"Woke" culture

[MercyA]

dp

Argh, forum is wonky tonight.

Edited November 6, 2020 by MercyA

[importswim]

6 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

......

So like if a young couple's starter home was a fixer upper that they sold after a few years to buy a nicer home in a nicer neighborhood and THEN they had kids, the kids may assume that "all 20 somethings" start with a house like they grew up in. Even if the kids have heard the parents talk about the starter house and repairing it and sleeping on a mattress on the floor till they saved enough for real furniture, the kids don't  remember it, so in their heads its like it never happened.

........

One of the most helpful things to me as a young person was when my friend's mom sat us both down and talked to us about what their college years looked like (having a hard time paying for food, having to go to the health department for healthcare..etc...) and how we can't expect to start out having the same things as our parents do as it took them until that age to accumulate those things. My friend's dad was a well renowned Gastroenterologist in our area and they were very wealthy. It really shocked me but stayed with me for a very long time. I think it's a great lesson for my kiddos to hear as well (though we're not anywhere near as well off as they were! LOL!)

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

@Dreamergal, I went back and edited my post. If two people said it was unkind, I trust that it was, and I apologize.

I did not mean that no one should need counseling for that sort of thing, just that I didn't. I agreed with several previous posters who said people are different and have different triggers and different needs.

I do think your experiences in your culture--for which I am very sorry--were radically different than anything I have experienced.

For what it's worth, I read your post as simply a report on your own experience and not unkind. I also didn't find every single experience of this kind traumatic -- only the one in my teens. 

[Not_a_Number]

By the way, the "safe" thing is definitely a difference in language usage more than anything else. I think the OP took it to me "physically unsafe" and found that shocking, whereas I find that younger people (and ones who have been exposed to any social justice stuff) tend to use it in a different way. 

For what it's worth, I don't think that it's reasonable for every space to be a "safe space" for everyone. People's needs are far too diverse for that. But I think the best kind of relationship with your kids involves them feeling safe sharing their emotions with you, even if you disagree. 

[MercyA]

@Dreamergal, it's totally fine. You weren't the only one who had a strong reaction. 

I actually prefer bluntness. No hard feelings on my end. ❤️

Again, I'm sorry I wasn't more sensitive.

[Corraleno]

17 minutes ago, MercyA said:

@Dreamergal, I went back and edited my post. If two people said it was unkind, I trust that it was, and I apologize.

I did not mean that no one should need counseling for that sort of thing, just that I didn't. I agreed with several previous posters who said people are different and have different triggers and different needs.

I do think your experiences in your culture--for which I am very sorry--were radically different than anything I have experienced.

I admit that I had a similar reaction to Tanaqui and Dreamergal, and was surprised because I think you are one of the kindest people here and usually very sensitive to the feelings of others. It sounded very dismissive to me, like "well under certain circumstances (youth, trauma, violated by a trusted person), it might make sense for an especially sensitive people to want so see a therapist, but being touched in a sexual way by a random stranger is really no big deal and certainly doesn't merit discussing with a therapist." 

I'm truly glad it was no big deal to you, but it can be a big deal to others. And lots of seemingly trivial, unrelated instances with "random pervs" can have a significant cumulative effect on a woman's feelings of safety and bodily autonomy. Dismissing each individual instance as NBD only adds to that damage.

In the case of the OP's daughter we are talking about being touched without consent more than once, including when they were alone, by a coworker who is also very verbal about his disdain for women. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for a young woman who is being targeted by a creepy coworker to feel violated, upset, and confused about how to deal with that, and want to talk to someone about it — someone who will not roll their eyes and tell her to get over it.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Corraleno

[MercyA]

dp, again. Sorry!

Edited November 6, 2020 by MercyA

[SereneHome]

It's really interesting what just happened....

A poster said something ( @MercyA)  - two, three people found it offensive and she immediately apologized. Why?? At least two other people (me and @Not_a_Number) didn't take offense to it. And!!! people who thought she was unkind actually said that they think of her as the kindest person.

So, the question is - how carefully do we all have to choose our words even when we have a built-in reputation? Should we apologize  if our words are not even taking the same way by everyone?

And may be that was OP's point (I am speculating) - it's getting harder and harder to have conversations and relationships without worrying that someone somehow is going to be offended. Not sure it's an age thing, though....

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Should we apologize  if our words are not even taking the same way by everyone?

Why in the world not? This is a small group. Some people found the words offensive. Since we all care about each other, it makes sense to take the input seriously. 

Now, I don't happen to think that it's possible to please EVERYONE. This only works with smaller groups and existing relationships. But yes... if someone in a group like this seems offended, you may as well take the input seriously. 

[Pen]

25 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

This is exactly why I think my relationship with my parens survived. I always felt I could share my emotions with them even if I felt unheard because I felt safe sharing. I did and said some unkind things as well in the full flush of youth. My friends who did not feel safe never shared and their relationship with their parents is not the same.

My relationship with my parents vastly improved when I felt heard. That is what I aim with my kids. I always listen even if I do not agree. I hope it works and we will see it in a few years. 

 

I think feeling heard or in some way having issue recognized is very important.

 I had a few problems with pervs in course of life. For one, which was at work, a co-worker recognized what was going on though I had not said anything, and said, “It’s not you, it’s him.” That was hugely helpful. 

 

I think having a procedure of what to do is also helpful. This may vary between women and also for different fields of work and in different places. 

 

[Pen]

3 hours ago, bolt. said:

Is it possible that there aren't many (any?) people who are completely void of all emotional reactions during a disagreement? Is it possible that it might just be the social convention of hiding such reactions that has changed?

 

I don’t think that’s the issue. It is not about emotional reactions.   It is possible that this is not going on in your area.  

