Control versus influence, influence v manipulation

[Taramere]

Related to Mme. Chaucer's thread on the right/wrong way to post on Loveshack...but I wanted to take it into the wider realm of life generally.

 

I think most of us tread a line, sometimes, between trying to influence others and trying to control them. Commonly in the romantic sphere, when perhaps fear of losing somebody can push a person beyond simply trying to influence them into trying to control them.

 

Control I would see as taking active steps to restrict somebody's options and freedom so that they are limited to doing what you want them to do. When we're practising self discipline, we might deliberately restrict our own options in order to increase our chances of succeeding in whatever we've set out to do (eg somebody trying to give up smoking might throw their cigarettes onto a fire). Or we might consent to somebody else restricting our freedom in the hope of maximising our success.

 

The circumstances in which other people genuinely try to control us are probably quite limited...but we'll often see them as controlling if we sense them trying to manipulate us into thinking a certain way or taking a prescribed course of action that serves their interests better than ours (even if their only real interest is to feel powerful as a result of getting us to do what they wanted us to do).

 

Trying to influence another person is probably generally seen as the most palatable of the three (control, manipulation and influence). We talk of trying to influence others into doing what we genuinely believe will be the best thing for them or for the community they live in. However, what we regard to be an effort to positively influence another person, the next individual might regard as manipulative.

 

My questions are

 

a) How would you personally differentiate between control, manipulation and influence - or would you see little to choose from between the three?

 

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

 

c) Do you try to avoid doing any of these three actions through a commitment towards promoting absolute freedom of choice for individuals?

[Emilia]

a) How would you personally differentiate between control, manipulation and influence - or would you see little to choose from between the three?

 

To me manipulation is a tool to achieve control. Influence is something completely different though and I think it is a healthy way to approach a discussion where you want to make sure your voice is heard before a decision is reached that affects both of you. Hopefully when your partner is having a discussion with you, he is seeking your point of view in order to influence his decisions for example.

 

 

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

 

Not anymore. When I was in my 20s and I didn't know any better yes. Partly because it is what I learnt from my mother, she isn't capable of having a healthy, non-controling relationship. I seek the opposite and go to great lengths to make clear to my SO that I'm merely expressing an opinion, not trying to manipulate him into something. I abhor emotional blackmail, it's the weapon of the weak.

 

 

c) Do you try to avoid doing any of these three actions through a commitment towards promoting absolute freedom of choice for individuals?

 

As I mentioned in point a) I think influencing is healthy because I believe in a partnership/relationship both parties should aim for a 50-50 share and they should mutually try to influence each other with healthy and constructive reasoning to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome. Of course life isn't that simple but in my world this would be the most ideal way.

[zengirl]

My answers are under the bolded questions below. Good questions, Taramere.

 

My questions are

 

a) How would you personally differentiate between control, manipulation and influence - or would you see little to choose from between the three?

 

Manipulation is control without admitting you seek control. To me, it is the worst of the three, because it is the least honest.

 

Influence is either a lighter form of control (if intentional influence) or simply a natural effect of behavior (the best kind of influence; we often influence people without targeting them out or thinking of what influence we would desire to achieve, and that is not controlling at all because there was no intended goal). I see it as a spectrum. The optimum would be to accept that you cannot control other people and to primarily focus on enhancing yourself (which would have non-controlling good influence on others, in many cases, I think) and accepting the uncertainty of what comes, but we cannot ALWAYS get there, certainly.

 

How controlling something is depends on (a) how much focus is put on the effect or extrinsic circumstances (more = more controlling) and (b) how much force is used. It doesn't become manipulation until you try to hide it.

 

I find self-control a complicated area. Some is good, of course, but too much usually implies a desire to control external events (a prime example of this would be anorexia, which often has nothing to do with the body but a feeling that one is out of control in their own life). I think self-responsibility is better than self-control.

