stonewalled.

[ADF]

And yet, isn't NC exactly Stonewalling?

 

Sorry to not add more, I feel like I mostly agree with your points.

 

I think the difference between NC and stonewalling is that in the cases I'm talking about, legitimate, outstanding issues of the relationship remain to be settled. NC occurs after the relationship is over. Also, NC is usually mutual, not the case of one person needing to talk and other refusing to communicate.

[Rearden Metal]

Gotcha, that makes sense.

 

NC sucks, LOL.

[twinklecat]

I wonder that myself. But there are some people who can't be reasoned with and must be stonewalled.

 

Totally agree with this, and I guess yeah, it may come off as rude, bitter nasty or whatever, but well I did it for myself, only way I could see me moving on.

[lsb]

If there are no outstanding issues to resolve or any major reason to still be connected to the person....then why continue to communicate with the person. I dumped my ex and he still to this day contact me. I often wonder maybe I should have kept communication open but all it felt like to me was that we kept going in circles and not getting anywhere. I am not sure what else I could have done. If I kept the communication open he would keep trying to manipulate me into taking him back but now that I stonewalled him he still contacts me...

[sativo]

I think it comes down to the nature of why the person wants contact. If it's just to toy with your emotions, then stonewalling aka NC, makes sense. If it's for more legitimate reasons, then NC may be inappropriate.

[threebyfate]

Too often, I see women (and occasionally men, though as I said above, women are more often the victims) begin to stonewall a husband or boyfriend long before he does anything that would make such action appropriate. Husbands try to reach their wives to talk about custody disputes, child support issues, and so on, only to find their wives refuse to speak to them, will only communicate through a lawyer, if at all. This seems like a HUGE mistake. I have seen so many cases where perfectly normal, non-threatening men were turned into stalkers as a result of this kind of treatment.

A man is rarely physically intimidated by a woman. But a woman has much to be concerned about. This is something that men will never understand.

 

Oh, and btw, no one can turn anyone else into a stalker. A person either has that kind of sociopathic mindset or they don't. You're acting like these women are to blame for these guys going mental. Not true or even close to fair.

[sativo]

A man is rarely physically intimidated by a woman. But a woman has much to be concerned about. This is something that men will never understand.

 

Oh, and btw, no one can turn anyone else into a stalker. A person either has that kind of sociopathic mindset or they don't. You're acting like these women are to blame for these guys going mental. Not true or even close to fair.

 

I disagree. Unless you have a documented study that proves this theory, I tend to think it's false.

 

To be clear, I think our actions do affect others behaviors. You can't treat someone like crap, then categorically blame them for getting upset about it.

Edited March 22, 2010 by sativo

[threebyfate]

I disagree. Unless you have a documented study that proves this theory, I tend to think it's false.

 

To be clear, I think our actions do affect others behaviors. You can't treat someone like crap, then categorically blame them for getting upset about it.

Getting upset is one thing. Turning to stalking is another. Many stalkers have psychological problems.

 

Go do your own homework and look up stalking. Unless you can find documented studies that state that stalking is normal behaviour, I think what you're saying is false.

[sativo]

Lol.. that's not how logic works. You don't put forth an argument and then require others to prove it wrong. It's up to you to prove it's right. lol!

 

Anyway, I digress.

 

Back to the issue... everything is a matter of degrees. You make someone miserable enough, they might do something that's outside of their usual nature.

 

It's also not a male vs female thing. Plenty of women are violent and destructive. It's worth everyone's while to be cautious before blowing someone off in an act of passive aggressiveness.

[threebyfate]

Good lord, it's another sock puppet.

[sativo]

An Ad hominem argument -- typical. Thanks for pointing out your lack of substance.

[ADF]

A man is rarely physically intimidated by a woman. But a woman has much to be concerned about. This is something that men will never understand.

 

Oh, and btw, no one can turn anyone else into a stalker. A person either has that kind of sociopathic mindset or they don't. You're acting like these women are to blame for these guys going mental. Not true or even close to fair.

 

But the problem is, I've seen too many people resort to stonewalling in the absence of any threat at all. Just because a man could, in theory, physically menace a woman doesn't mean she should cut off all contact as a first resort. She should do it as a last resort. Unfortunately, a lot of the women I see use a standard of "threat" that is totally subjective and, frankly, self-serving. If a man expresses anger or frustration, she automatically claims the right to regard him as a threat, even though he's not done her any harm or even threatened to. It happens every day.