Maybe this could help explain better without going book length:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/30/barack-obama-tells-woke-youth-get-over-quickly/4095362002/

 

 

(I wonder if Malia would say, Ok, Boomer to her dad.) 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Pen

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, SereneHome said:

A poster said something ( @MercyA)  - two, three people found it offensive and she immediately apologized. Why?? At least two other people (me and @Not_a_Number) didn't take offense to it.

I apologized for a couple reasons. One, the people who called me out are people whom I like and respect. If they say I sounded unkind, I have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve them.

Two, I'm a Christian and if I'm coming across as unkind, I want to know that and correct it, regardless of the intent of what I said or whether I am right or wrong. That does *not* mean I'm going to change my position. In this case, it just gave me something to think about, as I wasn't so much stating a position as commenting on my personal experience.

Three, some things are not at all worth triggering someone or hurting their feelings or damaging friendships. My comments on this topic were not something I strongly felt needed to stay up.

Fourth, I'm tired and grumpy tonight. Not at my best and more apt to put my foot in my mouth, for sure. 

I will say that it lessened the sting to find that other posters--whom I also like and respect!--were not offended. I do appreciate that, and appreciate them saying so.

Edited November 6, 2020 by MercyA

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Why in the world not? This is a small group. Some people found the words offensive. Since we all care about each other, it makes sense to take the input seriously. 

Now, I don't happen to think that it's possible to please EVERYONE. This only works with smaller groups and existing relationships. But yes... if someone in a group like this seems offended, you may as well take the input seriously. 

Bc at that point it's just having conversations about how to have conversations...I mean, I am sure it's fun for some.....

[Corraleno]

16 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

It's really interesting what just happened....

A poster said something ( @MercyA)  - two, three people found it offensive and she immediately apologized. Why?? At least two other people (me and @Not_a_Number) didn't take offense to it. And!!! people who thought she was unkind actually said that they think of her as the kindest person.

So, the question is - how carefully do we all have to choose our words even when we have a built-in reputation? Should we apologize  if our words are not even taking the same way by everyone?

And may be that was OP's point (I am speculating) - it's getting harder and harder to have conversations and relationships without worrying that someone somehow is going to be offended. Not sure it's an age thing, though....

Actually no one said it was offensive, rather that it sounded unkind because it seemed rather flippant and dismissive of those for whom assault by a "random perv" would be quite upsetting. And it's precisely because I know Mercy to be an extremely kind and considerate person that I thought she would not want people to think she intended it that way.

Obviously different people "read" things differently, but I don't think the fact that some people don't see anything wrong with a statement means that it can't be hurtful to other people. If a bunch of men don't see anything wrong with the creepy co-worker's statements about women, does that mean the OP's daughter has no right to be offended? Why should he have to apologize when his "words are not even taken the same way by everyone"? If someone uses a term that is considered racially insensitive, is it OK as long as a few people in the room aren't bothered by it?  

[MercyA]

dp. LOL. What in the world?

Edited November 6, 2020 by MercyA

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Bc at that point it's just having conversations about how to have conversations...I mean, I am sure it's fun for some.....

Well, if that's what it was, then right now we're having a conversation about having a conversation about how to have conversations 😉 . 

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

I apologized for a couple reasons. One, the people who called me out are people whom I like and respect. If they say I sounded unkind, I have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve them.

Two, I'm a Christian and if I'm coming across as unkind, I want to know that and correct it, regardless of the intent of what I said or whether I am right or wrong. That does *not* mean I'm going to change my position. In this case, it just gave me something to think about, as I wasn't so much stating a position as commenting on my personal experience.

Three, some things are not at all worth triggering someone or hurting their feelings or damaging friendships. My comments on this topic were not something I strongly felt needed to stay up.

Fourth, I'm tired and grumpy tonight. Not at my best and more apt to put my foot in my mouth, for sure. 

I will say that it lessened the sting to find that other posters--who I also like and respect!--were not offended. I do appreciate that, and appreciate them saying so.

In order of bolded

Don't you think that person should have given you benefit of the doubt and instead of saying that your words were unkind, asked if you are OK since your post seemed to be not in your character? Shouldn't the respect go both ways?

Would it have mattered if you felt strongly? Would you then stand behind your words or change them anyway?

I hope you get good rest 🙂

I really didn't mean to pick on you or completely derail this thread once again. I just found it interesting that in a thread about being easily offended, some people got easily offended by a poster that they claimed is kind and thoughtful and, without asking you to clarify, immediately told you that you were unkind.

We all have things that set us off, some things we feel stronger about and some we don't care at all. Some words will offend bc of our experience or our nature or simply our mood at the  moment. Kindness and benefit of the doubt should go both ways - the person speaking and person receiving. And not every word has to be measured that precisely.

Edited November 6, 2020 by SereneHome

[MercyA]

9 hours ago, SereneHome said:

In order of bolded

Don't you think that person should have given you benefit of the doubt and instead of saying that your words were unkind, asked if you are OK since your post seemed to be not in your character? Shouldn't the respect go both ways?

• They did, IMO, by expressing their concern gently and respectfully. 

Would it have mattered if you felt strongly? Would you then stand behind your words or change them anyway?

• As I said, it was a report on my experience, not so much a statement of position. If I stated a position I believed to be correct and thought it was important to let stand, I would. If you doubt my ability to stand firm with opposition, see the abortion thread from a couple weeks ago. 😉 (And BTW, I think we managed that one without unkindness.)
• All of that said, if I was told my delivery seemed unkind / insensitive, I would do my best to change that. Why not?  

I hope you get good rest 🙂

• Thank you! I really appreciate that. I did. 

I really didn't mean to pick on you or completely derail this thread once again. I just found it interesting that in a thread about being easily offended, some people got easily offended by a poster that they claimed is kind and thoughtful and, without asking you to clarify, immediately told you that you were unkind.

