Does anyone recognize this work-related abuse technique?

I am male, in my sixties, and have had a Saturday morning job working as a launderette attendant for well over ten years. My boss is female and I would describe our working relationship as quite good.

About 6 or 7 weeks ago, my boss employed one of her friends (also female) in order to reduce her own quite considerable workload. The new co-worker and I have quite separate duties (she does collections and deliveries) but she is also expected to help out in my area when there's nothing else for her to do.

Last Saturday (20th of Sptember 2014) was the first real occasion that we were "left alone together" to get on with things by ourselves. Until this day, I had found the co-worker quite pleasant to work with and and could see no reason why any problems should develop.

Towards the middle of the morning there was a moment when I had to deal with 3 or 4 things at once - a bit overstretched but not at my limit - at which point the co-worker suddenly took a step closer to me from the right and said (in effect), "Do this first, that second, and then something else third."

It is difficult to describe a tone of voice: the words were spoken in a low monotone of purposeful intensity, they were devoid of any humanity and implied a hidden menace. A voice of control designed, in my opinion, to invoke any unresolved psychological issues from childhood caused by having been forced to psychologically submit to an adult with similar "concealed capabilities".

As an analogy, its like juggling balls in a manner natural to oneself when somebody suddenly punches you in the side in a way that can't be guarded against and says, "Juggle them how I want you to!". If an individual does indeed have injuries from similar treatment in their past then, in an attempt to keep the balls in the air, they may make a split-second decision in which they internally give in to the domination and say, "OK, I'll juggle them your way."

A fatal mistake because it marks the transition from human being to human horse - someone who can be ridden and controlled through their fear of receiving any more (psychological) punches. The beginning of a master/slave relationship.

Shocked and slightly confused surprise at the attack from the co-worker, I reacted with something like, "That's what I'm going to do, anyway - its what I'm here for!"

A second incident happened towards the end of the shift and again I responded. The co-worker then said, "All right, there's no need to get lairy (ie aggressive)!" to which I replied, "I will if I want to!" - a standard reply that I give when I want to assert myself but do not want any further confrontation.

I feel this is classic abuser behaviour: first attack the victim then, should they react rather than submit, blame the victim for that reaction! The pressure of a perpertrator's repressed violence completely prevents any self-questioning as to whether the response received was appropriate to the provocation given: it would mean facing up to the existence of their violence in a real way and that would never do - it must always be someone else's fault! As my deliberately childish response of "I will if I want to!" may indicate, I hadn't been "lairy" at all.

In my experience it is quite unusual for a virtual stranger to start targetting someone in this way unless they have been given a "green light" and told what to look for. About a year ago (perhaps even longer than that) the boss's husband was a regular visitor on Saturday mornings during which time he made a number of unsuccessful attempts to achieve a similar psychological domination as the co-worker was seeking.

Its speculation on my part, but the boss's husband was at the launderette the day before the incidents with the co-worker took place and I can see a real possibility that gossip between two people with similar psychopathologies may have put me in the firing line.

I'm accustomed to seeing how unguarded spontaneity can be crushed in a victim by the application of a meaningful tone of voice that induces internal interaction of that spontaneity with pre-existing psychological injuries.

This is the first time I've seen a variation of the above in which a victim is targetted specifically when they are "busy": setting up a conflict between total preoccupation with the demands of the Present Moment and the unexpected re-opening of wounds from yesteryear could be a very effective form of abuse.

Robert Bartels (not my real name, of course!)

is it possible that you are reading more into it that there really is...that they are just bossy people who have no idea of your history and that their behavior is triggering to you? welcome to psych central. you will find we have several forums where you can post about your concerns and receive feedback from other members. you will get a lot of support here. again, welcome

Thank you for your reply and for welcoming me to the forum, kaliope

I appreciate that you only have a screen full of text to go by. If I were reading more into the situation than is really there then I would have done so in many earlier situations in my life. Well before my current age of 63, I would have realized that there was something fundamentally wrong with my perception and would have taken steps to address exactly what that "something" was.

As you may know, there are usually well-established procedures to be followed in any dispute between work colleagues. I have been to an advice center and my next steps are:

1) An informal talk with my boss

2) A written letter to my boss should the outcome of 1) be unsatisfactory

3) A referral to an arbitration service should 2) be unsatisfactory

My personal inclination - for which I do not currently have funds - is to sidestep all of the above and take out a civil action against the co-worker, use recognized "independent experts" to establish the veracity of what I've stated in the original post, and then see who's left standing when the dust settles. I would also ensure as much local publicity as the law may allow.