 

And I'm sorry, while some stalkers are "sociopaths"--i.e. people with a history of anti-social behvaior--the majority are not. It is less a matter of a person's nature than how far they've been pushed.

[sativo]

One of the most interesting things that my philosophy instructor pointed out to us is that law and morality serve two different functions. It's entirely possible to break the law while doing something moral. Also, it's entirely possible to operate within the law while doing something immoral.

 

It's not uncommon for people (women or men) to engage in immoral acts that frustrate their ex. Many of the stories on these forums illustrate that a dumper will toy with a dumpee -- usually in a cruel and selfish way -- without breaking the law. This includes: disrespecting boundaries, giving false hope, ignoring them without just cause (ex: "I just hope she goes away"), or just looking to get a reaction out of them.

 

When someone is on the receiving end of this type of immoral and abusive behavior, they tend to get distraught -- particularly if they have a lot of emotions invested in the relationship.

 

Does that mean the dumpee has the right to break the law? Of course not, but we're all fools in love, and we all do things out of desperation that we might regret in hindsight. Stalking probably falls into that category.

 

What's upsetting here is when a "man hater" tries to turn this topic into her own personal affront against men -- despite a clear effort on the part of the original poster to avoid turning this into a gender war.

 

With that said, there are plenty of times where NC is completely justified. If a dumpee is looking to move on with their life, NC makes sense. If a dumer has an legitimate reason to feel threatened, then NC could make sense. It just depends on the situation. It's probably best to be polite and avoid being rude and provoking someone if it's uncalled for.

[Ilovecake]

Keeping NC has my ex extremely angry. I don't think he's any danger to me physically but does do things to push my buttons. He does most of his stalking via the internet. He's had strangers forward personal messages to me that I wrote to him months ago. I've had a few people also forward messages to me that he wrote about me. Horrible stuff calling me names and so forth. When I ignored all of that he started utilizing facebook, he sent friend requests to all my friends. All the stuff is petty but does push my buttons. He's in his mid 30s and is getting married to the girl he left me for which just makes the whole thing creepier. I am completely stonewalling him. I've seen him out a few times and he never ever approaches me. We both act as if we do not know each other but then a few days later he'll send me a message always asking for some really mundane, useless advice. I ignore it and the whole thing starts again. I have done everything possible to block him from every outlet he has to me outside of moving out of my apartment. I figure he can continue with his weird childish behaviors but at least this way what I don't see can't hurt me. In my case stonewalling is working perfectly.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ilovecake

[Rearden Metal]

One of the most interesting things that my philosophy instructor pointed out to us is that law and morality serve two different functions. It's entirely possible to break the law while doing something moral. Also, it's entirely possible to operate within the law while doing something immoral.

 

It's not uncommon for people (women or men) to engage in immoral acts that frustrate their ex. Many of the stories on these forums illustrate that a dumper will toy with a dumpee -- usually in a cruel and selfish way -- without breaking the law. This includes: disrespecting boundaries, giving false hope, ignoring them without just cause (ex: "I just hope she goes away"), or just looking to get a reaction out of them.

 

When someone is on the receiving end of this type of immoral and abusive behavior, they tend to get distraught -- particularly if they have a lot of emotions invested in the relationship.

 

Does that mean the dumpee has the right to break the law? Of course not, but we're all fools in love, and we all do things out of desperation that we might regret in hindsight. Stalking probably falls into that category.

 

What's upsetting here is when a "man hater" tries to turn this topic into her own personal affront against men -- despite a clear effort on the part of the original poster to avoid turning this into a gender war.

 

With that said, there are plenty of times where NC is completely justified. If a dumpee is looking to move on with their life, NC makes sense. If a dumer has an legitimate reason to feel threatened, then NC could make sense. It just depends on the situation. It's probably best to be polite and avoid being rude and provoking someone if it's uncalled for.

 

Absolutely spot on, as usual.

 

Sh*t, I have NEVER in my life been a jealous, stalker type. But the mindfu*k my ex put on me left me driving by her place on Sunday AM's to see if her car was there.

 

I got a grip on myself and put a stop to that behavior. But I can definitely see how it could become habit for people with a willpower problem.

[mem11363]

When someone treats you badly by ignoring you that makes a "normal" person angry.

 

Stalking is not about being angry - it is about being obsessed with the person which is completely different.