• I did not feel picked on. It's all good. I thought it was interesting as well, although I was mainly concerned with my own words.

We all have things that set us off, some things we feel stronger about and some we don't care at all. Some words will offend bc of our experience or our nature or simply our mood at the  moment. Kindness and benefit of the doubt should go both ways - the person speaking and person receiving. And not every word has to be measured that precisely.

• I agree in general, but, 1. this is a sensitive topic, and 2. on this forum, we tend to weigh our own words and others' more than we would in a non-written conversation. And I'm fine with that. 

Good morning, SereneHome! Answers in bulleted points above.

Edited November 6, 2020 by MercyA

[bolt.]

15 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

I didn't say that clearly. I don't mean that one can't have an emotional reaction. What I mean is that the emotional reaction is so over the top that discussion must stop.

What if was okay with everyone that nobody needs to participate in "discussions" unless they legitimately feel like that's something they want to do?

What is it that obligates two people to keep "discussing" when only one person wants to do that and the other person would rather not? Why is it normal to evaluate whether someone has a good enough reason to want to be done with a discussion? Why isn't it up to them to stop using their time in that way for any reason at all? What obligation do they have to keep talking when they don't want to?

Is it really so offensive that some people feel free to simply end an unpleasant discussion on a whim and move on to doing something they'd rather be doing?

[Lady Florida.]

14 hours ago, SereneHome said:

It's really interesting what just happened....

A poster said something ( @MercyA)  - two, three people found it offensive and she immediately apologized. Why?? At least two other people (me and @Not_a_Number) didn't take offense to it. And!!! people who thought she was unkind actually said that they think of her as the kindest person.

So, the question is - how carefully do we all have to choose our words even when we have a built-in reputation? Should we apologize  if our words are not even taking the same way by everyone?

 

Well yes, why not? Someone's feelings were hurt and it doesn't change that fact just because someone else's weren't hurt. 

@MercyA apologized because she recognized that. This is one of the things that makes her a loved and well respected member of The Hive. She's kind. She respects others. She treats all of us equally kindly and respectfully whether we agree with her or not. I want to be her when I grow up. 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Lady Florida.

[fairfarmhand]

42 minutes ago, bolt. said:

What if was okay with everyone that nobody needs to participate in "discussions" unless they legitimately feel like that's something they want to do?

What is it that obligates two people to keep "discussing" when only one person wants to do that and the other person would rather not? Why is it normal to evaluate whether someone has a good enough reason to want to be done with a discussion? Why isn't it up to them to stop using their time in that way for any reason at all? What obligation do they have to keep talking when they don't want to?

Is it really so offensive that some people feel free to simply end an unpleasant discussion on a whim and move on to doing something they'd rather be doing?

What if the pattern is Person A starts a discussion. Pontificates, asks for Person B's input. When person B gives their honest feedback, Person B becomes emotional to the point that they can't discuss it and calls a stop to the conversation.  

Wouldn't that be frustrating to Person B if that is the pattern? If Person A continues this, never allowing Person B to have opinions, then that kind of ruins the relationship. 

I'm framing it this way because it doesn't matter whether it is a parent or a child or a friend, this actually is a pattern that MANY people use to manipulate others. 

When someone starts a conversation, and then asks for my input, I'm going to take it at face value that they want it. But some people don't genuinely want my input. They just want me to agree with them. And I can't do that. 

There are a few people in my world who do this. Some are young people some are not, but it is frustrating and I can't have real relationships with them because they;re not open to any ideas other than what they already have stuck in their heads.

[SereneHome]

2 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Well yes, why not? Someone's feelings were hurt and it doesn't change that fact just because someone else's weren't hurt. 

@MercyA apologized because she recognized that. This is one of the things that makes her a loved and well respected member of The Hive. She's kind. She respects others. She treats all of us equally kindly and respectfully whether we agree with her or not. I want to be her when I grow up. 

I don't know if it's a Christian thing, I am not a Christian, so I simply don't know....

I think the apology thing has become something that is expected without any kind of reason anymore. There has to be a balance in a dynamic of a relationship. If a person is expected to apologize any time someone is hurt or offended....why shouldn't the other person stop being so hurt and offended???

Why assume the transgression on the person speaking, not person receiving??

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SereneHome said:

There has to be a balance in a dynamic of a relationship. If a person is expected to apologize any time someone is hurt or offended....why shouldn't the other person stop being so hurt and offended???

But I don't know why you're picking this fight on Mercy's behalf. I don't think she would apologize at random people feeling offended. She took the input, considered it, and decided it's worth apologizing. She seems like someone amply able to stand her ground if she felt in the right... 

[SereneHome]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

But I don't know why you're picking this fight on Mercy's behalf. I don't think she would apologize at random people feeling offended. She took the input, considered it, and decided it's worth apologizing. She seems like someone amply able to stand her ground if she felt in the right... 

You completely missed the point of my post

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SereneHome said:

You completely missed the point of my post

No, I didn't. She thought there was a reason to apologize, that's why she apologized. If she hadn't thought there was a reason, she wouldn't have. 

As for whether people choose not to be offended sometimes, of course they do. None of us get offended at every single thing. 

[Emba]

22 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

Please don't touch me" ? I should say please to someone who violates me body ?

That was my first thought. By all means speak up, but do not say please. 
 

