Sticks and Stones may Break My Bones…

[hsifeng]

…but refusing to back down when you are being treated like crap generally ensures that those missiles get aimed at a more passive target in the future.

More on the concept that accepting bad treatment without responce is BS here.

Fav quote, “I once spent an hour in religion class being told that the pain I felt when someone insulted me was actually my fault, because I chose to get angry and be hurt. That's when I figured out that if you write "TURN THE OTHER CHEEK" on a piece of magical Paper of Uncomfortable Truths and hold it in front of a mirror, it reads "BLAME THE VICTIM."”

Now, where do I get the goo-gone to unstick all these damn Nerf corners from the rough edges of the world?

Comments

[love3angle.livejournal.com]

I used to get into argument with my boss over this stuff. He'd say that you are the only one in control of your experience, as if all life happens in a bubble. I'd say then he can control if he gets hurt when poke him in the eye with a stick? He'd say I was being absurd. *sheesh*

We have completely lost the concept of balance in our culture. It takes two to tango and both parties are responsible for the interaction. If someone mistreats me, they are responsible for that behavior. I am responsible for my reaction, whether it is to shrink away or stand up for myself. I accept that responsibility and decide in each case which battles are worth fighting, but I do NOT accept responsibility for their bad behavior as some sort of "manifestation of my need to be treated badly" bullshit.

It's a two party transaction.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Action and reaction, both are within the personal control of the people participating. The idea that the reaction must somehow be formulated to be “nicer” than the action? Total. Horsepucky.

I can choose to overlook someone’s idiotically bad behavior. Or I can choose to bludgeon them over the head with it. Both responses are equally legit.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?

Sure. So long as everyone understands that I fully expect that folks who I treat badly (it happens) to smack me upside my idjit head if they feel the need. And I will do the same.

[love3angle.livejournal.com]

I'll go even farther and say the even in the two-party transaction, the initiator has more responsibility. I wouldn't need to gauge my reaction if you hadn't been an asshole in the first place.

I love the phrase that the definition of "crazy" is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. I'm a fan of trying something and if it doesn't work try something else.

If your kid tells you they're being treated badly, takes your advice, and tells you they're still being treated badly, DON'T TELL THEM TO DO THE SAME THING. *sheesh* They're not the one doing something wrong.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

*nods in agreement*

[docryder.livejournal.com]

A little historical info on "turning the other cheek", a Biblical phrase...

When a conqueror goes to slap a conquered foe, he usually does it with his left hand (as the right hand bears a weapon or a whip), striking with the back of the hand. By "turning the other cheek", you make the blow ineffective by deflecting the angle of impact. It was telling the Jew to turn to make the blow difficult to deliver, not be a doormat.

On a different note:

Dr. Phil likes to say "we teach people how to treat us", and the more I experience, the more I come to believe he's correct. That's not to say an abusive person is without sin, but neither are we if we accept poor treatment. In fact, by that statement, NOT standing up for yourself is, essentially, the greater sin.

"He who angers you, controls you" is EXACTLY right and true, if you simply react with anger and vehemence. I know from where I speak, as I have a bad temper and often allow my anger to get the best of me. Again, it's a phrase that needs to be placed in context, the context of a conquered people. Acting out of anger when you're enslaved or otherwise conquered can be lethal. Better to control your response and live to revolt, using the anger instead of being used by it. Again, this and the above are examples of how the Scriptures get taken out of context in the modern world.

What I'm trying to do more lately is when I get angry to use the anger as drive to accomplish something. In the political arenas, I realize I'm only one voice. Unfortunately, in personal situations, I am too quick to give authority over my life to others, which makes speaking up difficult. Other times, I simply find the stupidity of the person I'm in conflict with to be to overwhelming to be worth my energy to fight over. You do sometimes have to pick your battles.

Anger can be a tool, or it can tool you, and that is your choice. You can choose to be a victim or not.

[evil-fionn.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting your comment.
I get extremely irritated when the scriptures are quoted and taken out of context of historical and social implications.
The way I've always looked at "turning the other cheek" is that I only have two of them. Treating me poorly once might be the result of you having a bad day, or just being an inconsiderate idiot.
Treating me badly TWICE reveals a pattern of behavior that I am not required to stand for.
So I've always looked at turning the other cheek as a way to prevent an automatic explosion against a slight, when no slight was intended, and escalating a situation that didn't need to be escalated... yet.
Bullying, however, I won't stand for, mainly because I view bullying as evidence of a mental pathology. By "pathology" I mean a deviation from normal that constitutes a disease. There is something sick and wrong with a person who can engage in that kind of behavior. Just like a disease, bullying infects others, and the only way to prevent it from doing so is to isolate it and eradicate it, as quickly as possible.
You don't do that by ignoring it and pretending it doesn't affect you, as some seem to think and teach their children.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

You don't do that by ignoring it and pretending it doesn't affect you, as some seem to think and teach their children.

Exactly.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

“That's not to say an abusive person is without sin, but neither are we if we accept poor treatment. In fact, by that statement, NOT standing up for yourself is, essentially, the greater sin.”

I agree with most of this statement, but I cannot justify thinking that the person being attacked is somehow more at fault than the person doing the attacking. It’s a bit too much like victim blaming to me.

“Now Susi, you know that you shouldn’t let him treat you like that…”

Conversely, the asshat in question simply shouldn’t be treating people in a crappy manner in the first place. Then Susi could just live her life.

BTW - Thank you for the historical perspective on the 'cheek' quote!

[frrom.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I also went and read (most of) the entry/comments you linked to. I live somewhere in between. I truly believe that you cede control to others when you let them control your response to something, but there is also a limit to how far that works. For instance, if someone runs my family over with their car, deliberately or not, I would likely wind up in jail for how I choose to respond. If someone acts cruelly towards me, then I may or may not react with anger - it depends on a lot of things. If someone cuts me off on the road, I will likely comment on how they are acting like a jerk and let it go. Of course, each of those responses is not straight-forward, but you hopefully get the point.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

I think most of us live 'in between' on our response scale. What I (and it seems the original author) object to is the idea that the *only* proper response to negative behavior is passive/non-reactionary.

To this, I simply say, “No”. I may choose to be passive, courteous and or non-reactionary. I may choose to stand my ground or even get pissed. I simply don’t accept a black-and-white reality where only one side of this coin is ever acceptable.

[shadowd1.livejournal.com]

recently a student worker went crying into a colleagues office because the faculty member she was working with yelled at her and treated her like shit. later that day the faculty member came over, and in front of me told my colleague he didn't do anything wrong; that the student worker chose to cry and she was at fault. i walked away angry stating, "you don't want me here right now." my colleague got appropriately angry with the faculty member and dressed him down. he didn't try to justify his actions after that. and, i hope it sinks in the real cause of the hurt was his actions. we react for a reason, and sometimes it is very appropriate to be angry and hurt.

[hsifeng.livejournal.com]

This. This is the kind of BS justification of, "well, they didn't have to be hurt by what I did" that I am talking about.

I'd rather that these folks just be honest and say, "I don't care if the person I said that to is hurt. It's their problem because it doesn't matter to me, not because it shouldn't matter to them."

Really, that is more honest than saying that one's actions shouldn't cause someone else to react.