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.
Yes, I don't at all understand how people can misconstrue assertiveness as a negative trait/connotation.
The tenet is pretty much universal that no one else is going to look out for your interests if you don't speak up and assert them. Not force or manipulation directed towards another person.
This reminds me of a very good illustration of this in Napoleon Hill's excellent book. It dovetails with persistance but at its core it shows what assertiveness...asserting yourself for what you believe/want/need is all about.
Beware PC namby-pambys. This language is from the 30s so don't get all racially/culturally hypersensitive on my azz...
A FIFTY- CENT LESSON IN PERSISTENCE
Shortly after Mr. Darby received his degree from the " University of Hard Knocks,” and had decided to profit by his experience in the gold mining business, he had the good fortune to be present on an occasion that proved to him that “ No” does not necessarily mean no. One afternoon he was helping his uncle grind wheat in an old fashioned mill. The uncle operated a large farm on which a number of colored sharecrop farmers lived. Quietly, the door was opened, and a small colored child, the daughter of a tenant, walked in and took her place near the door. The uncle looked up, saw the child, and barked at her roughly, " what do you want?" Meekly, the child replied, “ My mammy say send her fifty cents.” “ I’ll not do it,” the uncle retorted, “ Now you run on home.” "Yas sah,” the child replied. But she did not move. The uncle went ahead with his work, so busily engaged that he did not pay enough attention to the child to observe that she did not leave. When he looked up and saw her still standing there, he yelled at her, “ I told you to go on home! Now go, or I’ll take a switch to you." The little girl said “ yas sah,” but she did not budge an inch. The uncle dropped a sack of grain he was about to pour into the mill hopper, picked up a barrel stave, and started toward the child with an expression on his face that indicated trouble. Darby held his breath. He was certain he was about to witness a murder. He knew his uncle had a fierce temper. He knew that colored children were not supposed to defy white people in that part of the country. When the uncle reached the spot where the child was standing, she quickly stepped forward one step, looked up into his eyes, and screamed at the top of her shrill voice, MY MAMMY �� S GOTTA HAVE THAT FIFTY CENTS! The uncle stopped, looked at her for a minute, then slowly laid the barrel stave on the floor, put his hand in his pocket, took out half a dollar, and gave it to her. The child took the money and slowly backed toward the door, never taking her eyes off the man whom she had just conquered. After she had gone, the uncle sat down on a box and looked out the window into space for more than ten minutes. He was pondering, with awe, over the whipping he had just taken. Mr. Darby, too, was doing some thinking. That was the first time in all his experience that he had seen a colored child deliberately master an adult white person. How did she do it? What happened to his uncle that caused him to lose his fierceness and become as docile as a lamb? What strange power did this child use that made her master over her superior? These and other similar questions flashed into Darby’s mind, but he did not find the answer until years later, when he told me the story...."
-Stigmata-
The difference between a warrior and an ordinary man is the warrior views everything as a challenge; the ordinary man views everything as either a blessing or a curse.
-Yaqui shaman Don Juan-
...and that holds 2x true for nice guy wussies, DJ
Quote: Yes, I don't at all understand how people can misconstrue assertiveness as a negative trait/connotation.
I've pondered this one too. I guess it is because we lable outright agressive behavior as being assertive and that does engender negative connotations. Mix that in with the more passive people who silently martyr themselves until some unknown quantity of offense has been reached, then the resulting explosion of anger also gets labled "assertiveness".
So, I think people in general aren't accurately defining the difference between agressive, anger and agression.
Quote:
The tenet is pretty much universal that no one else is going to look out for your interests if you don't speak up and assert them. Not force or manipulation directed towards another person.
I think many passive folks come from a supplicating position of "you should recognize my needs and and fulfill them because it's the right thing to do." And they feel a sense of distaste at the possibility that they would have to struggle to their needs recognized and fulfilled.
And I think there's still a lot of underlying Puritanical type religiousity that makes people uncomfortable about speaking up for themselves - as if doing so is being self-centered, or un-humble (couldn't think of a word that described this better, because I don't think "prideful" accurately respresents the attitude.)
The book points out some stumbling blocks to being assertive:
"People typically place three large obstacles between themselves and the goal of assertiveness - their negative image of themselves, their learned fear of conflict situations, and their poor communication skills."
I also think the religious thing kicks in here, because some of us think not asserting ourselves, not speaking up is somehow more "righteous" than those people who do.
So, you end up with a person who feels too inferior to speak up about their needs, but who feels superior because they don't.