 

To me, learning to release control is the primary purpose of living in this realm. (And learning to release it leads to happiness.) So, control is a huge hot-button.

 

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

 

Well, with my description above: If I'm trying to influence someone intentionally, I am attempting control, but I am accepting it may not work. Kind of half-assed really.

 

Have I ever attempted control, manipulation, or intentional influence? Of course. I've done all three. I find it fairly impossible to stay away from control entirely, even though I try, but I do avoid manipulation. If I find myself being manipulative, I usually immediately confess my goal, which therefore means manipulation is no longer possible since I've 'outed' myself.

 

I suppose in a life or death situation or for the well-being of a child, I would use manipulation. I would probably also use it to save my own life, but that seems weak to me. I would rather that I wouldn't do that, but I don't have that kind of integrity. I'd never consciously manipulate in a romantic situation these days, though I have in the past and sometimes I am accidentally passive aggressive, which I see as a form of unconscious manipulation.

 

c) Do you try to avoid doing any of these three actions through a commitment towards promoting absolute freedom of choice for individuals?

 

Not really. I do try to avoid them, but it's not for that reason. It's because I believe my own happiness depends on releasing control and accepting what is.

 

And simply because I believe control causes every toxicity or bad habit of the human race.

 

[Taramere]

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

 

Not anymore. When I was in my 20s and I didn't know any better yes. Partly because it is what I learnt from my mother, she isn't capable of having a healthy, non-controling relationship. I seek the opposite and go to great lengths to make clear to my SO that I'm merely expressing an opinion, not trying to manipulate him into something. I abhor emotional blackmail, it's the weapon of the weak.

 

Yes...when I look back on my teens to mid twenties, I can certainly pick out examples of times I was manipulative. Like you, it was a "learned from mother (and grandmother)" thing. With those previous generations, I think it was deemed to be an essential part of being a woman. To manipulate. To get men to do what you wanted them to do in a way that made them think it was their idea.

 

I think it comes from the days when women had no direct involvement in powerful institutions such as parliament, the armed forces and the judiciary. To be influential, they had to employ stealth and charm. In its own way, it was very much an art...but a concealed one. When I tried to exert influence by speaking up very directly about things, my mother and grandmother would berate me about the "women's lib" (as they preferred to call feminism) approach. How it was unattractive and ineffectual in getting what you wanted out of men. On the other hand, I felt that I didn't want a man who could be manipulated in that way. There was a respect problem.

 

On the other hand, my older brother was really into that kind of thing (covert control and manipulation) for a while...and I think that's something he picked up from my mother, though he would also be overtly aggressive like my father at times. Dad was a combination of the fairy tale ogre...but also, in all honesty, the sitcom buffoon dad.

 

My mother and my brother would often laugh about him behind his back and I would be troubled about it. Partly because he was my dad...but also because I knew I had more of his temperament than my mother's about me. So if people thought he was a buffoon, I was probably a buffoon too. Being the youngest in the family, you often are the buffoon. Add being a blonde female to the equation, and you may as well just change your name to Bridget Jones and be done with it.

 

What my dad told me was, in a kind of throwaway manner, "Your mother likes to think she pulls everybody's strings behind the scenes. If it makes her happy to think that, let her think it. Do what you want to do, and don't worry about whether other people think they manipulated you into it."

 

It seemed to be more of a source of amusement than annoyance to him that my mother was constantly embroiled in Machiavellian scheming. Though sometimes if I was looking for advice on handling a difficulty,and she would come out with some convoluted scheme for coming out on top (a scheme which would invariably be far more likely to make me look completely ridiculous) he'd blow up. "For Christ's sake - what a lot of sh*te. Just stay out of it. You can't give proper advice about these matters."

 

In my family, I would say my father was the feminist and my mother was the anti-feminist. I wonder if that's quite often the case when it comes to parents raising daughters. I've heard my mother giving the exact same advice to my 8 year old niece. "What you want is to make (brother, dad, grandad) think it was his idea. That's the way to deal with men." All other kinds of manipulative advice will follow. It's the most animated my mother ever looks when she's talking to her grand-daughter.

