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

[dragonladyflame]

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

Comments

[heliograph]

I can honestly say I'm never passive-aggressive, and that's because I'm active-aggressive: I tell people what I think and I don't filter much, which on the good side means friends and associates always know where I stand and that I don't have some hidden agenda, but on the bad side it sometimes makes me look like an abrasive asshole (though if I appear to be an abrasive asshole...). My friends appreciate it, but there's always an adjustment period for people who aren't used to my unique comedy stylings. This is especially problematic on industry e-mail lists.

In my view PA is more about poor communication (as agnoster said). PA is when someone doesn't want to do something but won't say so, but instead goes the sulky/non-communicative route and you just know they'll complain about it endlessly later.

"I dunno. I tend to think there could be a lot of situations in which there's no clear solution."

That's because you're a girl ;-) With enough testosterone, you're always sure there's a solution: yours.

[dragonladyflame]

Speaking of gender, it's interesting how the gender divide has worked out on this post. Guy commenters seem in favour of the "clear communication solves everything" approach. Girl commenters seem to agree with this, but caution that sometimes so-called "clear communication" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Maybe women are more so-called passive-aggressive than men (as one commenter further down explicitly accuses us of being). But I think this is probably more because women dislike confrontation more, and are more willing to subordinate what they want to what the other person wants. It's true that this approach may be more likely to cause hidden (sometimes badly-hidden) resentment, but I don't think it's a straight-up bad thing. I think it's just another approach to a flawed issue. Who's to say it's better to have a giant fight than to be a little passive-aggressive? Sure you might not have a giant fight -- but what if the last 12 times you tried to have a calm and serious conversation, you ended up fighting? Can you really

[jadasc]

A good discussion; the core of what I'd have to say has been stated, and I'm about ready to head to work, so I'll come back if there's some brilliant insight I've got. But, as a minor thing:

Specifically: If you're not hurting anyone and if you're trying to be honest in pursuit of your goals, then is it reasonable for someone else to get angry at you for doing so -- even if you're trying to charm people into doing what you want?

Well, emphasis added. Who gets to decide whether you're hurting anyone -- you, or the offended party?

[dragonladyflame]

Return the question with my own:

If it's the so-called injured party who decides, how far do they get to take their self-righteousness? If I try to charm Bob into buying me a drink, and he hates buying people drinks, is it reasonable for him to decide that I'm trying to hurt him?

Perhaps I should have said:

If you're not trying to hurt anyone and you're trying to be honest in pursuit of your goals, then is it reasonable for someone else to get angry at you for doing so -- even if you're trying to charm people into doing what you want?

posting this before reading the other comments

[foxfour]

…so things might be repeats of what others have said.

first,Men Enjoy Others' Pain More than Women.
dangerously ambiguous headline, neh?

re: passive-aggression:

i agree wholly with problem 1, but problem 2, i think there's more to it. it's well and good to say that you're just talking about thoughts from an earlier debate, but passive aggression is doing so in a particularly uncalled for way, that is, without any discretion.

also, re:I also think that it's difficult, if not impossible, for people to watch themselves at all times and keep themselves from those forms of manipulativeness.
yes, it's difficult. it's also difficult to constantly embody buddhist lovingkindness. doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

on the other hand, people accusing one of being passive-aggressive are often being so in their own right…

Re: posting this before reading the other comments

[foxfour]

also, re the redlines:Put punctuation inside quotation marks. This is America.
pish, british punctuation is better anyway.

[dragonladyflame]

It certainly makes more sense!

[dragonladyflame]

I agree that discretion is a very good thing. I try to practice it myself. But there's always the question of how far discretion extends. How discreet are you required to be? At what point are you no longer discreet, and being passive-aggressive? The way it's regarded is different for different people.

::::::::::
yes, it's difficult. it's also difficult to constantly embody buddhist lovingkindness. doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
::::::::::

Well, obviously. My point was more that I think people should cut other people more slack when they fail, not that people shouldn't try.

::::::::::
on the other hand, people accusing one of being passive-aggressive are often being so in their own right.
::::::::::

Yes. I think this particular buzzword is getting stupidly overused, too often a tactic in its own right. As proudduckling was saying, too often people are accused of being passive-aggressive as code for them having feelings that makes someone else uncomfortable. In such cases, someone might tell them they're being passive-aggressive

[jadasc]

Ah! It occurs to me. When I think of someone as being "passive aggressive," it's because I see them as wanting all the benefits of confrontation without wishing to shoulder any of the concommitant risks.

[dragonladyflame]

I think that definition is much better -- or at least, more expressive of how the term is currently used -- than the one I found in the dictionary.

Morpheus

[anonymous]

IMHO, the key to passive-aggressiveness is selfishness. It's in not minding that you're hurting the other person with your passive actions. Expressing your emotions is just expressing your emotions. If your best friend accidentally ran over your dog, then it's okay to cry. It's okay to be sad. The best friend should be prepared for you to be sad. But the sad panda should understand that her crying will be causing her best friend to feel bad. And so, it stands to reason that you should, after an appropriate period, stop crying, even if it still hurts, because expressing your emotions in that way is just doing more harm. If you don't feel like you need to cry, don't cry. If you need to punch the guy, punch the guy, but if you don't don't. The key to all of this is selfishness, trust, loyalty, love

[dragonladyflame]

I agree with most of what you said. Except that I don't think the solution is to blame the person with the inconvenient feelings, or to blame the person with "the power" just because they have the power. Half the time the latter case doesn't even realize it.

And frankly, I don't think wives are more likely to "use" the threat of loss of love. I think husbands are at least as likely. I further think you're biased because you're male, and don't see what you do yourself nearly as clearly as what's done to you. Because that's not a threat anyone I've ever met used consciously. It's always unspoken, always a silent part of the relationship's dynamic. And it's easy to see it coming up in your own fears, but not to realize just how much it comes up in the other's, and not to realize just how much they don't intend to cause it in you.