Do other people end up holding and acting upon two competing concepts which are mutually exclusive (similar to the above)? I know I do. I sometimes feel like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland; "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Hhhhhhhhhhm - this conversation reminds me of something I heard on Christian radio this am. It had to do with "peacemaking" which in this case referred to a conflict resolution/mediation program. Anyway, the two ladies who spoke talked about how conflicts are not necessarily spoken. People who don't speak up can also be in conflict with someone else.
Frequently the person who isn't speaking up is guilty of the sin of "idolatry". In this case, "relationship idolatry" - elevating the importance of relationhip above God to the point where they won't rock the boat due to the power that they have ascribed to that R. That is what those "unassertive" people are sometimes doing. BTW - these authors define idolatry as "being willing to sin if you can't get the object or being willing to sin in order to get the object."
I apologize for the Christian perspective on this but I think we can all ask ourselves whether we elevate the R to a place that doesn't allow for us to be ourselves, act ourselves or handle conflict appropriately.
That's interesting. Subservience to your R. Denying self-respect etc., self love what have you, in order to cling to a potentially "false" or unhealthy R idol.
Kind of goes back to the Biblical your body is God's temple, doesn't it? And you must respect it? And the immaterial emotions/inner dialogues etc. are also part of the corporeal temple...sort of ministers who need to be responsible for the guidance of the collective 'congregation?
And IMO I don't think you should apologize for the Christian view, Karen. God knows I'm not PC. Too hard to keep pace with every changing "vertically-challenged" for "short guy" nonsense etc. "You're short. So what? Deal with it. It doesn't define who you are so don't be so insecure. ."
Back on topic. Personally, as I look around at what's going on with modern society I think a little less human self-interest and a little more focus on Christian and other principles would only benefit what I see to be an otherwise pretty wandering self-consumed society. IMObservation.
-Stigmata-
The difference between a warrior and an ordinary man is the warrior views everything as a challenge; the ordinary man views everything as either a blessing or a curse.
-Yaqui shaman Don Juan-
...and that holds 2x true for nice guy wussies, DJ
Thanks for your perspective. I just don't want to offend anyone of a different or non-relgious viewpoint.
However, it is an interesting point. Sometimes the fixers among us, the relationship idolators make absolutely everything about the R. "Yesterday H used to like to drink coffee with me. Now he has switched to tea and takes it alone to his office" - tragedy, eek, OMG what does this mean for our R? Maybe it means that H wants to cut his caffeine intake. Maybe it means that he wants to mediate/reflect. Maybe he uses the time to prepare for the day. OR Horrors, maybe he is upset/mad at you and wants some alone time. OR EVEN Maybe, he is carrying on an email affair. The point is - do the fixers among us find out or do we just stew about it endlessly. Or worse, do we shame an innocent S for innocent behavior. "H you used to take your coffee with me in the morning. Why do you do it alone now? Don't you still love me?" Isn't it a "sin" of sorts to make presumptions about the one we love? Shouldn't we treat that person as we want to be treated and say what we're really thinking? "Hey H, I notice you like to take your tea alone in the morning now and I miss you. Is it ok if we do that together sometimes?" What a much cleaner interaction.
My H doesn't drink coffee or tea but I am guilty as sin of ascribing motives to H's behaviors without asking, putting thoughts in his head and words in his mouth and worshipping at the totem of the "perfect R" in my head. Wonder what H's perfect R looks like? What if this is it?
So, you end up with a person who feels too inferior to speak up about their needs, but who feels superior because they don't.
WOW, how insightful.
What is the name of the book? I would like to read it!
I know that person pretty intimately. 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?
The book is "Asserting Yourself: A Practical Guide for Positive Change", by Sharon Anthony Bower and Gordon H. Bower.
I tend to swoop into it and grab a thought or two. After the first couple of chapters laying out terms and setting things up, the rest of the book is broken into sections with scenarios of conflict and samples responses. There is also a questionnaire at the end of each section that attempts to guide you into a greater understanding of yourself via worksheets. Some of the convos sound stilted to me and I can't see myself actually speaking many of them, but they give concrete examples of people responding passively, aggressively and assertively.
The negotiating strategies they walk you through are similar to the Policy of Joint Agreement that the Harley's advocate.
When people generally disagree the subject of the dispute is forgotten long before the actions and demeanor of both parties.
Nothing is wrong in becoming agressive but as in any tool it needs to be selective in it's use. Usually agressive people get a one word response from me. ' NO '
I question their motives and their self checks if any. The strongest people I ever met were not generally agressive unless need be.
"All I want is a weeks pay for a day's work" Steve Martin
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? 