 

My niece will chuckle, then she'll look at me and the expression will switch to dubiety. You can see her thinking "well, I kind of trust Auntie Taramere more" (which she does). "On the other hand, Auntie Taramere doesn't seem to do too well with the men. Maybe on this point, Granny is the one to listen to."

 

Zengirl- laughing at the "outing myself for being manipulative" comment. I've done the same thing. I'm never sure whether it's a confession or whether I'm boasting about actually managing to manipulate an outcome.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Taramere

[Emilia]

ink they manipulated you into it."

 

It seemed to be more of a source of amusement than annoyance to him that my mother was constantly embroiled in Machiavellian scheming. Though sometimes if I was looking for advice on handling a difficulty,and she would come out with some convoluted scheme for coming out on top (a scheme which would invariably be far more likely to make me look completely ridiculous) he'd blow up. "For Christ's sake - what a lot of sh*te. Just stay out of it. You can't give proper advice about these matters."

 

 

 

Yes my grandmother was like this and she was a strongly disliked figure in the family. My mother is slightly more subtle because she uses guilt: in her case hypochondria (one of my exes did that too interestingly, it took me a while to make that connection.)

 

I have never thought of it as previous female generations trying to get their way in more patriarchal societies but I think you are right. I can see this in societies such as oppressed Islam states and I think it was the case in Europe until about 30 years ago too - in terms of lack of power as a woman.

 

My mother is an aggressive woman but she isn't a scheming one, which to me is interesting. I think maybe because she is quite intelligent and she has worked out that emotional blackmail is the most effective way to get your loved ones do things your way. Hence my leaving my country when I was 20 and moving to the UK. This was the only way I could get away from her negative influence.

[Taramere]

My mother is an aggressive woman but she isn't a scheming one, which to me is interesting. I think maybe because she is quite intelligent and she has worked out that emotional blackmail is the most effective way to get your loved ones do things your way. Hence my leaving my country when I was 20 and moving to the UK. This was the only way I could get away from her negative influence.

 

Whereabouts were you originally from Emilia?

[Emilia]

Whereabouts were you originally from Emilia?

 

Hungary but I moved to London a long time ago

[Taramere]

Hungary but I moved to London a long time ago

 

Do you perceive any general difference between Hungary and the UK in the way the genders relate to eachother, or is it much the same in both countries?

[Emilia]

Do you perceive any general difference between Hungary and the UK in the way the genders relate to eachother, or is it much the same in both countries?

 

Oh I knew you were going to ask this and this is where I feel embarrassed because I don't know the answer. I have lived in London since I was 20 (except for when I was away living in Africa) and I spend about 4 weekends a year in Budapest when I visit my family. I haven't dated Hungarian men since I was 20 as I've mainly been out with Brits, Australians, etc.

 

So unfortunately I don't know the answer to your question

[zengirl]

I think it comes from the days when women had no direct involvement in powerful institutions such as parliament, the armed forces and the judiciary. To be influential, they had to employ stealth and charm. In its own way, it was very much an art...but a concealed one. When I tried to exert influence by speaking up very directly about things, my mother and grandmother would berate me about the "women's lib" (as they preferred to call feminism) approach. How it was unattractive and ineffectual in getting what you wanted out of men. On the other hand, I felt that I didn't want a man who could be manipulated in that way. There was a respect problem.

 

Interesting, Taramere, and I think very true. Perhaps that's another reason I dislike certain segments of that behavior, particularly in women, because it reeks of a lack of empowerment and equality.

 

My own mother was pretty "women's lib." She can still be manipulative, but almost never with men! (And she does very well with men!) I have noticed my mother, who had a much better relationship with her father and brothers than her mother and sister, will only really attempt to manipulate or be PA with women (including me sometimes). She never pulls that crap with my step-father. Her sister and mother are a lot more like your mother, though, so I can kind of see why she does it. It's like. . . she doesn't trust women in some ways. I don't think I inherited that, because she is a bit controlling with me (more out of fear) but not really manipulative. We were pretty honest with each other most of the time. But her family was treacherous!

 

Your father sounds hilarious and awesome.

 

Zengirl- laughing at the "outing myself for being manipulative" comment. I've done the same thing. I'm never sure whether it's a confession or whether I'm boasting about actually managing to manipulate an outcome.

 

I mostly out myself before the outcome these days. I have gotten much more conscious of it over the years, and even as I'm attempting manipulation, I'll stop and say, "Ugh, I'm sorry! What I really want is X." And, usually, in asking for it directly (if I haven't pissed the person off with my manipulation yet), I'll get it. It's ironic.

[Emilia]

I have noticed my mother, who had a much better relationship with her father and brothers than her mother and sister, will only really attempt to manipulate or be PA with women (including me sometimes).

 

 

Same with my mother but then she did have a very difficult mother herself (the grandmother I mentioned before) who was not only manipulative but apparently stunning in her youth too. I think my mother grew up competing with my grandmother for my grandfather's attention.

 

None of this has anything to do with gender relations though, just c**p parenting

[zengirl]

Same with my mother but then she did have a very difficult mother herself (the grandmother I mentioned before) who was not only manipulative but apparently stunning in her youth too. I think my mother grew up competing with my grandmother for my grandfather's attention.

 

None of this has anything to do with gender relations though, just c**p parenting

 

True, though I'm very proud that my mother worked on that issue in therapy and is a lot better at it now and will usually back down when called on it. Perhaps that's where I got my habit of calling people on their passive aggression or manipulation.

[Taramere]

Your father sounds hilarious and awesome.

 

One minute Mr Laugh-a-minute and mellow, the next an angry control freak. But he knows it - and he's mellowed over the years. They're both hilarious and awesome in their own ways.

[carhill]

My questions are:

 

a) How would you personally differentiate between control, manipulation and influence - or would you see little to choose from between the three?

Control - 'Here, we'll do it this way. You clearly don't know what you're doing'

Manipulation - 'What a silly way to do things. Let's do xxxx instead'

Influence - 'In my experience, and I've faced this issue numerous times, xxx has seemed to work for me. I don't know if it will in this instance, but we could try and see'

 

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

If their life is in danger, sure.

 

'Stop immediately. Don't move. I need to shut the power off. WTF were you thinking sticking tools in a live electrical panel?'

 

Otherwise, I generally, with rare exceptions, share what *I* would do and leave it at that.

 

c) Do you try to avoid doing any of these three actions through a commitment towards promoting absolute freedom of choice for individuals?

I use a methodology similar to what our psychologist used in MC, called 'challenge and support'. I may challenge a perspective, offering my own, but also support aspects of the other person's perspective and final decision. This presumes a equal friendship or relationship where there is mutual investment and care at the time.

 

Example:

ExW hated her commute (an hour). She wanted to try to operate her salon on the property. I opined that such a choice might make retaining existing clients and gaining new ones more difficult due to location versus a rented location in town. However, after a number of discussions and seeing she was serious and empathizing with her commute, I offered to convert my office building into a salon and went with her to auctions to buy the equipment.

 

Then she changed her mind and rented space in town and I ended up moving her equipment to her new house when we divorced.

 

Sometimes I think I need to work on being more of a controlling, manipulative @sshole

[betterdeal]

In my view they are thus: control is attempting to prevent something; manipulation is attempting to change something indirectly; and influence is attempting to change something (let's say openly, directly, in this context).

 

Examples where I have used each:

 

Manipulation:

Laughingly telling a huntsman how silly they were for leading the hounds into the woods when I just saw the fox run along a hedgerow from East to West, when in fact the fox had run from West to East. They ended up hunting on heal - my desired outcome.

