Comments | dragonladyflame: I cry cry cry, then I complain, come back for more, do it again.

dragonladyflame

I cry cry cry, then I complain, come back for more, do it again.

Feb 10, 2006 00:44

Passive-aggressive! It's a major buzzword for our generation. No one want to be passive-aggressive, and it seems like everyone gets accused of it at some point ( Read more... )

Comments 44

agnoster February 10 2006, 05:11:27 UTC

I think you can avoid being passive-aggressive quite easily by expressing rationally exactly how you're feeling. The thing that marks passive-aggressive behaviour is, in my experience, that you try to hide or deny how you're feeling ( ... )

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 05:24:53 UTC

Fair enough, but what if the direct approach hasn't worked, and Person X doesn't want to bring up an old argument?

If, say, Person X has already made it clear to Guy Slobbering On Wife that he's unhappy with that, and Guy Slobbering On Wife has made it clear that he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, how is Person X allowed to act?

I certainly agree with trying to be open and honest, and avoiding subterfuge. And I also agree that it's not as difficult as people make it out to be. I do think, however, that there are cases in which openness doesn't "work"; and in such cases, what happens? What if Person X doesn't leave his wife, but also hates it when she hits on other men, and his wife has -- in their open and honest discussions -- made it obvious that she has no intention of stopping? If it's an unresolved issue between them (as such things so often are), and he seems angry when she does it, is he being passive-aggressive?

agnoster February 10 2006, 05:32:32 UTC

If GSOW refuses to stop, and Wife refuses to stop him, and X has made it perfectly clear how much it hurts him, the obvious choice would be to dump the bitch, because she's consciously and callously hurting him. But let's suppose X can't leave her. Well, he can either come to terms with it, or express his anger. I would at that point recommend letting it out by beating the crap out of both of them. But maybe that's just because I've been playing too much Mortal Kombat ( ... )

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 05:40:11 UTC

I dunno. I tend to think there could be a lot of situations in which there's no clear solution. I mean, say the wife has a point: maybe she isn't hitting on other people too much; does her husband really have the right to say she can't hit on other people even if she doesn't sleep with them?; and what if he's jumping at shadows, getting mad when she's doing less wrong than he thinks? What is the husband believes that sometimes he's a bit oversensitive about these issues, and is trying to get better? What if he and his wife agree that the failing is actually in himself, and he shouldn't be getting so angry -- but he's having trouble forcing himself to obey that dictum?

A relationship dynamic -- that of any relationship, not just spousal / significant other types -- doesn't always boil down to "either it works perfectly, or you leave". I'm wary of solutions that imply that it should.

Thread 6

arisrabkin February 10 2006, 05:16:04 UTC

Long thoughtful post; I substantially agree. Few thoughts:

As to the passive-aggressive: I think to be passive-aggressive, you have to be consciously doing those things to manipulate. Crying is merely being overcome by emotion, consciously crying for effect is passive-aggressive.
People condemn it because it suggests that you're trying to manipulate them covertly, instead of expliclty asking for what you want--and people don't like that.

As to the prime-for-violence
Most soldiers in wartime aren't shooting or being shot at. Also, there's not so many of them, and the military has elaborate social controls, both during and after the conflict, both during and after enlistment. We should at least be cautious about who we prime for violence how. I'm not saying ban video games, I'm saying that we should be aware that there are actual consequences to someone from playing lots of violent games.

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 05:26:23 UTC

I agree with you about passive-aggression being intentional vs. non. The major problem for me is trying to track what's deliberate, and what's not. If Ashley had accused Scarlett of crying for effect, he would have been right -- but would he still have been an asshole?

Re: violent game consequences, interesting. Do you think there need to be more social controls on them?

arisrabkin February 10 2006, 06:56:56 UTC

He would still have been an asshole, I think.

I haven't thought this through carefully, and probably can be easily talked out of anything I say on the topic. But my first reaction:

I think we probably should have more social control--but I mean social in distinction to political or legal. I'm sure the government would make a total mess trying to regulate; but I think parents ought to be supervising what their kids are playing, and I think that the kids themselves should be less easy about it.

I think excessive computer gaming is probably unhealthy in a number of ways, (though perhaps beneficial in some). The details are probably messy and individual-dependent. This is something parents and peers ought to be mindful of.

dragonladyflame February 12 2006, 08:44:19 UTC

Well, if Ashley would still have been an asshole, how are you ever supposed to deal with someone who's unapologetically manipulative? Especially if you have no graceful way to avoid them? Double especially if you see them manipulating someone you care about ( ... )

Thread 5

notemily February 10 2006, 05:29:45 UTC

when I think of passive-aggressiveness, I think of people indirectly expressing their frustration/anger/upsetness with someone instead of directly confronting them about it. I hate it when someone is upset with something I've done, but instead of saying "I wish you wouldn't do this," in which case we could actually have a discussion, they make snide comments that do nothing but piss me off--or worse, say nothing at all about it, but *act* upset around me. then I am forced to try to guess at what's bothering them and what I should do about it. (this happens to me all the time at work, with my supervisors, which seems to me like a totally unprofessional way to act. grargh! *rage*)

I don't want to seem like I'm riding a high horse here--I have totally exhibited this kind of passive-aggressive behavior before. it's easier to act wounded, it seems, than to make the first move towards a confrontation.

