Confrontation

When I was growing up, I remember my Dad often saying that contention was of the devil, or a soft answer turneth away wrath.  Usually these scripture quotes were brought out after a particularly contentious discussion (most likely between my sister and me).  We were bright, active kids with limited resources living in a strict culture.  Contention was bound to happen - even without extenuating circumstances.

As an adult, however, I've inventoried what skills in my past to let go of or work on.  I've learned the importance of confrontation and conflict. With so much passive-aggression in mormonism (and particularly among women), it's rare that people say what they mean. Or that people directly ask for what they want (or express an opinion).  Some of it is cultural - for the longest time, women were not encouraged to be direct - they had to seek power through other means (manipulation, etc.)

Gourds 2013

What happens when you don't confront other people, when you don't ask for what you want (or need), usually feelings are suppressed and resentment pops up.  Resentment that you are being taken advantage of, that you aren't valued, that you are being ignored.

But sometimes confrontation is not useful.  Growing up, it seems as if the only time confronting someone was acceptable was when you were enforcing church standards.  I remember my Dad losing his temper about some kids in the church building on Sunday.  That was acceptable conflict, standing up for mormon principles.

But saying no to a calling, to the PTA, to the casserole sign up sheet, that's not socially acceptable.

Another thing that tends to happen for me with conflict is that I would build up so much anger that when the conflict (inevitably) happened, I would be too angry to listen to the other person - to negotiate.  So this is what has worked for me to learn more about confrontation:

*I determine if the conversation is necessary
If I talk with someone (like my boss) about a promotion, and they say it's not going to happen - confronting them weekly is not a good strategy.  I need to make sure that I know what's possible and what's not.  I need to make sure my expectations are reasonable.

*I determine if things are likely to change - and I figure out if I don't confront the other person, what choices I have
I'm thinking specifically of the current protests/requests for the SLC LDS church.  Many NOMs and others have determined for themselves whether or not participating in these movements is useful for them.

Sometimes confrontation can bring change,other times not. For example, if I confront my boss, will things change?  If they aren't likely to, I need to make some hard choices.

*I make sure I'm not angry
If I go into a conversation angry, it's sure to undermine my position.  I need to be as calm and rational as possible.  I'm not talking about venting or ranting, but if there is someone I legitimately need something from - getting angry at them is not useful.

*I find a good time to talk
For difficult conversations, I make sure I'm not hungry, angry, lonely or tired (HALT).  If I'm any of those things, I can't be focused on communicating effectively.  I need to take care of myself first, and then come back to the conversation - the next day or next week.  If it's still important, I will remember what I need to say, and what specific requests I want to make.

*Determine whether or not to discuss when something comes up or later
Sometimes it makes sense to talk about things as they happen.  But difficult conversations are not always appropriate (particularly in public).
A great example - the third time in a month my boss asks me to work overtime at the last minute. Not getting angry about it - but a solution could be to agree to working and then having a conversation about it.  I found growing up - either the conflict would happen when someone was overwhelmed and the follow up wouldn't necessarily happen.  The follow up discussion is crucial - where the employee lets the boss know that last minute requests are not okay - and works to prevent it in the future.  Setting boundaries to say it won't be okay next time.  And the next time, reminding the boss of the boundary and enforcing it.

*I focus on what's going on now (the present) and specific requests
While the past informs the present - bringing up past wrongs is not useful if I want to move forward in a relationship.  I need to focus on my direct requests today.  I need to figure out what I want (specifically) and make sure my request is reasonable.  An unreasonable request would be asking someone to stop bring themselves in some way.  It's about having an open conversation.

It's a balance. But the better I get with these skills, the more satisfied I feel with my relationships.

Election thoughts

Que sera, sera - whatever will be, will be

I went to sleep Tuesday night, long before the election returns were in.  I spent the first hour Wednesday deliberately not checking news sources.  Preparing myself for whatever results happened. It was a surprisingly quiet, calm hour. I know I'm typically not very political on this blog but I have some thoughts for the Republicans.  

I really enjoyed this podcast about political differences.

 

this podcast

There are major disagreements on how to proceed.

 This is simply my take.
1 - Don't choose a candidate with a silver spoon
Clinton and Obama both came from single parent homes. This makes a difference. The vast majority of Americans live in single parent homes or other non-traditional families. They're not raised in privilege.