 

Control:

Standing in the way of a step-father who was attempting to attack his step-daughter.

 

Influence:

Writing to my MP about the Ian Tomlinson case and expressing my outrage at the continued malfeasance of the police with regard to that case.

 

There are of course many other examples of each which I'm not so proud about.

[Taramere]

If their life is in danger, sure.

 

Yes...control is obviously important if somebody's otherwise going to do something that puts themselves or somebody else at immediate risk. When there's a sense of urgency.

 

Yet another lesson from the children's homes days. The more controlling members of staff would sometimes behave in a way that would contribute towards the kind of crisis (kids running amok) that called for the controlling reaction they were best suited to (which might include physical restraint).

 

Leading to the "it's a good thing I was here. What would you do without me?" "If you hadn't been here, it probably wouldn't have happened" argument.

 

There are of course many other examples of each which I'm not so proud about.

 

Haha. I like that you wrote that at the end. I'm living in hope that somebody will present a list of examples that they accept might create a certain chill in the air....but unless Eric or the 50 ids troll returns, it's not very likely.

[EasyHeart]

My questions are

 

a) How would you personally differentiate between control, manipulation and influence - or would you see little to choose from between the three?

 

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

 

c) Do you try to avoid doing any of these three actions through a commitment towards promoting absolute freedom of choice for individuals?

 

(a) To me, "control" requires an element of threat of force or coercion, either physical or economic; "manipulation" requires an element of either lying or withholding information so that it's impossible for the other person to make a fully-informed decision; influence is what we do every minute of the day: try to persuade people to do what we want them to do.

 

(b) Control is appropriate for children and maybe for really disturbed adults, like addicts or people who are trying to control you. It's also appropriate for recalcitrant employees ("Prepare the document in the manner I desire because I sign your paycheck.") Manipulation is alright if you're dealing with competitors or other people with whom you have an adversarial relationship. I have no obligation to give them full and honest information; they have an obligation to research and verify.

 

© Control and manipulation are fine in the examples I already cited, and I think it's also okay to use those techniques against people who try to control or manipulate me. "Do unto others" as it were. But in general, I don't think control or manipulation are generally productive. And of course that's why law and society generally frown on threats and lies: they prevent people from making logical, informed decisions.

[betterdeal]

Haha. I like that you wrote that at the end. I'm living in hope that somebody will present a list of examples that they accept might create a certain chill in the air....but unless Eric or the 50 ids troll returns, it's not very likely.

 

One of the chest hair counters will surely come along and make something up. But I think, as with everything else, if you act out of sincerity then your use of any of these techniques is understandable and more likely to be justifiable, although the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Will anyone be hurt by it I guess is the limit to which I would go, but even then I can imagine scenarios where it's the least worst choice and someone does get hurt but less than the other options would lead to.

 

So, um, yeah. It's affection that binds us and fear that divides us.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

My questions are

 

a) How would you personally differentiate between control, manipulation and influence - or would you see little to choose from between the three?

 

Hm. It's complicated.

 

I have been in a relationship with a very controlling person, and I felt controlled. Much of the time, though, the control was accomplished through manipulation and fear. I was able to be controlled because the person let me know, subtly, that the outcome of not doing what he wanted me to do would be very unpleasant for me. So, lines between manipulation and control can be very blurry.

 

Straightforward control, though, is a lot less evil than that. For example, a "control freak" like my ex husband might need to put every dish in the dishwasher exactly a certain way. If someone put dishes in the "wrong" way, he would take them out and replace them "correctly." He was more about feeling in control of his environment. It could be kind of oppressive, but not evil. Sometimes this overflowed into his dealings with people, but not in the insidious way of instilling fear.

 

Manipulation - oh, there are so very many ways to be manipulative. "Feminine wiles" are manipulative, and guilt trips are manipulative. Playing the martyr and the victim, or misleading someone in order to direct them where you want them to go.

