Assertive v. Agressive
To reduce costs, my employer mandates everyone complete something called the Healthy Incentives program before we receive "full" health benefits. Though the benefit reduction language is couched in avoidance and equivocation, that's the idea, to deny people the benefits they used to have while blaming them for that loss.
So even though I don't use these benefits (choosing instead to use The Wife's better benefits), I refuse to let my own benefits lapse due to my own laziness. I will make them pay.
The program gets you by making you undergo programs that will supposedly make you healthier in the long run. Not a bad goal, mind you, but the implementation is wonky and inconsistent. Since I'm a pretty mellow guy, I chose the Stress Management program.
Here's what the program had to say about being assertive:
When you’re assertive, you stand up for your rights and don’t let others take advantage of you. You’re willing to ask for what you want or need and to confront problems and resolve them. On the other hand, you respect other peoples’ needs and realize they have a right to their own opinions.
When you’re assertive, you’re more likely to see your problems clearly. You’re also less likely to have nagging, unresolved problems that bother you.
Really? What in the word "assertive" mandates an awareness of "other peoples' needs"? Continuing, look what revisionism they exercise on the word "agressive":
People who interact aggressively try to control and intimidate other people. They express what they want, but don’t care about other peoples’ needs and feelings. Though they may get what they want temporarily, they damage their relationships and cause others to view them negatively. Being aggressive can lead to physical tension.
One is touchy-feely just getting what you deserve; the other is meany-nastiness just short of tantrum land. Bullshit, say I and the English language. My Quicky Dict. defines "aggressive" as "forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." So, one cannot separate assertive and aggressive acts so very neatly, if one is just the over-emphasis of the other, can one? We are dealing not with two separate genera of action, but of closely related members of the same action species. Aggression is merely assertion amped.
As part of my "education", I'm to journal my thoughts on the "lessons" provided. Sometimes I just rehash old LJ entries. Just for fun, I thought I'd reverse that trend and share with the LJ what I typed for the Incentivisors. The journal topic: "Think of a situation in which you acted in a non-assertive manner (either passively, aggressively, or passive-aggressively). In your journal, spend about 15 minutes writing about why you behaved that way. Describe what you could have done to respond in a more assertive manner."
My accurate snark and re-education:
No, no, no.
"Assertive" and "aggressive" are not different. I'm sorry, but grab a dictionary and look them up. One can be aggressive without making assertations, true; one can also be assertive without overt aggression, also true. But in the English language there exists no gap, no gulf, no clear separation between an assertive and an aggressive act.
This, in fact, reminds me of the old joke with boaters: My boat is a yacht, but his yacht is only a boat. The difference is exactly that subjective.
And maybe that's the problem. Maybe there are people out there who feel overly put upon when someone acts "aggressively." Maybe true. The solution? Many times, it is to act aggressively right back at that person. Sometimes this escalates an already precarious situation. Some people are just jerks who respond negatively to any question of their implicit superiority on the scrotum pole. Return their aggressive behavior in kind and they will lash out. Those unprepared either at the time or in life for this lashing will suffer for it.
That does not mean some well-meaning someone can change the meaning of words to simply avoid conflating two very similar words. When one "asserts," after all, one asks to have one's needs and concerns addressed. Nothing in the word implies a warm and fuzzy acceptance of the needs of others. Again, look it up, this time in a dictionary you didn't write yourself.
Aggression? That's just an assertion of one's needs that raises the stakes of the social interaction. Aggression is assertion ramped up a notch, if necessary to 11.
We humans are a social species. There are social cues embedded in our psyches and our upbringing, some overt, some implicit, some yet undiscovered. We all assert. We all act with aggression. We all submit. That is how we interact.
To actually get back to the task assigned by a passive-aggressive website, I vow the next time someone tries to tamper with the English language just to avoid associating in themselves behaviors they detect in those they loath, I will call them on their passive-aggressive avoidance of social norms. Assertively.
So there.
So even though I don't use these benefits (choosing instead to use The Wife's better benefits), I refuse to let my own benefits lapse due to my own laziness. I will make them pay.
The program gets you by making you undergo programs that will supposedly make you healthier in the long run. Not a bad goal, mind you, but the implementation is wonky and inconsistent. Since I'm a pretty mellow guy, I chose the Stress Management program.
Here's what the program had to say about being assertive:
When you’re assertive, you stand up for your rights and don’t let others take advantage of you. You’re willing to ask for what you want or need and to confront problems and resolve them. On the other hand, you respect other peoples’ needs and realize they have a right to their own opinions.
When you’re assertive, you’re more likely to see your problems clearly. You’re also less likely to have nagging, unresolved problems that bother you.
Really? What in the word "assertive" mandates an awareness of "other peoples' needs"? Continuing, look what revisionism they exercise on the word "agressive":
People who interact aggressively try to control and intimidate other people. They express what they want, but don’t care about other peoples’ needs and feelings. Though they may get what they want temporarily, they damage their relationships and cause others to view them negatively. Being aggressive can lead to physical tension.
One is touchy-feely just getting what you deserve; the other is meany-nastiness just short of tantrum land. Bullshit, say I and the English language. My Quicky Dict. defines "aggressive" as "forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." So, one cannot separate assertive and aggressive acts so very neatly, if one is just the over-emphasis of the other, can one? We are dealing not with two separate genera of action, but of closely related members of the same action species. Aggression is merely assertion amped.
As part of my "education", I'm to journal my thoughts on the "lessons" provided. Sometimes I just rehash old LJ entries. Just for fun, I thought I'd reverse that trend and share with the LJ what I typed for the Incentivisors. The journal topic: "Think of a situation in which you acted in a non-assertive manner (either passively, aggressively, or passive-aggressively). In your journal, spend about 15 minutes writing about why you behaved that way. Describe what you could have done to respond in a more assertive manner."
My accurate snark and re-education:
No, no, no.
"Assertive" and "aggressive" are not different. I'm sorry, but grab a dictionary and look them up. One can be aggressive without making assertations, true; one can also be assertive without overt aggression, also true. But in the English language there exists no gap, no gulf, no clear separation between an assertive and an aggressive act.
This, in fact, reminds me of the old joke with boaters: My boat is a yacht, but his yacht is only a boat. The difference is exactly that subjective.
And maybe that's the problem. Maybe there are people out there who feel overly put upon when someone acts "aggressively." Maybe true. The solution? Many times, it is to act aggressively right back at that person. Sometimes this escalates an already precarious situation. Some people are just jerks who respond negatively to any question of their implicit superiority on the scrotum pole. Return their aggressive behavior in kind and they will lash out. Those unprepared either at the time or in life for this lashing will suffer for it.
That does not mean some well-meaning someone can change the meaning of words to simply avoid conflating two very similar words. When one "asserts," after all, one asks to have one's needs and concerns addressed. Nothing in the word implies a warm and fuzzy acceptance of the needs of others. Again, look it up, this time in a dictionary you didn't write yourself.
Aggression? That's just an assertion of one's needs that raises the stakes of the social interaction. Aggression is assertion ramped up a notch, if necessary to 11.
We humans are a social species. There are social cues embedded in our psyches and our upbringing, some overt, some implicit, some yet undiscovered. We all assert. We all act with aggression. We all submit. That is how we interact.
To actually get back to the task assigned by a passive-aggressive website, I vow the next time someone tries to tamper with the English language just to avoid associating in themselves behaviors they detect in those they loath, I will call them on their passive-aggressive avoidance of social norms. Assertively.
So there.