As far as the rest of the comment goes, I understand wanting to be violent, but to me that has its own dangers, so I do not encourage it except in the case of physical danger. I do think a firm removal of the offending hand from its unwanted location on one’s body is a good idea. (Not literal removal of the offending hand, as tempting as that might be.)  

i once spent time in a very traditional culture where I was verbally harassed basically every time I went out in public. My frustration built so that by the end of my time there I was often really rude about it  and a couple of times when men touched me I responded with either the threat of physical violence (and in that case I really think I would have slapped the guy and an ugly scene was averted only by my bus arriving) or with actual mild violence (shoved the guy off the curb). I don’t think In those cases that I made the wisest choices.  I was tired of keeping my head down and ignoring it, though, and I’ve always had very clear physical boundaries. But I was an outsider to the culture and my singular reactions to these people were unlikely to change anything on a personal, much less cultural, scale, and could have resulted on me getting hurt.

[Pen]

58 minutes ago, Emba said:

That was my first thought. By all means speak up, but do not say please. 
 

As far as the rest of the comment goes, I understand wanting to be violent, but to me that has its own dangers, so I do not encourage it except in the case of physical danger. I do think a firm removal of the offending hand from its unwanted location on one’s body is a good idea. (Not literal removal of the offending hand, as tempting as that might be.)  

i once spent time in a very traditional culture where I was verbally harassed basically every time I went out in public. My frustration built so that by the end of my time there I was often really rude about it  and a couple of times when men touched me I responded with either the threat of physical violence (and in that case I really think I would have slapped the guy and an ugly scene was averted only by my bus arriving) or with actual mild violence (shoved the guy off the curb). I don’t think In those cases that I made the wisest choices.  I was tired of keeping my head down and ignoring it, though, and I’ve always had very clear physical boundaries. But I was an outsider to the culture and my singular reactions to these people were unlikely to change anything on a personal, much less cultural, scale, and could have resulted on me getting hurt.

 

Many women say nothing in the moment.

 

Curbside at a bus stop and co-worker at work are different situations. 

I was only responding to the situation ofOP dd — not many other possible situations, and I had not realized when I wrote that that they were alone in a hallway.   Alone in hallway changed the situation and what responses should be. 

 

Legally, assuming there is no specific “no touch” rule at the workplace or in the jurisdiction, IME it helps to actually say something.

Furthermore, If it goes to court, or even possibly when bringing complaint to boss or HR attention, the question “did you tell the person not to ______” May arise.

 

ETA: and certainly if the other person is just clueless (perhaps has ASD etc) it can help to have made a direct statement

 

What exact words would be best would depend on circumstances, personalities, and ongoing work relationship needed. 

 

 

 

For many women a memorizable phrase that is acceptable even if the touch was an accident is useful.  

 

 Please don’t touch me possibly along with a  stop hand 🤚 gesture (in US - in some other cultures gesture would have other meanings) IME is especially helpful in a group situation, before any touch, to stop it before it ever happens if it appears a touch is coming. That’s my experience.

Obviously others may have better luck with screaming, slapping or pushing off a curb.  And depending on circumstances those (or many other possibilities) may be better options. 

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Pen

[Corraleno]

43 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

If a person is expected to apologize any time someone is hurt or offended....why shouldn't the other person stop being so hurt and offended???

If a woman doesn't like being touched by a man without her consent, it's not his fault that she doesn't like it. If she just stopped being offended by it, it wouldn't be an issue.

If a woman is offended by a coworker making comments about her physical appearance, she should just assume that he meant it as a compliment when he told her she "looked really hot."

If someone says that fat people are just lazy and obsessed with food, why take offense? They were probably trying to be helpful.

If someone tells you that if you'd just cheer up and stop making yourself miserable, you wouldn't be depressed anymore, you should consider that maybe they have a point instead of being hurt.

If your significant other says something that really hurts your feelings, you should blame yourself for feeling hurt instead of explaining how you feel.

When someone calls you a derogatory term* you should assume the speaker didn't mean it in an offensive way, and not speak up about it. Why cause conflict?

 

*(unless the derogatory term is Boomer — in that case, you have every right to be angry and highly offended and to respond by ranting about young people being coddled snowflakes)

 

[Emba]

12 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Many women say nothing in the moment.

 

Curbside and co-worker are different situations. 

I was only responding to the situation ofOP dd — not many other possible situations, and I had not realized when I wrote that that they were alone in a hallway.   Alone in hallway changed the situation and what responses should be. 

 

Legally, assuming there is no specific “no touch” rule at the workplace or in the jurisdiction, IME it helps to actually say something.

Furthermore, If it goes to court, or even possibly when bringing complaint to boss or HR attention, the question “did you tell the person not to ______” May arise.

 

ETA: and certainly if the other person is just clueless (perhaps has ASD etc) it can help to have a direct statement

 

What exact words would be best would depend on circumstances, personalities, and ongoing work relationship needed. 

 

 

 

For many women a memorizable phrase that is acceptable even if the touch was an accident is useful.  

 

 Please don’t touch me possibly along with a  stop hand 🤚 gesture (in US - in some other cultures gesture would have other meanings) IME is especially helpful in a group situation, before any touch, to stop it before it ever happens if it appears a touch is coming. That’s my experience.

Obviously others may have better luck with screaming, slapping or pushing off a curb.  And depending on circumstances those (or many other possibilities) may be better options. 

 

I realize most women don’t say anything in the moment. When I was younger I also didn’t speak up a time or two when I should have.
 

Like I said, I don’t actually advocate even mild physical violence. I did lots of things when I was younger that I wouldn’t do now.

having a scripted reply is helpful. Speaking up is good. My original point was really that it shouldn’t have to include the word “please”.  I don’t feel that a woman who is being touched in an unwanted way should feel a burden to be particularly polite, as if it were a request that could be ignored at will. Firm and calm are commendable, but politeness is overrated.

I agree it is easier to deal with total strangers in these sorts of situations, where there is little social fallout. 

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Plum said:

Practically the definition of woke culture. 

 

Intention doesn't mean anything. It's all about how it's received. 

So you don’t think it’s ever possible that someone unintentionally offends someone, is called out in a nice way, reflects on it, determines they were wrong, and offers an apology. I don’t think painting everything as extreme woke culture is helpful. Sometimes people really do say truly offensive or insensitive things.

Mercy often reminds me of my mom (of course my mom is much older). And my mom is certainly someone who will carefully listen and consider if someone points out an issue with something she has said or done. It doesn’t mean she always is going to decide she is wrong and admit blame. Of course not. But she is going to listen to and carefully consider the opinions of people she respects. And that may or may not result in an apology and change of behavior. That’s being a mature, considerate human being who is living the Catholic faith she professes, not being oppressed by “woke” culture.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Frances

[bolt.]

4 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

What if the pattern is Person A starts a discussion. Pontificates, asks for Person B's input. When person B gives their honest feedback, Person B becomes emotional to the point that they can't discuss it and calls a stop to the conversation.  

Wouldn't that be frustrating to Person B if that is the pattern? If Person A continues this, never allowing Person B to have opinions, then that kind of ruins the relationship. 

I'm framing it this way because it doesn't matter whether it is a parent or a child or a friend, this actually is a pattern that MANY people use to manipulate others. 

When someone starts a conversation, and then asks for my input, I'm going to take it at face value that they want it. But some people don't genuinely want my input. They just want me to agree with them. And I can't do that. 

There are a few people in my world who do this. Some are young people some are not, but it is frustrating and I can't have real relationships with them because they;re not open to any ideas other than what they already have stuck in their heads.

I think Person B, while justifiably irritated, can simply let the conversation go, even though it feels incomplete. It's not *very* badly incomplete: each person had their 'first say' and Person B expressed an emotion about it. That's okay. It doesn't mean that Person B is in charge of whether Person A is "allowed" to have opinions. It's more just that the conversation ran aground in Person B's emotional territory, and came to an end at that point. It can be a dignified conclusion, if Person A has the good manners to let it be one. 

The early ending doesn't have anything to do with Person A's perspective, really. Person A's perspective still exists and was still expressed and heard just fine (earlier in the conversation). Person A was asked for input once, gave input once, and then (once disagreement became evident) it was over. It's not awesome, but it's fair enough.

If Person A does this a lot, Person B doesn't have to engage with them in the future. If they see signs of the pattern starting, s/he could say something like, "That's not something I really want to chat about..." (Then change the topic to something else.)

And, yes, it impedes deep intimacy in friendship. It reduces the people to polite friends not soulmates, but if that's what Person B wants -- why would Person A be willing to make them both uncomfortable in a fight for more intimacy? Especially with someone they consider manipulative? Is being extremely close with manipulative people high on the list of anybody's life goals, really?

[Little Green Leaves]

8 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I think Person B, while justifiably irritated, can simply let the conversation go, even though it feels incomplete. It's not *very* badly incomplete: each person had their 'first say' and Person B expressed an emotion about it. That's okay. It doesn't mean that Person B is in charge of whether Person A is "allowed" to have opinions. It's more just that the conversation ran aground in Person B's emotional territory, and came to an end at that point. It can be a dignified conclusion, if Person A has the good manners to let it be one. 

The early ending doesn't have anything to do with Person A's perspective, really. Person A's perspective still exists and was still expressed and heard just fine (earlier in the conversation). Person A was asked for input once, gave input once, and then (once disagreement became evident) it was over. It's not awesome, but it's fair enough.

If Person A does this a lot, Person B doesn't have to engage with them in the future. If they see signs of the pattern starting, s/he could say something like, "That's not something I really want to chat about..." (Then change the topic to something else.)

And, yes, it impedes deep intimacy in friendship. It reduces the people to polite friends not soulmates, but if that's what Person B wants -- why would Person A be willing to make them both uncomfortable in a fight for more intimacy? Especially with someone they consider manipulative? Is being extremely close with manipulative people high on the list of anybody's life goals, really?

I love the way you put this. I both agree and disagree.

Obviously I agree that we shouldn't push past each other's clearly-expressed boundaries. That helps nobody.

At the same time, I often feel frustrated that I can't talk to people about politics without it turning into an emotionally-charged conversation. I wish that it was possible to have more argument and debate. These days, it so often seems that when we talk about politics, we're either whole-heartedly agreeing with each other, or we're a bit frightened by our differences and need to retreat behind our fences. 

 

It seems to me that when I was younger, talking about politics (at least on the left) meant talking about the economy, foreign policy, war, wages...whereas now, talking about politics often means talking about personhood and being erased. I don't know. I'm aware that these are important things to talk about, but I also think it's inevitably going to create strong emotions and make debate really hard. Disagreement can easily be taken as insult. 

I think I might be missing out on something. I often wonder why I'm experiencing this frustration; I do find it frustrating. It's not a generational thing, either; I'm finding this with people (not my closest friends, but people who are somewhere between friends and acquaintances) who are either my age, or 5-10 years older or younger. 

[Not_a_Number]

5 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

What if the pattern is Person A starts a discussion. Pontificates, asks for Person B's input. When person B gives their honest feedback, Person B becomes emotional to the point that they can't discuss it and calls a stop to the conversation.  

Wouldn't that be frustrating to Person B if that is the pattern? If Person A continues this, never allowing Person B to have opinions, then that kind of ruins the relationship. 

I'm framing it this way because it doesn't matter whether it is a parent or a child or a friend, this actually is a pattern that MANY people use to manipulate others. 

When someone starts a conversation, and then asks for my input, I'm going to take it at face value that they want it. But some people don't genuinely want my input. They just want me to agree with them. And I can't do that. 

There are a few people in my world who do this. Some are young people some are not, but it is frustrating and I can't have real relationships with them because they;re not open to any ideas other than what they already have stuck in their heads.