 

Influence, as I think we all agree, is the most honorable. We can try to influence by setting an example, or by teaching.

 

b) Can you think of situations in which you would knowingly try to control or manipulate another person, as opposed to simply trying to influence them?

 

Oh, yeah! I learned how to be manipulative as, simply, the way to be. I can't even specifically blame it on my mother. I used to say things like, "Let's make her take us out to lunch," or something like that, and my friend would be so offended by my glib way of believing that we could simply get other people to do our bidding. I was not even aware of how … unfair? this was.

 

For whatever reason, I naturally tended to try to get what I wanted, and to get the emotional responses I wanted, through sideways and manipulative methods. I was good at it.

 

And now, I'm good at spotting it from miles away.

 

I had to learn how to be straightforward and to give other people a very fair chance to know what I was up to with regards to them, and to let them decide for themselves what they wanted to do. It was hard.

 

c) Do you try to avoid doing any of these three actions through a commitment towards promoting absolute freedom of choice for individuals?

 

YES. But it's hard, still, sometimes. I have a daughter who is a young adult, and whose choices sometimes have me gnashing my teeth. I find myself behaving in a controlling way - or trying to manipulate her - or trying to influence her, sometimes. I work on stopping.

 

Raising a child is full of control, manipulation and influence, though.

 

And at times, in many different relationships, we do use those things to varying degrees. Maybe I am manipulating my husband when I consciously choose to make a big deal over something he did which I wanted him to do, and which I really want him to do more. I make much of him and what he did instead of (or, as well as) saying "thank you for doing that. I would like you to do it much more often." But it works, and he really loves it. It seems to go towards more love and closeness. But … it also has the tinge of manipulation, since I am "maneuvering" to get what I like.

 

In my defense, I must add that the types of things I'm talking about are things that are for the common good around here - detrimental to him in any way at all.

[A O]

I think it comes from the days when women had no direct involvement in powerful institutions such as parliament, the armed forces and the judiciary. To be influential, they had to employ stealth and charm.

I think that this is all a direct result of size - call it nature if you will. The smaller you are, the smarter more cunning you have to be. Women, being naturally smaller than men, learnt basically from the get go, to be canny or manipulative to get their needs met. Failure to do was highly disadvantageous back in the day especially.

 

But this facet –size - plays out everywhere, whether it be a small man taking on a big man or a small business taking on an established multi-national – they have to be smart, often indirect, in their dealings. Failure to do so could/does put their very existence at risk.

 

As for control v manipulation v influence.

 

Control; think everyone has a decent handle on this. Manipulation is covert; influence is above board, out in the open. Your beat cop exerts influence; an undercover cop uses manipulation.

 

.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I think it comes from the days when women had no direct involvement in powerful institutions such as parliament, the armed forces and the judiciary.

 

 

Wait. Didn't I just learn on a different thread that those days never really happened?

[Taramere]

Manipulation is alright if you're dealing with competitors or other people with whom you have an adversarial relationship. I have no obligation to give them full and honest information; they have an obligation to research and verify.

 

 

Even with competitors I would try to have a co-operative and reasonably trusting relationship. In something like law, ultimately you're charged with doing what's best for your client. That might mean keeping back certain information from the other side, as much as court orders and professional ethics permit you to. Obviously in negotiating settlements there's a fair bit of manipulation and posturing going on on both sides. However, I'd also generally see it as important to maintain a good working relationship and open discussion with the other side in the interests of reducing acrimony and trying to get things settled as quickly and easily as possible.

 

My issue has always been with clients who want you to play rottweiller...which may give them some short term sense of satisfaction and pander to their acrimonious fighting instincts. Longer term, when lawyers arse about like that, all it really means is bigger bills and bigger headaches for the client at the end of the day.

 

Questioning a hostile witness, though, is obviously a time for as much manipulation as you can get away with.

 

I don't think control or manipulation are generally productive. And of course that's why law and society generally frown on threats and lies: they prevent people from making logical, informed decisions.