 

As for women who hit the "restraining order" button prematurely - I look at that as minor compared to the consequence to women when they are too relaxed and the guy amplifies his aggression levels.

 

In a free society none of us has the "right" to force other people to enjoy our company. If someone hits you with a restraining order the only sane thing to do is comply with it. If you think they used such an order abusively, even more reasons to keep your distance, crazy people can mess your life up.

 

As men we are programmed to be sexually aggressive and that aggression, even when not mean spirited is often scary to a woman attempting to end a relationship.

 

 

 

But the problem is, I've seen too many people resort to stonewalling in the absence of any threat at all. Just because a man could, in theory, physically menace a woman doesn't mean she should cut off all contact as a first resort. She should do it as a last resort. Unfortunately, a lot of the women I see use a standard of "threat" that is totally subjective and, frankly, self-serving. If a man expresses anger or frustration, she automatically claims the right to regard him as a threat, even though he's not done her any harm or even threatened to. It happens every day.

 

And I'm sorry, while some stalkers are "sociopaths"--i.e. people with a history of anti-social behvaior--the majority are not. It is less a matter of a person's nature than how far they've been pushed.

[sativo]

There are times when I'm afraid the girl will damage my car or my reputation or worse -- get violent and poison my dog or maybe me. It happens.

 

So I try to avoid provoking them, which includes not stonewalling them. I'd rather spend a few uncomfortable hours discussing my feeling with them and reasoning with them the best I can. I try to let them down as easy as I can -- both out of self-preservation and compassion for them.

 

Of course, if they do start acting out and are unreasonable, then yes, it's time to take more drastic measures.

[mem11363]

This is a beautiful thing - truly - it makes a big big difference to how painful the ending is for the other person.

 

 

There are times when I'm afraid the girl will damage my car or my reputation or worse -- get violent and poison my dog or maybe me. It happens.

 

So I try to avoid provoking them, which includes not stonewalling them. I'd rather spend a few uncomfortable hours discussing my feeling with them and reasoning with them the best I can. I try to let them down as easy as I can -- both out of self-preservation and compassion for them.

 

Of course, if they do start acting out and are unreasonable, then yes, it's time to take more drastic measures.

[threebyfate]

But the problem is, I've seen too many people resort to stonewalling in the absence of any threat at all. Just because a man could, in theory, physically menace a woman doesn't mean she should cut off all contact as a first resort. She should do it as a last resort. Unfortunately, a lot of the women I see use a standard of "threat" that is totally subjective and, frankly, self-serving. If a man expresses anger or frustration, she automatically claims the right to regard him as a threat, even though he's not done her any harm or even threatened to. It happens every day.

Keep in mind that by the time people get to divorce, they've already exhausted all their options for the marriage to work and have given up. Who knows what's happened within the confines of the marriage, to warrant the stonewalling.

 

As well, when it comes to divorce and settlements, it's best to allow a professional to negotiate without negative emotions swamping the negotiation. Now how this converts to the women who choose to use professionals to negotiate, being responsible for the mental issues of the men involved, defeats me.

 

And I'm sorry, while some stalkers are "sociopaths"--i.e. people with a history of anti-social behvaior--the majority are not. It is less a matter of a person's nature than how far they've been pushed.

Take a look at the studies on stalkers. Many have OCD, BPD and HPD, as well as many other personality disorders, some to the magnitude of sociopathy.

[Ilovecake]

When someone treats you badly by ignoring you that makes a "normal" person angry.

 

Stalking is not about being angry - it is about being obsessed with the person which is completely different.

 

 

I think stalking has a lot to do with anger stemming from feelings of inadequacy and rejection.

 

In my case the person I'm dealing with isn't normal and his anger/hurt ego has driven him to do some immoral things just to get my attention. He's the one who dumped me and said he did not care if we ever spoke again yet he's made all the contact. At first I was reasonable with him and if he had a question I would answer it politely and leave it at that. When I found out he was doing really dirty things behind my back while telling me how important it is to him that we stay friends I started ignoring him. This is when his efforts to try and get my attention doubled and became a lot more frequent and unreasonable. I would say in this case his stalking of me has nothing to do with passion and everything to do with a damaged ego and anger because he can't imagine why after a year and a half I'm not pining for him. He's not obsessed with me he's obsessed with the idea that someone, anyone, doesn't like him. He simply can not wrap his head around that. He did this with his previous ex as well, she tried to warn me but I didn't listen.