The Turtle and The Woodpecker Get Married

When working with couples, I often tell them about the woodpecker and the turtle. Relationships can be a lot like their marriage.

In their relationship, when danger comes along, the turtle pulls into his shell and the woodpecker taps on it to get him to come back out. You can see this happening in relationships. When the relationship is in danger or threatened, one person tends to act like the turtle and the other like the woodpecker. The turtle withdraws into his shell waiting for the danger to pass, trying to protect himself and his relationship by not engaging and hoping things will blow over. The woodpecker is also trying to save the relationship. The bird feels the need to be close to the turtle and so it begins to peck on the shell, trying to connect in some way to be sure the turtle is really there. The more the woodpecker pecks, the more the turtle withdraws; the more the turtle withdraws, the more the woodpecker pecks. They both get upset and perhaps scared.

For people, the turtle is like the partner who will stop listening, stop engaging, or physically leave the room when things get difficult. The woodpecker will continue to pursue their partner for some connection and this can take the form of nagging or complaining. A vicious cycle starts. It is circular and although the turtle and woodpecker may blame each other or themselves, it is the cycle that is the real enemy.

It is possible to reverse this cycle. First, you must resist playing the blame game and focusing on ‘who started it.’ Second, you must work together to beat the cycle and break out of it. Start by mapping out your cycle. Go over what happened and how it affected each person and lead to their response without going into blame or judgment or defending. Just look at it factually and take a moment to listen as the other talks and try to figure out what things looked like from their side. Do this completely – keep your focus on understanding the other instead of preparing your own statements.

Once you know your cycle, be on the lookout and have a key phrase that will help both of you stop as soon as you see what you’re getting into. Take a break if you’ve gotten emotional and then have a do over where you express your thoughts and feelings without attacking.

Here is an example of a conversation. This is how it started:

• Woodpecker: “Johnny is watching too much TV. Go talk to him.”
• Turtle: “I’m busy right now.”

From there it can go one of two ways. Here is a non-constructive continuation of the conversation:

• Woodpecker: “You never listen to me. Am I the only one around here who can parent?”
• Turtle: “I don’t see what you’re talking about. This is no big deal. Just tell him to stop.”

Then the turtle leaves the room, followed shortly by the woodpecker, who continues on in the same vein.

What happens though if the turtle and woodpecker realize that they’re slipping into the cycle and take a break and come back to talk again?

1. Woodpecker: “When I asked you to talk to Johnny, I was frustrated. I had a long day and it seemed like nothing was getting done at home. Johnny wouldn’t listen to me. I needed help.”

• Turtle: “Oh. I didn’t get that. I just felt like you were angry at me. I felt like I had messed up somehow.”
• Woodpecker: “I just needed your support so I didn’t feel like I was parenting by myself. When you left, I was afraid you’d leave me alone to tough it out myself. I didn’t feel like I could do that right then.”
• Turtle: “I’m sorry. I always want to support you as a mother. I guess I had a long day too and when I came home and that was the first thing I heard, I felt like I was back at work getting yelled at by my boss. I shouldn’t have reacted without taking a break first.”
• Woodpecker: “Oh. Maybe next time I can check in to see how you’re doing when you get home before I ask for help.”
• Turtle: “That would help me. What would help you?”

And so, the turtle comes out of his shell and the woodpecker stops pecking. They can work together. This takes practice and sometimes you’ll need someone to help guide you in constructive communication skills. Every couple has the potential to move past this type of difficulty. What’s more, doing so will help you to understand each other at a deeper level and bring you closer together.

---

Here’s a short presentation I gave on this topic in the past.

Therapy and The Faith Community

Being sensitive to culture is an important ethical issue for therapists. Typically, when people think of culture, they usually think of ethnicity. Religion, which is a guiding force in many people’s lives, is usually overlooked. Even though, for some, this is a very important part of who they are, it doesn’t always make it into the therapy room.

I myself am a Christian. I know from my experiences in that community, that many religious folks seek therapists of their own faith or failing that, someone who is at least spiritual. In the past, the religious community didn’t often avail themselves to therapy services. Instead, they would turn to religious leaders. Many were afraid to seek therapy outside of their church. Fears included therapists who might try to discourage or counter their beliefs and values or being influenced to do something they might feel was wrong. In addition, mental illness was sometimes viewed as a matter of faith: if you were anxious or depressed there was something to repent of or you just needed to pray more and have greater faith.

Views are changing. While some clergy do have training as mental health counselors, many do not. More messages from religious leaders of compassion for those who suffer from a mental disorder as well as encouragement to seek help from a trained professional.

Some religious community members (of all faiths) suggest to consider the following when seeking therapy:

• Seek therapists who are trained to be accepting, compassionate, and respectful. If you find yourself working with someone who you feel is trying to subvert your beliefs, choose another therapist. (Although, I encourage you to let them know your concerns first.)
• If your faith is a major part of your life and who you are, let your therapist know. A good therapist will work within your belief system.
• Studies show that active involvement in a religious community can be a protective factor and an aid in improving mental health. With that kind of connection, include your therapist so they can help you call on the support of your community and faith.

In closing, I’d like to leave you with these words from a religious leader regarding mental health therapy.