 

For me, threats and lies aren't necessarily components of manipulation. I mean they may well be, but I think a person can be manipulative without consciously giving out misinformation or withholding information. In some cases, they might simply be homing in on another person's weaknesses and exploiting them.

 

We often talk about PUA on here. If a PUA finds out that a woman was recently ditched by her boyfriend, is desolate and has gone into self destruct mode, he might take advantage of that sexually. People will often home in on others when they're at their lowest ebb, in the hope of getting them to do what they might not ordinarily do. It doesn't necessarily require them to tell lies, but it's manipulative....requiring, as it does, a recognition of somebody's temporary dysfunction due to upset or trauma, and the willingness to exploit it for one's own ends.

 

And at times, in many different relationships, we do use those things to varying degrees. Maybe I am manipulating my husband when I consciously choose to make a big deal over something he did which I wanted him to do, and which I really want him to do more. I make much of him and what he did instead of (or, as well as) saying "thank you for doing that. I would like you to do it much more often." But it works, and he really loves it. It seems to go towards more love and closeness. But … it also has the tinge of manipulation, since I am "maneuvering" to get what I like.

 

Yes...I think if people decided it was totally wrong and unethical to do anything like that (eg positively reinforcing behaviour we like, cold shouldering behaviour we don't like as a way of trying to get a person to do what we want them to do) then I think people would soon find relationships impossible to sustain.

 

Any method of encouraging behaviour you like and discouraging behaviour you dislike probably has its critics...but I think positive reinforcement of that which you like is generally a pretty healthy way in which to relate to, and validate, other people.

 

I think that this is all a direct result of size - call it nature if you will. The smaller you are, the smarter more cunning you have to be. Women, being naturally smaller than men, learnt basically from the get go, to be canny or manipulative to get their needs met. Failure to do was highly disadvantageous back in the day especially.

 

When I was a kid, my brother was far more manipulative than I was. On the other hand, he was older and more sussed. Any attempts I made to be manipulative tended to be stamped on very firmly, which is probably why I got so into psychology from a very early age. In a volatile household, I needed to empower myself in some way, and understanding group/family dynamics helped me to do that - and, eventually, to have my say in what I honestly do think was an influential rather than manipulative or controlling manner..

 

I think the general climate of "backlash against feminism" (a backlash which I suspect was probably in existence before the word was ever invented) means that there's very low tolerance amongst a lot of men towards female manipulation....but often there's a much higher tolerance when it comes to men manipulating women (via, for example, these PUA methods).

 

I'm not directing this at all men, or even the majority of men (and not against you, A O...this is really just a follow on from my response to your post). I'm directing it against those who speak out angrily against female manipulation, but who believe that manipulation of women by men is justified.

 

However, I think the men who do that are locked in victim stance. Perhaps they feel that they are the equivalent to the disenfranchised woman of the Nineteenth century. Deprived of any direct influence and therefore justified in resorting to Machiavellian scheming in order to get their way. However, I doubt that they would be prepared to couch it in those terms...so then manipulation becomes something that's justified in more sociopathic terms. "It's a dog eat dog world" etc.

 

Which is fine until they're the dog getting eaten by somebody who's better at the game than they are...then it's back to the notion of manipulation being a vile practice that should be condemned in the strongest terms.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Taramere

[carhill]

Some may have noticed I wasn't around here yesterday. Within that space I have what I would call a 'positive' manipulation story....

 

My best friend's sister has brain cancer and some tumors popped back up and she's going it for targeted radiation on Monday. Obviously, she's very distressed and feeling low about this. So, best friend decides he's going to paint the inside of her house and get her busy helping to get her mind off of it. My task yesterday, along with painting, was cleaning out/organizing one room so we could get in there and paint. It was the 'junk' room, full of all her 'stuff', like family history and objects, etc. I focused her on getting the project done with a little manipulation, since it was overwhelming to her, using the 'let's just do this one thing' method. 'Get a couple boxes'; 'How about we move this over here?' 'Here, let me take that' 'Oh, I'll be real careful with that'. 'We'll cover that up so no paint gets on it'.