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 05:33:27 UTC

Indeed!

But on the other side of the coin ....

When I was younger, I used to be so proud about how willing I was to directly confront people who upset me. After a while of that, I started to realize that just talking to someone doesn't actually automatically fix the problem -- and some problems really are nigh-unfixable.

Now I feel like it's better to repress how you feel, and maybe end up acting a little bit passive-aggressive, than to cause a blowup that could end up doing an untold amount of direct emotional harm to all concerned, to no gain.

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 05:41:09 UTC

Sometimes better to repress! Not always better. Sometimes better.

notemily February 10 2006, 05:58:43 UTC

hmm, I guess I think the best way to do things (not that I always do things this way, because I often suck) is to try to express, calmly and rationally (I feel like "confront" has negative, angry connotations here) when something is bothering you and why. it's then up to the other person whether to change their behavior or not, and then it's up to you to figure out what to do if they don't change. maybe you can live with it, maybe you can't and you need to try something else, but I feel like it's usually a good idea to first try and tell the person why you're bothered ( ... )

Thread 6

proudduckling February 10 2006, 05:40:28 UTC

My two cents on passive-aggression.
Cent one: It seems that it has become, at least in my social circles, code for "having feelings that make people uncomfortable." The person doesn't even have to express the feelings in any way - just having them makes others accuse that person of passive-aggression. Much in the same way that they accuse people of "guilt-tripping" them, when what they really mean is that the mere fact of someone's existence makes them feel guilty. This, in case you couldn't tell, I find incredibly stupid.
Cent two: I feel that passive-aggression has its place. People invariably mean it in a pejorative manner, but if everyone picked a fight every time s/he was angry, the world would be a substantially less liveable place. The secret is figuring out what kind of reactions are appropriate for different times, and trying in general not to intentionally manipulate others.

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 05:45:52 UTC

As to cent one, YES! I totally agree, and I think that's part of the point I was groping after with this post. People don't like feeling like they've made someone else unhappy -- and if they can find a way to blame that on the other person, they will!

Cent two: I'm just not sure. That's the problem I'm sort of trying to "solve" for myself here. Is it possible to have rational, open discussions every time someone is unhappy with a situation, discussions that fix the problem? And if it is possible, shouldn't we try?

The thing is, of course, that I'm pretty sure it's not. And if you have an interpersonal issue in which the two people don't want to budge, yet want to continue the rest of their relationship as normal ... if they don't talk about it, it seems like it would require superhuman self-control for neither of them to be passive-aggressive about it, ever; and is it fair to expect that?

proudduckling February 10 2006, 06:16:36 UTC

But sometimes you're in a situation where it's equally inappropriate to have a rational, open discussion. I mean, I'm less clear on my second cent than my first, but if I'm, say, out with a group of friends who all want to do something I want to do, it's hard to have a rational discussion about it. At that point, my options are either to leave or to try to suck it up. Both of these options could be construed as passive-aggressive, especially as I'm not particularly good at sucking it up.

dragonladyflame February 10 2006, 06:24:46 UTC

I think you meant "something I don't want to do" (you left out the don't). And -- excellent example! You've set out the problem very well. I'm still not sure what to do with it, but you've done a good job.

I guess the closest thing to a solution (i.e. a behavioural change that might actually accomplish something) is "we should all get really good at sucking things up" ... or "we should make sure we have friends who never do things we don't want to do" ... but I think the difficulties with those are obvious!

Thread 12

queenofolupitoo February 10 2006, 07:36:08 UTC

Wow. You got a lot of comments on that topic quickly. I think people also sometimes mistake being indecisive as being passive aggressive. As in, "Sarah, what do you want me to get you anything from (fast food chain Sarah doesn't usually go to x)." "Sure, brother dearest, thank you." "What do you want." "I don't know. Why don't you decide." "Fine, I won't get you anything if you're going to stand there being stupid and passive aggressive and shit. Just tell me what you want." "I don't know what I want! I've never eaten here, but I'm hungry! Just get me something!" Ok. I get an F for that example, but I still think it's true that people describe me that way when I'm just genuinely being indecisive. Also the inverse is true: "Ok! I'm leading rehearsal today, I guess? Do you want to start at measure x?" "I don't know, Sarah, where do you want to start." "Ummm...I think I just said...maybe the passive aggressive rehearsal leading..." "Or just indecisive..." Ok. I give up.

dragonladyflame February 12 2006, 08:46:51 UTC

Many of the comments are my replies, in fairness.

I agree that indecisiveness is often mistaken for passive-aggressiveness. My mother got furious at me at one point when we were in Barcelona because she'd ask me what I wanted to do, I'd say whatever she wanted, we'd do that, and because I wasn't obviously enthusiastic every time she up and assumed I was simmering with resentment and being passive-aggressive. Which, obviously, wasn't true.

I am beginning to get the unfortunate feeling that whether or not someone is seen as passive-aggressive has at least as much to do with the viewer as the viewed.