Asserting Yourself, But Please Pardon my - 02/21/06 05:43 AM
shiny black jackboots, don't trip over them when you enter in. Pay no attention to that narrow mustache on my upper lip. And in my best sotto voce a la Richard Nixon...
"I am not a Nazi!"
Okay, perhaps these don't occur any more, but I grew up with adults who discussed volatile issues such as religion, politics and the VietNam war. Everybody had a strong opinion, everyone argued, debated, picked the nits of lame reasoning apart and came back the next week to do it again.
And later as I entered my teens and 20s, groups of people would gather together, drink beer, smoke po^^^ uh - cigarettes and wax philosophical on topics ranging from infant baptism, alien excursions on earth, women issues, men issues, abortion, religion, Republicans, Democrats, the merits of the Confederate secession, whether or not the Russians were going to invade America, did the Illuminati actually exist and could they really control the world, and whether or not the dead did come back and talk to the living.
People expressed strong opinions. People disagreed. People pointed out illogic and poorly constructed theories. No one yelled. No fist fights broke out. No one got so angry that they felt the need to take personal verbal slashes below the belt. And no one declared that disagreement = disrespect or that debating = controlling. A few folks did get a buzz.
So, Cobra, that's where I'm coming from. A place where disagreement is not disrespect. A place where poorly constructed assertions don't have to be accepted with little support to back them up. Where the Nazi is the person doing their damnedest to drive away those that disagree.
You, while lamenting that your voice was being silenced by my opposing views (although there were several topics upon which I expressed agreement and support), silenced mine . I would have gladly stepped out at any time you felt you couldn't handle it any more, if you had only told me. You are henceforth free of my overbearing control of your anger and participation on the forum. I do wish you and wife much happiness and success.
------------------------------------
On to the book on assertiveness I've been reading. It was quite serendipitous since I had been pondering the ideas of force and manipulation in regards to relationships. The section I read tonight is titled:
DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ASSERTIVE?
"Some people believe that assertiveness training must turn a nice person into a constant irritant, a rebel, a complainer, and a general, all-around pain. Others charge that assertiveness training teaches people to be calculating and manipulative, and helps them control others for selfish ends. Views like these are based on a misunderstanding of the goals of assertiveness training, or reflect a distorted sense of humanistic values.
...
Our human rights flow from the idea that we are all created equal in a moral sense and we are to treat one another as equals. In social relations between two equals, neither person has exclusive privileges, because the needs and goals of each person are to be equally valued. As equals, two people (say, a husband and wife) may work out - or "fall into" - a diverse set of agreements, compromises, and rules to "govern" themselves. Such agreements, often inexplicit, allow the day-to-day business of the relationship to proceed without daily arguments and negotiations aabout who is to do what and when. There is no universally correct form for these social accommodations; any arragement or division of labor is okay provided both parties are satisfied with it and the arrangement doesn't infringe on the rights of others. But whatever the agreement, it rests on the premise that we are equals with the same rights. That means that each party has a moral right to renegotiate what he thinks is an unfair or inequitable arrangement.
As for the charge that assertiveness training teaches people how to manipulate others for their own fain, it simply does not apply. "Manipulate" is a negative term meaning to control someone by devious or underhanded means, perhaps without his awareness and for selfish motives. [...] The aim is mutual satisfaction, not "turning the tables" so that the newly assertive person becomes the dominant member in the relationship. The object is to speak up for one's rights without aggressively putting down other people and trampling on their rights.
End quoted material.
This is how I feel about the stance that NOP took when the final push of "we've got to fix this" occurred. It wasn't force or manipulation. It was an invitation to make our marriage into something we could both enjoy and grow in.
MrsNOP -
"I am not a Nazi!"
Okay, perhaps these don't occur any more, but I grew up with adults who discussed volatile issues such as religion, politics and the VietNam war. Everybody had a strong opinion, everyone argued, debated, picked the nits of lame reasoning apart and came back the next week to do it again.
And later as I entered my teens and 20s, groups of people would gather together, drink beer, smoke po^^^ uh - cigarettes and wax philosophical on topics ranging from infant baptism, alien excursions on earth, women issues, men issues, abortion, religion, Republicans, Democrats, the merits of the Confederate secession, whether or not the Russians were going to invade America, did the Illuminati actually exist and could they really control the world, and whether or not the dead did come back and talk to the living.
People expressed strong opinions. People disagreed. People pointed out illogic and poorly constructed theories. No one yelled. No fist fights broke out. No one got so angry that they felt the need to take personal verbal slashes below the belt. And no one declared that disagreement = disrespect or that debating = controlling. A few folks did get a buzz.
So, Cobra, that's where I'm coming from. A place where disagreement is not disrespect. A place where poorly constructed assertions don't have to be accepted with little support to back them up. Where the Nazi is the person doing their damnedest to drive away those that disagree.
You, while lamenting that your voice was being silenced by my opposing views (although there were several topics upon which I expressed agreement and support), silenced mine . I would have gladly stepped out at any time you felt you couldn't handle it any more, if you had only told me. You are henceforth free of my overbearing control of your anger and participation on the forum. I do wish you and wife much happiness and success.
------------------------------------
On to the book on assertiveness I've been reading. It was quite serendipitous since I had been pondering the ideas of force and manipulation in regards to relationships. The section I read tonight is titled:
DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ASSERTIVE?
"Some people believe that assertiveness training must turn a nice person into a constant irritant, a rebel, a complainer, and a general, all-around pain. Others charge that assertiveness training teaches people to be calculating and manipulative, and helps them control others for selfish ends. Views like these are based on a misunderstanding of the goals of assertiveness training, or reflect a distorted sense of humanistic values.
...
Our human rights flow from the idea that we are all created equal in a moral sense and we are to treat one another as equals. In social relations between two equals, neither person has exclusive privileges, because the needs and goals of each person are to be equally valued. As equals, two people (say, a husband and wife) may work out - or "fall into" - a diverse set of agreements, compromises, and rules to "govern" themselves. Such agreements, often inexplicit, allow the day-to-day business of the relationship to proceed without daily arguments and negotiations aabout who is to do what and when. There is no universally correct form for these social accommodations; any arragement or division of labor is okay provided both parties are satisfied with it and the arrangement doesn't infringe on the rights of others. But whatever the agreement, it rests on the premise that we are equals with the same rights. That means that each party has a moral right to renegotiate what he thinks is an unfair or inequitable arrangement.
As for the charge that assertiveness training teaches people how to manipulate others for their own fain, it simply does not apply. "Manipulate" is a negative term meaning to control someone by devious or underhanded means, perhaps without his awareness and for selfish motives. [...] The aim is mutual satisfaction, not "turning the tables" so that the newly assertive person becomes the dominant member in the relationship. The object is to speak up for one's rights without aggressively putting down other people and trampling on their rights.
End quoted material.
This is how I feel about the stance that NOP took when the final push of "we've got to fix this" occurred. It wasn't force or manipulation. It was an invitation to make our marriage into something we could both enjoy and grow in.
MrsNOP -
Somewhere in my background I determined that nice people don't make requests of others. Add that to my inherent sense that everyone else's needs should be considered first. And that if there is a conflict in needs, well, the "nice" thing to do would be to step aside. Sound much like your hubby? 