 

Slowly, over about an hour, things were condensed, stored, moved and covered, while I listened to her talking about things she wanted her children and grandchildren to have. I talked a bit about doing this for my now departed mother and how I enjoyed remembering all the great times she and I had and how those things symbolized those times. Bla, bla.

 

The day went by, she was dead tired by the time we got out of there but the mission was accomplished. Distraction and a day of positivity were achieved. Were we a bit manipulative and a bit controlling? Yeah, there were definitely signs. What was the goal of it? Well, hopefully after Monday we'll find out. Living is a worthy goal.

 

 

Reading the thread further, I definitely do come across controlling and manipulative people in business and have a pretty firm boundary that it only happens once with me. I push back pretty hard and have a reputation for it. Does that cost me business? Absolutely. It take what business I want and those kinds of people I do not want business from. Plenty of other options for them. I prefer the straight shooters and doers.

[Taramere]

Slowly, over about an hour, things were condensed, stored, moved and covered, while I listened to her talking about things she wanted her children and grandchildren to have. I talked a bit about doing this for my now departed mother and how I enjoyed remembering all the great times she and I had and how those things symbolized those times. Bla, bla.

 

The day went by, she was dead tired by the time we got out of there but the mission was accomplished. Distraction and a day of positivity were achieved. Were we a bit manipulative and a bit controlling? Yeah, there were definitely signs. What was the goal of it? Well, hopefully after Monday we'll find out. Living is a worthy goal.

 

I don't see that something like that, where you're so clearly acting in somebody's best interests, is controlling or manipulative. I would call it appropriately and in a very caring way, taking charge in a situation where somebody is under immense strain and very vulnerable due to the recurrence of a serious illness. The intention being to reduce any stress or hassle for them, which is clearly in their health interests.

 

I started out in a "caring profession" - one that's more commonly regarded as being a haven for professional, controlling busybodies. The reality is that a big part of the training and ongoing supervision involves monitoring people for any controlling elements that could result in a tendency towards excessive and unnecessary intervention.

 

There will always be people who regard any kind of caring intervention as nannyish, interfering,manipulative etc. To me, the essence of manipulation is that you're acting in your own interests and disregarding (or treating as irrelevant) any adverse consequences this might entail for the other person. Which is clearly not the case in the situation you described, which was all about providing valuable care and support to a seriously ill individual.

[A O]

I think the general climate of "backlash against feminism" (a backlash which I suspect was probably in existence before the word was ever invented) means that there's very low tolerance amongst a lot of men towards female manipulation....but often there's a much higher tolerance when it comes to men manipulating women (via, for example, these PUA methods).

Interested in knowing the reasons for this so-called backlash and whether they hold true or are just a load of whingy-winey claptrap. I suggest it would be those reasons and not manipulation that most men would be intolerant towards as far as feminism is concerned. Or put another way, manipulation has never been a word I’ve ever associated with feminism.

 

As for who tolerates manipulation most, the recent manipulation thread is a good example of how tolerant people are towards male manipulation/PUA tactics.

 

I'm not directing this at all men, or even the majority of men (and not against you, A O...this is really just a follow on from my response to your post). I'm directing it against those who speak out angrily against female manipulation, but who believe that manipulation of women by men is justified.

Bog standard manipulation I agree with you. PUA tactics on the other hand, that’s a slightly different craft again and usually employed by a certain sector of men largely within the dating sphere. Typical manipulation can be found/used anywhere and anyone that manipulates but doesn’t like the same behavior being done to them, well….

 

However, I think the men who do that are locked in victim stance.

Indeed they are, thus viewing them as victims, what is the best way to deal with these types and is that 'best way' often employed here?

 

 

.