“However bewildering this all may be, these afflictions [mental health issues] are some of the realities of mortal life, and there should be no more shame in acknowledging them than in acknowledging a battle with high blood pressure or the sudden appearance of a malignant tumor. … If things continue to be debilitating, seek the advice of reputable people with certified training, professional skills, and good values. Be honest with them about your history and your struggles.” ~ Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Oct. 2013. Quoted from this link.

See also “Religious Leaders Are Generating More Mental Health Education” March, 2018

Am I Being Gaslit?

Guide: How to Tell Normal Relationship Differences from Gaslighting

---

1. Start with the Nervous System Reality

If someone has been gaslighted before, their nervous system may react to any disagreement as:

• “I’m being invalidated.”
• “My reality is under attack.”
• “I’m losing my footing.”
• “I’m unsafe.”

This is a trauma echo, not evidence that the current person is gaslighting. The goal is not to silence the alarm — it’s to interpret it accurately.

---

2. The Three Categories of Normal Relationship Differences

These happen in every healthy relationship.

A. Differences in Meaning

People use the same words but mean different things.

• “I’m fine” might mean “I’m overwhelmed” for one person and “I’m genuinely okay” for another.
• “I need space” might mean “I need 20 minutes” or “I need a day.”

Healthy marker: When clarified, the other person adjusts and tries to understand.

B. Differences in Memory

Human memory is not a recording device. It is:

• reconstructive
• influenced by emotion
• prone to distortion

Two people can remember the same event differently without anyone lying.

Healthy marker: The other person says, “I remember it differently, but I’m open to talking about it.”

C. Differences in Interpretation

People filter experiences through:

• personality
• trauma history
• communication style
• neurotype
• cultural background

Healthy marker: Both interpretations can coexist without one person insisting the other is wrong.

---

3. What Gaslighting Actually Looks Like

Gaslighting is not disagreement. It is a pattern of psychological domination.

Gaslighting involves:

• Intent to control or destabilize
• Repeated denial of your reality
• Shaming you for your perceptions
• Rewriting history to make you doubt yourself
• Punishing you for remembering things “incorrectly”
• Making you feel crazy, irrational, or unstable
• Using confusion as a tool

Gaslighting sounds like:

• “That never happened. You’re imagining things.”
• “You’re too sensitive.”
• “You always twist things.”
• “You can’t trust your own memory.”
• “Everyone knows you overreact.”
• “You’re remembering it wrong — again.”

Gaslighting impact:

• You feel smaller, foggier, less confident.
• You apologize for things you didn’t do.
• You doubt your own sanity.
• You feel dependent on the gaslighter for “truth.”
• You lose trust in your own perceptions.

---

4. The Distinguishing Test: Three Questions

These questions reliably separate normal conflict from gaslighting.

1. Does the person allow your perspective to exist?
   Healthy: “I see why you’d feel that way.”
   Gaslighting: “Your perspective is wrong.”
2. Does the person show curiosity when you disagree?
   Healthy: “Help me understand what you mean.”
   Gaslighting: “Stop making things up.”
3. Does the person benefit from you doubting yourself?
   Healthy: No benefit.
   Gaslighting: Their control increases when you feel confused.

If the answer to #3 is “yes,” you’re not dealing with normal relational differences.

---

5. A Practical Tool: The “Meaning–Memory–Understanding” Checklist

When you feel that familiar alarm, pause and run through this:

A. Meaning

“Are we using the same words but meaning different things?”

B. Memory

“Is it possible we both remember the event differently without either of us lying?”

C. Understanding

“Is this a difference in interpretation rather than an attack on reality?”

If the answer to any of these is “yes,” it’s likely normal relational friction, not gaslighting.

If the answer to all three is “no,” then look for pattern, intent, and impact.

---

6. The Nervous System Calibration Step

When you’ve been gaslighted before, your body often reacts before your mind can evaluate.

1. Name the alarm: “This feels like gaslighting because my body remembers being unsafe.”
2. Check the evidence: “What is the person actually doing right now?”
3. Check the pattern: “Is this a one-time disagreement or a repeated strategy?”
4. Check the impact: “Do I feel confused because of them, or because of my history?”

This helps separate past danger from present reality.

---

7. A Simple Rule of Thumb

Gaslighting removes your reality. Healthy relationships negotiate reality.

---

8. A Closing Reassurance

If someone has been gaslighted, their sensitivity is not a flaw — it’s a survival adaptation.

The goal is not to “stop overreacting,” but to refine the alarm system so it can distinguish:

• normal relational friction
• actual psychological manipulation

You’re not broken. Your radar is simply set too high because it had to be.

Therapy Lava Walk

Advocate or Social Crusader?

Some therapists seem to interpret the ethics code’s call for “advocacy” as a mandate to become social crusaders. But CAMFT is clear about where our primary responsibility lies. The Code states that marriage and family therapists “advance the welfare of families and individuals, respect the rights of those persons seeking their assistance, and make reasonable efforts to ensure that their services are used appropriately.”   

That ethical charge is specific and relational—it is about the actual clients in the room, not broad political movements or imagined constituencies. Our bandwidth is finite, and our first duty is to the people who have entrusted us with their care, not to everyone who might resemble them demographically or socially.

When we expand “advocacy” beyond its intended scope, we risk neglecting the very individuals the Code instructs us to prioritize. Ethical advocacy begins with competent, present, attuned clinical work—not with assuming a public activist role that eclipses our therapeutic responsibilities.