Working class roots won't seal the deal, of course. A person needs to have a pragmatic point of view and be willing to be moderate on social issues. Which leads me to point 2...
 2 - Whatever happened to fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans?
My liberal friends have been making hay from this election, but I predict that once the fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republicans reappear - the Democrats will have a real fight on their hands. If there's a mandate from this election - it might be that maybe more Republicans would win if they promoted small government. Small government that stays out of your personal life. That gives you the freedom to make your own personal choices - without the state's interference. It shocks me that this is not more popular in the GOP.
3 - No legacies
Another thing most of my Republican and Democrat friends can agree on - we don't like political seats being "gifted" to a child or grandchild. One Democratic friend of mine voted for one Republican - against the Democrat who gained their seat from a parent (same last name). I see this trend as well. This country was founded against inherited aristocracy, like we saw in England. We don't want to recreate that.
4 - Moderation
The message is clear - we need more moderates. We need people who will question their party line. And the moderates will win over swing voters. It's a lesson for both sides. There is a reason that congress had a very low approval rating. No one wants our representatives to simply refuse to work with one another. Find common ground (there is common ground). Work together to get things done. Figure out what's non-negotiable and figure out what's negotiable and work from there. We really do start to look like Rome when we refuse to work together.

Triangulation (Family Dynamics)

A good friend of mine explained this concept to me a few months ago. I had never heard of it defined or labeled before. But I understood the behavior all too well. Here is the definition on wikipedia.

I come from a long line of people who are skilled at this game (no offense to anyone who may be reading this blog..).

It's a pretty simple concept. If you have a problem or issue with a person, instead of addressing that problem or issue with the person themselves, you bring in a third person.
**
You complain, kvetch or gossip with the third person, knowing full well that third person will tell the original person you have a problem with.

The third person gets to do your job for you. They get to decide what to tell, what not to tell, how to "spin" it so that a desired outcome is met.

My, it makes life a lot easier! I don't have to ask my siblings (for example) for anything! I don't have to say "would you be willing to do x" or say "I would feel more comfortable not exchanging gifts" or whatever. You can tell a third person, another sibling or a parent - and trust that *they* will relay the message.

Not only that, but it gives weight to any opinion that I have. Instead of just being me, aerin, my humble opinion and perspective, now I can say "well, mom agrees with me." or "one of my siblings agrees with me, so I'm right". And if that person has passed along a message, it's implying that they agree with it.

It has been so freeing for me to start addressing issues with the people themselves in my life. And refusing to let other people put me in the middle.

Because I genuinely thought I was responsible to keep up all this communication - this structure of "he said, she said". To soften the blows of shame or blame from someone else, but still communicating a part of that message. "Why don't you talk with this person? Why won't you come to this gathering? This person's feelings are hurt."

I thought if I didn't say it, it wouldn't be said - and the two people in my life would never know how the other person felt.

I love the fact that it's not my job or responsibility. If two people don't want to directly communicate - that's not my problem. I can maintain individual relationships without being the "heavy" or the enforcer of the status quo.

How this all relates to mormonism? Well, I believe mormon culture is one of the skilled players at this triangulation shell game. From other members running to tell the bishop ("I heard so and so drank diet coke the other day") to being told that *you* were responsible for your family's salvation. If they left mormonism, it was *your* fault.

You had been told a message, by God or the bishop or both - and you needed to communicate that message to everyone.

Not only that, but it was your responsibility to enforce or punish God's (righteous) judgment. That was your sacred responsibility as a home or visiting teacher, teaching children or as a priesthood leader. You get to tell everyone else what "God's" plan is for them.

It brings legitimacy for someone who is otherwise powerless - so you can often find women who do this. But not always. ("I don't think watching rated r movies is wrong, but *the bishop* thinks it's wrong. Or this General Authority back in the 60s said watching rated r movies was wrong").

Of course, not all mormons buy into this culture. Many see it for the unhealthy pattern that it is, and will only try to control themselves, not other people. They are able to live and let live.

It does make people really uncomfortable to be called out of this pattern, if they are someone like me who learned this as interaction 101.

What it forces a person to do is to talk/address something with the other people in their lives, or let it go. Stop the gossiping or manipulation.

For me personally, I feel it has strengthened so many of my relationships. Particularly with the people that I used to use to triangulate with (I asked them how someone else, a third person we were both close to, was feeling, what they were thinking, etc.) When I stopped doing that, I had to find other things to talk about (instead of other people). I'm working at communicating my own beliefs instead of other people's.

**this ruler is an antique we got from my husband's grandfather - standard, of course.  And yes, that is a candy land figurine in one of the corners.