The emotion of "anger" is rapidly becoming politically incorrect. In its place we find people increasingly acting out passive aggression (which is readily practiced as an outlet, and is just as real a manifestation of anger). Problem is, it's insidious and insipid and weak.
I am not a fan of outrage, meanness, bullying. Nor do I have a personal problem with "anger." That is, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, but if I do get angry, I don't want to be made to feel like I have a social disease. Just be sure I am not some angry guy trying to justify his issues (!) ...
What I am saying is that by regulating away overt anger, we are denying our human nature, trying to snuff it out as a dictate of the "thought police," (READ: those who are attempting to force a PC agenda). Like it or not, anger is an authentic and inherent manifestation of human nature. While it needs to be controlled, and not allowed to run its full course, it will happen.
Anger cannot be manipulated and guilted into non-existence, no matter how much some people wish it were possible. And if you attempt to repress or suppress anger, it will find a way to show itself anyway.
It's like implementing prohibition on the human psyche. And while yes, effects of alcohol abuse were ugly, Prohibition did nothing to solve the problem!
I realize this touches on the nature vs. nurture debate. I believe in both factors, not one or the other. There are groups that believe all behavior is a social construct. Social anthropologist Margaret Mead has been quoted by one such organization to lend support to this supposition. I am told she was taken out of context, and in any case let it be stated clearly: Human Nature exists, and it is "hard-wired."
This blog does not pretend to be comprehensive. I will touch on some factors, and say the question bears further study ...
###
From whence did the social phenomenon of denying anger as acceptable, and implementation of a weak substitute, passive aggression arise?
Since the beginning of time there have been dueling sensibilities between yin and yang, male and female, weak and strong, good and evil...
Passive aggression comes from what was considered a "woman's" mindset. Men practice it well too, but the spirit of it is weak and feminine by traditional definitions.
It has become commonplace as a manifestation of the shift in power between men and women (empowering women is a good thing certainly, but this issue in question is one point men essentially have capitulated to when they should have stuck to their guns, if you'll pardon the phrase...).
Historically, women in this culture have not been given opportunity to act out aggression or anger and were limited by a number of internal and external constraints: Namely, women are usually much weaker, smaller, less able to back up anger in a fist fight. Enough said on that one. Secondly, it was considered undignified or unladylike or not desirable for a woman to act overtly aggressively. It was a turn-off to men in times past at least, if not the present.
Poor women. They really were boxed into a corner, because the natural tendency for anger is equally strong in females as in males! What to do? Passive aggression, manipulation, head games ... stuff like that.
Today's world has put men in much the same position as women. In part, we can thank the coercive affect of radical feminism, and men's culpability and complicity (A whole subject in itself). In a sense, men today are systematically gelded. And it probably is their own fault.
Want answers why? ...
One part of the equation: In certain circles (PC ones) it is considered a weak or wrong-headed person who lets his frustration show, much less cause him to resort to anything approaching or suggestive of physical confrontation. Such behavior has connotations of being a bully. Further, a smart-witted person can win in a civilized world by his or her wits, right? (This is a sensibility that immediately appeals to women who have ultimately learned to think that way having had few viable alternative options.)
Essentially, say anti-overt anger advocates: If a man feels injured or offended or wronged, in some way, it is not an option to behave aggressively, or even to very plainly express his displeasure or frustration. Any outright show of anger is suggestive of physical confrontation. And we all know that is out of the question, right? That would be seen as taking advantage of physical size which is not only unfair, it is brutal, ego-centric, and ultimately, non-egalitarian. (In most cases, this is correct which is why the argument has such potent appeal. There are however wiser, nobler, more honorable and civil ways of dealing with confrontation besides the extremes of knocking someone's head off, or passive aggression. This could be a subject for another post ...)
Back to the subject at hand: While I am no advocate of settling things physically, we have taken this mentality to the point where any expression of behavior in which a threat may be interpreted is prohibited and frowned upon.
It is as though the one who feels offended finds himself blamed because he is angry, while the person who did something that obviously riled his sense of fair-play is free from accountability.
How ironic. Does this smack of emotional injustice? Even so, never let them see how you really feel is the lesson being enforced.
The net result is men must fight like girls.
In part, they must do so if they want female approval (and they do, which hints at part of how this mess came upon us).
Now, especially in today's metropolitan/corporate/what-have-you social environments, if men get mad, they must never show rage or anger. Instead, the "smart" man must go underground. From there he may seek revenge, or harbor resentment, or stew and fuss, and look for opportunity either overtly or subconsciously to exact retribution.
Or, alternatively he may "get over it." This might be some form of repression or denial, or he may truly reconcile it inside himself. This last option stems from a philosophy mandating to "let it go." (This is Buddhist derived, calling for no attachments.) Or he may forgive someone and mean it. (This is what Christians espouse.)
(NOTE: In the ideological landscape that is America at large, there are many competing and sometimes complementary philosophies floating out there. Some advocate one or another option or attitude, or all or none. In this age of global communications, the free-flow, and cross-pollination of ideas, and thoughts is rapidly changing the landscape.)
Back to passive aggression: Phrases such as "revenge is a dish best served cold" come to mind, as does "don't get mad, get even." These phrases were popular in the 80s and 90s and helped justify and have evolved into the openly acceptable practice of the catty, passive aggressive mentality.
SIDENOTE: "Catty" is an interesting phrase too: It's a metaphor based on an observation of cats. Think literally of the self-centered, me-first cat. A cat has been known to scratch the eyes out even of one who feeds it – if that person rubs it the wrong way. To you cat-lovers, I'll say not all cats are like this. Call it a tendency. Say it is only true of "ill-mannered" cats, or what ever ...
Be this as it may, catty is a metaphor with implicit female connotations, though men can be catty too.
And also, while on the subject, why do we employ the metaphor "pus*sy?" (Excuse me if this offends; I am not trying to sound vile). As an alternate term for a cat, the word is an idiomatic sister to "catty." It describes more than a sexual organ, it is also descriptive of a mindset, an attitude, a way of acting, feeling, etc. The connotations are not of strength or integrity. They implicitly speak of weakness and of acting aggressively from a place of weakness.
Of further interest is that the concept of "nobility" (or behaving from a place of very high integrity) is implied as existing by the speaking of its opposite: i.e., Be a pus*sy, and you are weak, not assertive or strong. Not in the moral right.
But does that stop anyone any more? Nope. We can give the finger from our cars without even being too distracted from our conversations on our cell phones any time we want ...
To try to come to grasp with these things further, consider that in a "handicapped" situation (as in physical or mental weakness), in order to "win" any confrontation, one must be more cunning, if not conniving and deceptive. Sleight-of-hand whether mentally or in-fact must be employed. No one can win in a one-on-one evenly matched fight if they are weaker and smaller and slower – whether physically, mentally, emotionally or economically.
So a catty mindset employs passive aggression, and other similar tricks.
It's not exactly like the martial arts. The martial arts are an example of overcoming greater force with finesse and brilliance. They also require immense personal discipline and rely on other laws to overcome. Not so with passive aggression. There is usually little grace or beauty associated with a "win" by a catty, passive aggressive person who puts one over on another. It was never a fair fight.
Sadly, the things I describe are shallow, small and treacherous. Results of passive aggression are often further rage and counter-reaction that perpetuates its practice.
I wish we could be wiser. I wish we could be more noble and enlightened and learn what it takes to make peace and a civilization we can be proud of. That is why I write this.
In this world, the world of rapidly shifting ideological mindsets, it seems to be a time of confusion.
Are we in a shake-out process in society? Are we sure the best will survive? Are we so sure we are becoming "better" as a culture? Is noble-mindedness assured its place as our highest goal in the long-run?
How can it when we can no longer even define noble behavior or thinking?
For that matter, what can we define? Good? Evil? Right? Wrong? Situational ethics and radically diverse if not divisive standards all compete with the traditional.
Who can say?
All I can do is speak now. If I believe it – and I do – it is my moral obligation.
Qualifier:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am always willing to be wrong. I have no axe to grind. I hate no one. My intentions are peace, harmony, understanding, congeniality and respect. I reserve the right to amend, or qualify anything I say in this blog. No one is perfect, least of all me. That said, I publish what I believe up to the moment, but as a student of life and the truth, I am always willing to learn. Peace. -J
Thursday, October 4, 2007
We The People
An editorial I wrote; published Aug. 15, 2007 in a local newspaper in the Philly suburbs
Does life sometimes seem too stressful?
Do the 253-plus (and counting) murders in Philadelphia this year make you wonder what society is coming to?
Or how about increased road rage or corporate and governmental corruption or pervasive fraud?
If things feel a little out of control, you're not alone.
But what can we do?
Do you think Hillary or Barack Obama is going to fix America?
I'm not betting on it.
A new president can help, but ultimately we are living in a world of our own making.
As a democracy, this nation was founded on numerous factors required to make it work.
I'd like to focus on one: the value of individual character.
America was created around the power of individuals, while implicitly stating we should hold ourselves accountable.
The Revolutionary colonists justified breaking from the British Crown, declaring it had forfeited its right to have a say because it was morally and ethically compromised.
They said they stood for something better and agreed upon virtues, including graciousness, fairness, kindness, concern for others, loyalty, not trying to bend the rules, lawfulness, etc.
The other day someone told me of his friend's recent trip to Japan.
She was shocked to learn that if someone sets her handbag down on a subway, no one will touch it. Or if someone did lose it, people would make every effort to return it with all money and cards intact.
Wow.
Some have that mentality here, but what if almost everyone did?
In the 70s, my grandfather used to tell me "America is the greatest country in the world."
His generation believed that.
Did they know something that maybe is being lost?
It's been said it's too bad the "Bill of Rights" did not come also with a "bill of personal responsibilities."
But at the time no one knew it was necessary.
We basically no longer have "The Church" or strong family structures or clear societal standards molding behavior.
We are much more free to dance to the beat of our own personal drummer.
Freedoms have increased, but have personal responsibilities?
My mom taught me my "rights" end where another person's begin. This agrees with the "The Golden Rule."
This simple ethic says, "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
All religions and creeds have some variation.
In this civilization, with so many freedoms, we have to be able to trust our fellow citizen does not mean us harm.
Also ruled out are ethics that justify overt selfishness.
I know this may sound naïve or idealistic, but if it is, so were the Founding Fathers.
Do you remember their assurance of "unalienable rights," in the Declaration of Independence? It means no one should infringe upon your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If we agree to play nice, we can go to the movies and not have people cut in line or talk loudly during the show. We can have property and not worry someone will steal it. We can (today) have the Internet and not have our identity taken and credit ruined. We can send our kids to school and not worry whether their teacher is a sexual predator.
I am very aware that dishonesty and crime have always been with us!
But it seems fraud, murder, theft, corruption and other emotionally stressful challenges are so pervasive all while the teaching of "human dignity" and "the sanctity of life" seems so absent in some quarters.
What are these video games where kids visualize being criminals, killing people and running from the cops?
When in this country's history did you have to worry about "dissing" a 14-year-old, because he or she might come after you with a gun?
I believe these are markers of our society's health.
What do we do? Make more laws? Hire more cops? Go back to living in castles?
How about we talk about causes, not just react to their affects?
Wanna play a game? Let's agree just for a while to only discuss our own power to do good.
It's easy to scream about Dick Cheney, or Ken Lay, or Michael Vick, or the Radnor Township School Board [which is alleged by some to skirt the edge of ethics], but we don't have control over their consciences.
We do, however, have control over our own.
Why am I telling this to you? You say you are a good person?
Of course you are. That's why I'm telling you.
Maybe while we're chatting, you'd also like to take my personal integrity
test.
No one but you will know how you score.
Ready?
Here it is: If you could get away with "it," would you?
No matter what "it" is.
That is, if your better self tells you something is wrong, but you could do it and have zero consequences, would you? For example, if you could claim you were hurt when you weren't and get money from an insurance company, would you? If you could take cash from a bank without being arrested, would you? If you could make a killing in the market on an insider's tip without the SEC finding out, would you? Would you lie if you could not get caught? Would you cheat on a test if no one knew? Would you eat something for sale
at the market because you knew personnel would look the other way?
Would you have sex with someone – even if you're married – if your secret could stay
with you? Is there ANYTHING that if you could get away with it, you would?
At any price?
In some cases people might ask, "What does "it" hurt?"
I'd answer, "What if it happened to you?"
Now before you think I'm running for sainthood, I'm not.
I've not always been a good boy.
That's not the issue.
I simply believe "what goes around comes around." Call it "karma," or "reaping what you sow."
Even if I think I can "get away with it," I never really can.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will haunt me.
It's beginning to dawn on me that who I am revolves around motives, and what I value.
Wouldn't you prefer I feel this way?
After all, if I am "all about me," then how much could I care about you?
And if it¹s true for me, it's true for everyone.
Want to poke holes in my theory? Go ahead.
As for me, I know I have choices. It feels good to at least try to take the high road.
And not whitewash it when I don't.
It's not about how people perceive me. It's about knowing at the end of the
day I really cared, really tried to do my best.
Why?
I believe The United States consists of We the People.
What would happen if everyone took this to heart?
Does life sometimes seem too stressful?
Do the 253-plus (and counting) murders in Philadelphia this year make you wonder what society is coming to?
Or how about increased road rage or corporate and governmental corruption or pervasive fraud?
If things feel a little out of control, you're not alone.
But what can we do?
Do you think Hillary or Barack Obama is going to fix America?
I'm not betting on it.
A new president can help, but ultimately we are living in a world of our own making.
As a democracy, this nation was founded on numerous factors required to make it work.
I'd like to focus on one: the value of individual character.
America was created around the power of individuals, while implicitly stating we should hold ourselves accountable.
The Revolutionary colonists justified breaking from the British Crown, declaring it had forfeited its right to have a say because it was morally and ethically compromised.
They said they stood for something better and agreed upon virtues, including graciousness, fairness, kindness, concern for others, loyalty, not trying to bend the rules, lawfulness, etc.
The other day someone told me of his friend's recent trip to Japan.
She was shocked to learn that if someone sets her handbag down on a subway, no one will touch it. Or if someone did lose it, people would make every effort to return it with all money and cards intact.
Wow.
Some have that mentality here, but what if almost everyone did?
In the 70s, my grandfather used to tell me "America is the greatest country in the world."
His generation believed that.
Did they know something that maybe is being lost?
It's been said it's too bad the "Bill of Rights" did not come also with a "bill of personal responsibilities."
But at the time no one knew it was necessary.
We basically no longer have "The Church" or strong family structures or clear societal standards molding behavior.
We are much more free to dance to the beat of our own personal drummer.
Freedoms have increased, but have personal responsibilities?
My mom taught me my "rights" end where another person's begin. This agrees with the "The Golden Rule."
This simple ethic says, "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
All religions and creeds have some variation.
In this civilization, with so many freedoms, we have to be able to trust our fellow citizen does not mean us harm.
Also ruled out are ethics that justify overt selfishness.
I know this may sound naïve or idealistic, but if it is, so were the Founding Fathers.
Do you remember their assurance of "unalienable rights," in the Declaration of Independence? It means no one should infringe upon your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If we agree to play nice, we can go to the movies and not have people cut in line or talk loudly during the show. We can have property and not worry someone will steal it. We can (today) have the Internet and not have our identity taken and credit ruined. We can send our kids to school and not worry whether their teacher is a sexual predator.
I am very aware that dishonesty and crime have always been with us!
But it seems fraud, murder, theft, corruption and other emotionally stressful challenges are so pervasive all while the teaching of "human dignity" and "the sanctity of life" seems so absent in some quarters.
What are these video games where kids visualize being criminals, killing people and running from the cops?
When in this country's history did you have to worry about "dissing" a 14-year-old, because he or she might come after you with a gun?
I believe these are markers of our society's health.
What do we do? Make more laws? Hire more cops? Go back to living in castles?
How about we talk about causes, not just react to their affects?
Wanna play a game? Let's agree just for a while to only discuss our own power to do good.
It's easy to scream about Dick Cheney, or Ken Lay, or Michael Vick, or the Radnor Township School Board [which is alleged by some to skirt the edge of ethics], but we don't have control over their consciences.
We do, however, have control over our own.
Why am I telling this to you? You say you are a good person?
Of course you are. That's why I'm telling you.
Maybe while we're chatting, you'd also like to take my personal integrity
test.
No one but you will know how you score.
Ready?
Here it is: If you could get away with "it," would you?
No matter what "it" is.
That is, if your better self tells you something is wrong, but you could do it and have zero consequences, would you? For example, if you could claim you were hurt when you weren't and get money from an insurance company, would you? If you could take cash from a bank without being arrested, would you? If you could make a killing in the market on an insider's tip without the SEC finding out, would you? Would you lie if you could not get caught? Would you cheat on a test if no one knew? Would you eat something for sale
at the market because you knew personnel would look the other way?
Would you have sex with someone – even if you're married – if your secret could stay
with you? Is there ANYTHING that if you could get away with it, you would?
At any price?
In some cases people might ask, "What does "it" hurt?"
I'd answer, "What if it happened to you?"
Now before you think I'm running for sainthood, I'm not.
I've not always been a good boy.
That's not the issue.
I simply believe "what goes around comes around." Call it "karma," or "reaping what you sow."
Even if I think I can "get away with it," I never really can.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will haunt me.
It's beginning to dawn on me that who I am revolves around motives, and what I value.
Wouldn't you prefer I feel this way?
After all, if I am "all about me," then how much could I care about you?
And if it¹s true for me, it's true for everyone.
Want to poke holes in my theory? Go ahead.
As for me, I know I have choices. It feels good to at least try to take the high road.
And not whitewash it when I don't.
It's not about how people perceive me. It's about knowing at the end of the
day I really cared, really tried to do my best.
Why?
I believe The United States consists of We the People.
What would happen if everyone took this to heart?
First post: a mental tune-up, etc.
I write for a living. My degree is in journalism, and I use it. This however, is for fun, and edification, and to discuss observations I have. I will not edit it to the Nth degree, but if it reads OK, I'll let it fly.
Since I was a kid, I have been fascinated by what would be described as sociology. I liked to study people, and contemplate lots of things, usually on my own, without a lot of outside influence.
Ground rules:
I am a believer in congenial discourse, and not accepting of disrespectful, rude, snarly, snarky, mean-spirited or otherwise attitudes in discussing things.
I am a believer in congenial discourse, and not accepting of disrespectful, rude, snarly, snarky, mean-spirited or otherwise attitudes in discussing things.
The assumption here is I am as intellectually honest as I know how to be, and assume you wish to be also. No game playing, only "forthrightness," as this blog is named.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat, though have voted for both parties in elections.
I cannot help noticing (actually, the cultural shifts are screaming at me on every front) that we are in a time of ideological upheaval.
Much divisiveness and anger and quick-responding (reactive and mean) rhetoric is being cast about these days, and I really wonder what motivates some people. Is it to propagate the "truth" to the best of their ability? In some cases, yes, in others, I have doubts.
Much divisiveness and anger and quick-responding (reactive and mean) rhetoric is being cast about these days, and I really wonder what motivates some people. Is it to propagate the "truth" to the best of their ability? In some cases, yes, in others, I have doubts.
In any case, cooler heads must prevail. Intellectual and emotional honesty is a non-negotiable MUST!
Do you want the truth and to live a life of integrity and happiness and fulfillment? Do you want America to continue as a great nation? Do you believe it starts with you and me, here, now?
If so, great, let's continue. If not, you probably won't like what I have to say, and I probably won't want to hear what you think either.
If so, great, let's continue. If not, you probably won't like what I have to say, and I probably won't want to hear what you think either.
I operate under the premise that a "good life is possible." People often settle and sell themselves short. Or they do not think things through. This is true of individuals and people collectively.
I believe in a world of enlightened living. Not one empty and shallow and that operates from a place of weakness. (NOTE: I hesitate to use ideologically loaded phrases, or "talking points," or buzz words coined by spin masters. For instance, just because I said "enlightened," does not mean I am advocating from a Buddhist or other ideological slant. I think for myself, and believe many disciplines have something to offer. Ultimately, my orientation is Christian, but I am no fan of the "Religious Right," or any of those politicos. You never met someone like me, I don't think, so don't think you can pigeonhole me so easily ...)
I believe in a world of enlightened living. Not one empty and shallow and that operates from a place of weakness. (NOTE: I hesitate to use ideologically loaded phrases, or "talking points," or buzz words coined by spin masters. For instance, just because I said "enlightened," does not mean I am advocating from a Buddhist or other ideological slant. I think for myself, and believe many disciplines have something to offer. Ultimately, my orientation is Christian, but I am no fan of the "Religious Right," or any of those politicos. You never met someone like me, I don't think, so don't think you can pigeonhole me so easily ...)
In successive posts I hope to discuss things for honest people who love discovering what is true. I hate perversity. It does not serve. It does not yield long-lasting harmony in any aspect or sense. My assumption is you are the same.
Peace. Respect. Understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