Yeah, I've seen this pattern. It's ridiculously frustrating. I also think there needs to be space for disagreement and debate in society. 

[Pen]

55 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Nothing like a good stinging slap in my opinion,

 

 

That’s not always possible.

In some work situations a stronger male gets hold of a weaker woman in a position and circumstances where her hands are not free to give a slap—and where a slap might lead to worse outcome, even if it were possible to deliver one. 

 

[Pen]

 

 

42 minutes ago, Little Green Leaves said:

It seems to me that when I was younger, talking about politics (at least on the left) meant talking about the economy, foreign policy, war, wages...whereas now, talking about politics often means talking about personhood and being erased.

 

Is this more  “identity politics” and “cancel culture?”

I think both participants may end up feeling “erased” from such interactions. 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Little Green Leaves said:

. Disagreement can easily be taken as insult. 

 

 

Or it can be more that that, and as if disagreement, or even a mess up on a preferred pronoun, or so forth, by a parent who has certainly made some errors and mistakes and will continue to do so  — but basically loves and wants best for the child —is accused of having caused an injury to the child that is synonymous with an assault, or about to cause a nervous breakdown. 

 

 

If this multiple posts forgive me it looks like it didn’t and I am going to try “submit” again. 

 

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Plum said:

The problem I have is that she wasn't offensive or even unkind. She was sharing her experience and how she felt about it and reasons she could see herself needing therapy. 

With all due respect, the fact that you read her words as relating SOLELY to her personal experience doesn't mean that is how everyone else read it, or that the way you read it is the only possible interpretation. 

This was how I (and I assume at least a couple of others) read it:

"Sure, I was angry and I felt violated. A jerk touched my boob twice without consent. But I'm not traumatized and don't need counseling." = Mercy talking about her own experience.

Then the subject turned to how other people react, and I read the rest of this as referring to other people:

"I can understand someone needing it if they were very young, or had past trauma, or if it was a very trusted and loved family member or friend, or something like that. But a random perv? Not going to waste more time or thought than necessary on that." 

IOW, other people might need counseling if they had these extra issues, but counseling should not be needed just for being touched by a random perv. And I read this in the context of a thread in which other people did roll their eyes at the idea of someone wanting to see a counselor after being touched inappropriately, as if that was ridiculous and wimpy, so in the context of the whole conversation here it sounded like she was siding with those who thought it was ridiculous for someone (who wasn't young or previously traumatized) to seek counseling after being targeted by a random perv. 

For comparison, there was a recent thread in which someone posted something like "meh, there's no point in worrying about covid" and the same thing happened where many people (including both myself and Mercy) thought that was really hurtful and insensitive in a conversation that included people who had lost loved ones or had family members who were at very high risk of dying, while others insisted that it was obviously just an expression of her personal experience and therefore not offensive in any way. What is "obvious" to one person is not always equally obvious to others.

And that is especially true in a large, diverse group of people where all communication is both casual and written. If someone says something that is interpreted as hurtful or offensive by some readers, the polite thing to do is to apologize and clarify that the hurtful meaning was not intended at all. That's not "censorship" or hypersensitive "wokeness," that's just basic communication skills.

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by Corraleno

[SereneHome]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

With all due respect, the fact that you read her words as relating SOLELY to her personal experience doesn't mean that is how everyone else read it, or that the way you read it is the only possible interpretation. 

This was how I (and I assume at least a couple of others) read it:

"Sure, I was angry and I felt violated. A jerk touched my boob twice without consent. But I'm not traumatized and don't need counseling." = Mercy talking about her own experience.

Then the subject turned to how other people react, and I read the rest of this as referring to other people:

"I can understand someone needing it if they were very young, or had past trauma, or if it was a very trusted and loved family member or friend, or something like that. But a random perv? Not going to waste more time or thought than necessary on that." 

IOW, other people might need counseling if they had these extra issues, but counseling should not be needed just for being touched by a random perv. And I read this in the context of a thread in which other people did roll their eyes at the idea of someone wanting to see a counselor after being touched inappropriately, as if that was ridiculous and wimpy, so in the context of the whole conversation here it sounded like she was siding with those who thought it was ridiculous for someone (who wasn't young or previously traumatized) to seek counseling after being targeted by a random perv. 

For comparison, there was a recent thread in which someone posted something like "meh, there's no point in worrying about covid" and the same thing happened where many people (including both myself and Mercy) thought that was really hurtful and insensitive in a conversation that included people who had lost loved ones or had family members who were at very high risk of dying, while others insisted that it was obviously just an expression of her personal experience and therefore not offensive in any way. What is "obvious" to one person is not always equally obvious to others.

And that is especially true in a large, diverse group of people where all communication is both casual and written. If someone says something that is interpreted as hurtful or offensive by some readers, the polite thing to do is to apologize and clarify that the hurtful meaning was not intended at all. That's not "censorship" or hypersensitive "wokeness," that's just basic communication skills.

 

nm not worth it

Edited November 7, 2020 by SereneHome

[Amy in NH]

On 11/5/2020 at 10:55 AM, Pen said:

 

I don’t think you are alone 🙂.

Did they get it from regular world or university?  I have some friends who feel frustrated that they spent a lot of money to send kids to university with a resulting hatred for the parents and snowflake mentality as to ability to engage in discussion seeming to result.  The opposite of what they thought a good education might give in terms of being able to enter into a meaningful exchange of ideas. 

Maybe in a few decades we will be post-woke, or people will be tweeting (or whatever is then au courant ) about having woke from Woke. 

I think you might be able to say that if you have to walk on eggshells about what you are saying then you can’t feel emotionally safe in your own home either and ask them how they think it can be solved. That you love them and want to have them over but that you are also in emotional pain when they visit .  

