Hiding anger was a survival skill, so you might not know I’m angry

By David McElroy · January 28, 2019

My crime was slight, but my father was filled with rage. While he was out of town, I had used the record player in our living room. I was about 8 years old. My mother had been there and the four of us — my two sisters, Mother and me — had wanted to listen to some music.

It was some sort of silly, child-like music. I can remember us dancing around the living room — all four of us — having a joyful time.

Then my father came home.

Somehow, he found out that I had used the record player. He had told me numerous times that I wasn’t allowed to use the record player, because I might scratch a record. I could even damage the needle. Or something terrible, apparently.

He flew into a rage and screamed at me. I stood quietly, just as I always did. I picked a button on his shirt to concentrate on. I was required to look at him, but I wasn’t allowed to say anything or show any response. That was the unspoken rule. Most of all, I couldn’t dare talk back or show any hint of anger.

If I focused all my attention on that button, I could avoid crying. I could avoid showing any emotion. I could avoid feeling anything — and that was the only way not to break. I could stand as a rigid lump of clay while he yelled at me until he had finally screamed enough.

That was the first day he ever whipped me with a belt. He had always used his hand before, but he was so angry — and this offense apparently so egregious — that he used a belt.

He eventually had me get in the floor on my hands and feet — as though I was about to do push-ups — and he beat me with his belt.

I felt the physical pain, but I didn’t feel anything emotionally. I didn’t understand what I was doing at the time. It certainly wasn’t conscious. But I learned how to repress any negative feelings, especially toward him.

His treatment got the results he wanted. I was a perfect child. At least pretty close. Certainly I was the perfect child compared to the disrespectful and out-of-control children he constantly pointed out to me. I was as perfect as I knew how to be. In an angry, hostile, chaotic world — the world revolving around my father — it was all I knew to do, because it was the only way I could survive.

If I was perfect, I might have his grudging approval. If I was anything less than perfect, I felt his terrifying fury. In an environment in which there was no in-between — I was either perfect or “wrong” — I followed my incentives and did my best to keep the monster happy.

And I knew that there could never be even a hint that I disagreed with him — about anything. Disagreement or disapproval — even the wrong look on my face — was called disrespect and was punished severely. I knew better than to show that I was hurt or angry. I learned to repress all emotions except the positive and socially acceptable ones. Even in my own home, I was like an actor on stage — constantly playing a role over which I had no control.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about my anger. I’ve started becoming more aware of the anger I felt as a child and I’ve allowed myself to start understanding how much rage I have bottled up. In many cases, it’s difficult for me to even realize I’m angry about something. I trained myself so well not to feel such things that the old programming has continued to work for all these years.

Something clicked in me recently as I worked through some issues and tried to understand some puzzling things. I started realizing how I’ve continued bottling up my rage — long after he can no longer scream at me. Even after he’s dead.

I’ve been working to get back in touch with those “forbidden” emotions. I’ve been shocked to start discovering that I’m angry about things I had hidden from myself. I had convinced myself for so long to be rational in my approach to my emotions that certain negative feelings were buried so deeply that they were hidden even from me.

There have been practical advantages to this dysfunctional pattern. I can stay incredibly calm in a crisis. When other people are shouting and out of control, I am fully composed and focused. I can be completely rational and productive.

This ability to repress things also made me really good working on newspaper deadlines, because nothing rattled me and I simply solved the crisis at hand. A newsroom “on deadline” could be a very pressure-filled place. Things are constantly going wrong. Stories fall through. Pictures don’t arrive on time. So much can go wrong — and the paper still has to go to press — but none of it bothered me, even pressure which caused some adults to break down and cry like children.

Even today, I can stay calm and civil when I’m angry with people who’ve wronged me or hurt me in some way. Because of this, they usually have no idea how angry I am at them or how much they’ve hurt me.

But all this outward calm comes at a cost.

When I need to express anger, it’s very difficult. In fact, it’s hard to confront people and tell them what I’m unhappy with them about. Firing people who’ve worked for me is incredibly difficult, because there’s a part of me that believes I’m not allowed to be angry with them.

In fact, I eventually worked out a particular method of firing people which required me to calmly talk through all the things they had done wrong and my attempts to correct the problem. I ask them questions and get them to give me the obvious answers, leading up to me asking them what they would do if they were me — based on what we’ve just gone through. Inevitably, they admit I should fire them. In this way, I get their permission to fire them — rather than venting my anger as I might like to.

I’ve realized lately how much of my life has been given over to trying to be the “good little boy” who made others happy. This started as a survival skill in childhood, but it turned into a lifelong pattern — and it doesn’t always serve me well.

Deep down, I thought (then and now) that if I could be good enough — if I could somehow be perfect in every way — I would finally have the love and approval which I so desperately wanted.

As an adult, I have felt angry — and I’ve repressed the anger — that no matter how good I was, no matter how much I gave to someone else, no matter how loving I was — it was never good enough for me to have lasting love and acceptance.

I feel guilty when I’m angry with other people. That’s not allowed.

I feel guilty when I expect them to give me what I need. Why should I expect them to love me?

And I feel angry at myself for having trusted — once again — that I could have the love I still so fiercely need.

When it comes to anger, I’m still that small child who focuses my attention on a spot so I can avoid feeling the negative emotions — the anger and hurt and betrayal — that it was so dangerous to feel. But the feelings are starting to come out.

I spent the first part of my life completely repressing my negative feelings and learning how to be a productive machine. I spent the next huge chunk of my life exploring the positive side of my feelings and learning how to be a loving human being.

I’m going to spend the rest of my life integrating some very different parts of myself — and figuring out if there’s anybody else I can finally trust with both sides of me.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts