Saturday, March 21, 2009

Passive Aggression

When I hear the words "passive-aggressive" it seems to me like its said negatively. As though this is a bad way to share your anger or annoyance with someone. I suppose it is healthier to confront someone and discuss your problems like an adult - of course this requires that both parties act like adults. For great examples of passive aggression check the passive-aggressive notes website. Personally I'm not big on confrontation. Partially because I blow things out of proportion "what if s/he yells at me or hates me and then we will have all this awkwardness and then they won't be my friend anymore". But, also I think I've learned its easier because I've dealt with people who it was not possible to discuss things with in a mature manner.

I do feel better when the issue is brought up front in the open and whoever and I can discuss it calmly and reasonably. But, there are some issues that I do not think can be calmly discussed. Or, at least not with all people. These are of course children, god/religion and weight. Like "Maybe if you didn't eat so much at church functions you wouldn't be as fat as your damn kid". No, thats just plain aggressive... no passive there.

I suppose the verdict is open dialogue is best, except when concerning god, weight or baby flushing - in which case we tip toe around it or avoid it all together. I mean um, population control...

1 comment:

  1. The words "passive aggressive" are usually said with a negative tone because it is usually such a negative behavior. Issues that haunt in the background are much better dealt with out in front, even if sometimes it gets a little confrontational. Then all the cards are out on the table and at least everyone understands how everyone else feels.


which is more important? i.e. which would you choose at the exclusion of the other?