I think it makes sense that adult children who now hold different beliefs than their parents might not want to be harangued during a routine visit home.  It strikes me that the snowflake-callers are often the actual snowflakes - can't handle someone with a different opinion.  Kind of like the OP who is upset that her kids now think differently than she does.

It's not a bad thing for kids to learn how to think for themselves at university.  What I see as a problem is insulating them from the real world as they're growing up, as I've observed in so many religious homeschool communities, where they can't be exposed to anything anything outside religious doctrine, so that they experience culture shock when they first leave home.

[Corraleno]

4 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

So, once again, you are not allowed to express yourself freely, but you are allowed to receive information in whichever way you want it. And lord help us all....

"Not allowed"? I wasn't aware that the mods had banned anyone recently.

Of course if someone doesn't like the response they get from other people who are also "expressing themselves freely" then they are free to choose to walk away from the conversation, or even walk away from the forum. Disagreement does not equal persecution.

[Pen]

58 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

I think it makes sense that adult children who now hold different beliefs than their parents might not want to be harangued during a routine visit home.  It strikes me that the snowflake-callers are often the actual snowflakes - can't handle someone with a different opinion.  Kind of like the OP who is upset that her kids now think differently than she does.

It's not a bad thing for kids to learn how to think for themselves at university.  What I see as a problem is insulating them from the real world as they're growing up, as I've observed in so many religious homeschool communities, where they can't be exposed to anything anything outside religious doctrine, so that they experience culture shock when they first leave home.

 

It sounded like it was the opposite— in that for example the adult child was demanding that the parent vote the way the child demanded or not vote at all. But the adult child might of course tell the story differently. Maybe the parent demanded that the adult child vote the parent way also, or perhaps first and maybe the adult child was reacting to the demand.  I don’t think I can tag OP, but it is possible that even OP would tell the story differently if we request more detail— sort of like the adult child and the touch problem at work.  

@Home'scool  not sure this is right tag - are you OP?   If so could you clarify?

 

[Corraleno]

58 minutes ago, Pen said:

It sounded like it was the opposite— in that for example the adult child was demanding that the parent vote the way the child demanded or not vote at all.

Or maybe the child, who had recently experienced sexual harassment by someone touching her without consent and making derogatory comments about women, was upset that her parent supported a candidate who bragged about touching women without consent and referred to women as fat, ugly, dogs, and pigs. In the same way that an LGBT child might be upset at a parent voting for someone who wants to take away their right to marry.  Or a DACA child might be upset about a parent voting for a candidate that wants them deported. Sometimes what seems like an abstract or even unimportant policy position to one person feels like a literal threat to the safety of someone else. And I can totally understand why a child would be quite distraught at the idea of a parent supporting a candidate that they felt would literally make them less safe in the world.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Corraleno

[Pen]

 

26 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Or a DACA child might be upset about a parent voting for a candidate that wants them deported.

Some of your hypotheticals might possibly apply to @Home'scool‘s daughter.  

Some like the quoted one seem fairly unlikely.

Maybe @Home'scoolwill clarify the situation. 

 

 

[Scarlett]

On 11/5/2020 at 7:40 PM, Tanaqui said:

 

Good for you, but you sound super unkind right now.

@MercyAYou never sound unkind to me. I get your point completely.  @Tanaqui this isn’t directed to you but I thought it a good place to insert my own comments and experiences. I am 55, so I have lived through a lot of phases in my life.  I have had my bottom slapped in the hallways by fellow students, and by a boss one time at work when I was 16.  And a guitar teacher grabbed my breasts while showing me something on the guitar. And a distant much older cousin tried to kiss me when I was 16!  Ugh!  There were more incidents in my life but I doubt you all want me to keep listing them.  I told my mom about all of those incidents....well probably not the boys in the hallway because it was just so much a part of the culture it wasnt worth mentioning....the other things felt like violations to me.  Anyway, mom was always righteously indignant and never asked me what or if I had done to deserve it....and so that was all the therapy I needed.

Fast forward to my mid 30s when I was almost raped in my own bed in my own home with my 2 year old sleeping across the hall.  It was another of those ‘guests wandering around going to the bathroom’.  Thank God my brother was there and saw this kid go off toward my bedroom and sent then husband to check on me. I was sound asleep and woke up to my husband standing in the door way and someone groping me in my bed.  Chaos ensued.  I am not sure how no one died that night.  My husband spent years blaming me for that night, accusing me of planning that etc.  threatening to tell my mom and best friend.  In hindsight I can see the insanity of it all....but it was about 7 years of me being traumatized by it.  But the thing is I wasn’t traumatized by the event.  A 21 year old kid got in bed with me and ran his hands down my body and I woke up and he jumped out and ran away.  I got over that.  What I couldnt get over was being blamed for it by the person who was suppose to be in my corner.   
 

And I see that theme here.....people are traumatized  and need therapy when they have no one to be outraged and say OMG that creep! That was not your fault! 
 

When I caught my now xh in an affair and was divorcing him he actually tried to blackmail me with that incident where *i* was almost raped.  SMH.  I went straight to all of the important people in my life and told them the whole story and you know what they said?  OMG that creep! That was not your fault!

xh even had his slime ball female attorney bring it up to me when I was on the stand. I was perfectly composed and not rattled at all.  
 

So when a young woman feels violated by a man touching her waist.....I can agree that it is not sexual assault or maybe not even sexual harassment but it is inappropriate and she needs her people to assure her of that. 

[Scarlett]

And FTR, I can remember feeling completely violated by a workplace superior who neither said a word or touched me.  He was one of the owners of the company I worked for and he latched on to me  the day he walked in to our business.  That is a job I probably should have quit.  
 

One time he told me he had been sent for ‘training’ and he learned he could say ‘ that is a beautiful dress Scarlett’, but that he could not say ‘ you look really good in that dress Scarlett’.  Honestly it didn’t matter what he said, I and everyone else knew what he was thinking. 
 

He was charismatic, powerful to my world and completely infatuated with me.  It was a weird time. 

[Corraleno]

46 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Some of your hypotheticals might possibly apply to @Home'scool‘s daughter.  

Some like the quoted one seem fairly unlikely.

Maybe @Home'scoolwill clarify the situation. 

 

 

I don't think the OP's daughter is DACA, I was just giving examples of issues that might seem minor or inconsequential to one person, but which might make another person feel totally betrayed to know that a loved one voted for a candidate whose policies would make them less safe in the world.

[Scarlett]

Am I the only one who is MUCH more traumatized by things I have done that I regret  than  things that were done to me?  When I lie awake at night I rehash what I have done to others.... not what was done to me.

[Frances]

7 hours ago, Little Green Leaves said:

I love the way you put this. I both agree and disagree.

Obviously I agree that we shouldn't push past each other's clearly-expressed boundaries. That helps nobody.

At the same time, I often feel frustrated that I can't talk to people about politics without it turning into an emotionally-charged conversation. I wish that it was possible to have more argument and debate. These days, it so often seems that when we talk about politics, we're either whole-heartedly agreeing with each other, or we're a bit frightened by our differences and need to retreat behind our fences. 

 

It seems to me that when I was younger, talking about politics (at least on the left) meant talking about the economy, foreign policy, war, wages...whereas now, talking about politics often means talking about personhood and being erased. I don't know. I'm aware that these are important things to talk about, but I also think it's inevitably going to create strong emotions and make debate really hard. Disagreement can easily be taken as insult. 

I think I might be missing out on something. I often wonder why I'm experiencing this frustration; I do find it frustrating. It's not a generational thing, either; I'm finding this with people (not my closest friends, but people who are somewhere between friends and acquaintances) who are either my age, or 5-10 years older or younger. 

This is interesting. I talk about politics a lot and don’t think I’ve ever had a talk about personhood or being erased. But maybe I’m not completely understanding what the terms mean.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Or maybe the child, who had recently experienced sexual harassment by someone touching her without consent and making derogatory comments about women, was upset that her parent supported a candidate who bragged about touching women without consent and referred to women as fat, ugly, dogs, and pigs. In the same way that an LGBT child might be upset at a parent voting for someone who wants to take away their right to marry.  Or a DACA child might be upset about a parent voting for a candidate that wants them deported. Sometimes what seems like an abstract or even unimportant policy position to one person feels like a literal threat to the safety of someone else. And I can totally understand why a child would be quite distraught at the idea of a parent supporting a candidate that they felt would literally make them less safe in the world.

Or a child raised in a Christian home and taught all their life about the importance of Christian standards and behaviors is now distraught and confused because they can’t comprehend how their parents can vote for someone who personifies the opposite of what they have been told is so fundamental, especially when they see others with similar beliefs drawing a firm line in the sand.

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I can remember feeling completely violated by a workplace superior who neither said a word or touched me

I think this is a really important point and one of the reasons why I find it so problematic when people dismiss something like touching a woman's waist at work as NBD — it was brief, waists aren't sexual, maybe it was an accident, etc. It presumes that the impact of the harassment is restricted to the moment of contact, and if it was brief, or not explicitly sexual, then why get upset about it? 

But sexual harassment is actually more about power than it is about sex, it's about one person using their power to make another person feel small and powerless, and it creates a whole atmosphere that is stressful and oppressive and can pervade an entire office or college class or whatever.  I have had to work with men like this, and it sucks up a lot of emotional energy to make sure you're not alone in a room, or not assigned to work on the same project late at night, or just having to deal with subtle innuendo or smirking 

And even when it's not the same person over and over, having the same thing happen multiple times in multiple environmenst (like a daily commute on public transit, or sitting in a bar with friends while guys hit on you or try to rub against you as they walk past, etc.) can make you feel really on edge and vulnerable. What can seem like a "minor" incident taken in isolation can be really stressful and upsetting and make someone feel unsafe when looked at in the larger context. And when a young woman tells a trusted female friend or relative about it, only to have their feelings dismissed, it can make them feel even less safe.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Corraleno

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I think this is a really important point and one of the reasons why I find it so problematic when people dismiss something like touching a woman's waist at work as NBD — it was brief, waists aren't sexual, maybe it was an accident, etc. It presumes that the impact of the harassment is restricted to the moment of contact, and if it was brief, or not explicitly sexual, then why get upset about it? 

But sexual harassment is actually more about power than it is about sex, it's about one person using their power to make another person feel small and powerless, and it creates a whole atmosphere that is stressful and oppressive and can pervade an entire office or college class or whatever.  I have had to work with men like this, and it sucks up a lot of emotional energy to make sure you're not alone in a room, or not assigned to work on the same project late at night, or just having to deal with subtle innuendo or smirking 

And even when it's not the same person over and over, having the same thing happen multiple times in the same environment (like a daily commute on public transit, or sitting in a bar with friends while guys hit on you or try to rub against you as they walk past, etc.) can make you feel really on edge and vulnerable. What can seem like a "minor" incident taken in isolation can be really stressful and upsetting and make someone feel unsafe when looked at in the larger context. And when a young woman tells a trusted female friend or relative about it, only to have their feelings dismissed, it can make them feel even less safe.

Yes.  Your point is valid.  And at the same time I did not feel unsafe. I  knew he was being inappropriate...and that I was benefiting some ways from his attachment to me.     I shrugged off a lot...I dealt with a lot of office politics that prejudged the situation.