The reason why I'm currently not using my real name is because I'm waiting to see how the situation at work develops.

I have a small psychology website consisting of three posts. They were all written in 2009 with the last basically stating that I wouldn't be writing anymore. In 2010 an ad agency called Total Marketing emailed me to say one of their clients was willing to pay 50c a day to have a small text link included on the three pages.

The reason for the offer was probably because one of the posts describes a woman in her twenties who was admitted to an institution and not expected to leave - a "human vegetable". As a private individual, I argued that the woman's condition wasn't a "mental illness" at all but the result of well over two decades of abuse. I then made a deal with her solicitor in which I agreed to bring her back to a point where the usual agencies could take over.

How do you reach someone who doesn't even know you're there? On our first meeting, I gave the woman a cigarette, lit it for her, and watched as she took a single puff and then forgot all about it. That single automatic response told me I had access to the "old brain" - my area of expertise.

The reason I have such a lowly position in Society is because I once made a commitment to a 4-year old boy that required research into an obscure area of psychology for which there is little recognition and no financial reward. A commitment, however, is a commitment.

I have a genuine interest in abuse techniques and have quite a collection to (eventually) upload to my psychology website. Any feedback from PsychCentral regarding the specific technique described in the OP would be very welcome. On another forum, for example, a woman from Maryland has said, "In my life I have had one man and three women try this on me" - that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Robert Bartels

I agree with Kaliope...it sounds like you are over-reacting.

Put several people (or dogs or cats or chickens) in a room together, and they will quite naturally work out a "pecking order". That's what's going on here.

Maybe she thinks you are a little slow or disorganized, and she is trying to exert some control, to get things moving along. Your best response is simply to say, in a friendly manner, "Thank you, I've got this" or whatever, the next time she tries to exert control.

I answered Kaliope a couple of days ago but as a newbie my posts have to be moderated. Your post has appeared before mine (intended to make my position clearer) so I've re-posted my first answer - fingers crossed it appears

>>I appreciate that you only have a screen full of text to go by. If I were reading more into the situation than is really there then I would have done so in many earlier situations in my life. Well before my current age of 63, I would have realized that there was something fundamentally wrong with my perception and would have taken steps to address exactly what that "something" was.<<

Maybe not. Perhaps it is "perception issues" which are at the root of your problems today. Maybe you could just realize that sometimes personalities clash, and we need to make adjustments to get along. In this case, a formal complaint to your employer may serve only as evidence of your inability to cope. Justification for a civil suit is light years away.

IMHO- just try to get along.

I mean this with a sincere desire to help, so I hope you will take it in that light.

How you perceive the woman's (or anyone's) tone is not necessarily the way she (or anyone else) meant it.

The way I read the experience, the woman was trying to help you and you snapped at her and then justified your own admittedly juvenile response.

All the extra verbiage in your posts make me think there is a whole lot going on with you that has nothing to do with your job or the people who are present at your workplace. The website, the child and the woman with the cigarette don't make much sense.

I've worked with people who have been on a rigid, self-defeating path for many, many years, and I have listened to them complain about the unfairness of it all and here is what I see to be the truth: They are on a path of their own devising, even if they do not realize it.

Do you have a therapist? I think you'd find one very helpful.

The most common form of child abuse where I live is to "break" an infant in the same way a horse is broken in order to induce submissiveness, gain control, or simply to "teach it a lesson".

As the infant grows, interaction with the surface of the catastrophic wound leads to cries of "naughtiness" and the infliction of further righteous punishment.

At some point the child may decide to harden the surface of their accumulated repression, and in so doing, create a "psychological weapon" with which to inflict similar harm on others.

When such an individual reaches maturity and turns their attentions towards me, I assure you I most certainly do have grounds for a civil action.

I'm not surprised by the reception the original post has received. Abuse is still as popular and as legal with the greater part of the population as it ever was and there are relatively only a few of us who object to it (1):

The scenario described is certainly capable of inducing trauma but hopefully Mr Schofield's self-satisfied statement of, "It was like breaking a horse" is incorrect - fingers crossed that the child survived without psychological injury.

What is the most common form of child abuse where you live? If you don't know, or are unable to say anything of equal credibility, then I shall ignore any further contributions that you make to this thread.

Robert Bartels

(1) As a newbie, I'm not allowed to use links yet. The Schofield quote is from the parentdish website and can be found by entering "Phillip Schofield says he left baby daughter to scream for hours" into Google.

Given your maturity and evident knowledge of psychology, one would think you would be more adept at handling the relatively simple situation you have described.