Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: dr e on Mar 29, 2006, 12:30 PM

Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 29, 2006, 12:30 PM
Anyone had much exposure to someone really crafty in the ways of passive aggression?  

I have seen many couples over the years where the woman was a master at passive aggressively infuriating her partner.  She knew just the buttons to push and would wait for the right moment and then push away! (usually related to sex or money, his not making enough or a subtle stab at him not being good enough in bed) The guy would react right on cue and get upset.  Oftentimes he would yell.  Then she would claim victimhood at having been yelled at and the focus of the conversation left the previous sphere (which she didn't like) and entered her victimization.  He screams "I'm not yelling!"  She would then pour a little salt in the wound at the right time and he would blow!  Maybe he would push or shove.  Then you leave the realms of yelling and enter into a possible domestic violence charge.  The whole thing was a set up from the beginning.  He didn't know what hit him.  They go to a therapist and the focus is not on the original issue but on his domestic violence.  

Men need to be able to discriminate this sort of sucker punch and to not react.  By reacting and getting upset you are giving your power away.  You are letting her shift the ground away from the topic at hand and into the realm of you being a meanie and her being victimized.  It takes practice and work but once men get the hang of this it starts to transform the relationship.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Sir Jessy of Anti on Mar 29, 2006, 01:38 PM
I've had experience in that with a past girlfriend.  I would never fall for it, and would point out the behaviours on her part, and how that made me feel.  Generally this would result in her exasperation saying, "how did this get to be about me?".  Well, when you decided to use underhanded tactics it became about you.  Deal.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Metal MRA on Mar 29, 2006, 01:57 PM
When I was in the process of breaking up with my girlfriend a few weeks ago, I would just pull the feelings card before she did.  Towards the end I could see it coming after the arguments progressed to a certain point.  It really pissed me off, because my feelings were actually hurt, and that's when I first realized that she really didn't give a shit about me, and was in it for herself.  Oh well, I'm far better off now. 8)
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Julian on Mar 29, 2006, 02:16 PM
In my opinion this is domestic violence.Therefore there shouldn't be any need to defend against it, it is a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.


The evidence can be collected by the simple use of a tape recorder of some description.


I Believe any women who intends to use the methods you describe to commit psychological abuse soon shuts up if they think they are being recorded.

http://www.northstarpool.co.uk/Alisonfrankland.mp3
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 29, 2006, 03:02 PM
Exactly Julian.  That is a great strategy if you think this sort of thing is going on.  Break out the tape player and push record.  Things get real civil real fast.   :wink:
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Somebody else on Mar 29, 2006, 03:54 PM
I haven't seen very many women who DIDN'T possess that talent. I thought it was like womens' intuition.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Quentin0352 on Mar 29, 2006, 04:45 PM
My ex was a pro at that. Some of her favorite things to do were to walk by me and say "I hate you!" in front of the kids and when I asked what the problem was she would start yelling and then tell me to stop picking fights in front of the children. One time on my birthday she told a friend to get me nice and drunk at a topless bar. When I got home that night she told me her brother was going to kick my ass (something she would say on a regular basis) and I replied for him to just go ahead and do it since I was sick of the threat. Well guess what some of the items where that popped up on the DV protective order?

Hmmm, I would start fights in front of the kids, how I would come home from topless bars drunk and how I wanted to beat up her brother! I was also supposedly a porn addict though the only porn I ever got was some crap she used to buy me and I kept telling her to stop bothering since I wasn't interested in it. She used to brag to everyone she could (even in front of the kids) how she loved to have me look at porn or go to topless bars since she wanted me to get worked up and she would get the benefits of it.

Now remember, I supposedly raped her, molested the kids and had all kinds of affairs to boot. This all when I have nerve damage in my left testicle from botched surgery that is extremely painful. Yeah, the courts still believed her over medical experts and witnesses though. Yeah, women never set men up for any of that kind of shit now do they?
Title: Passive agression
Post by: contrarymary on Mar 29, 2006, 06:32 PM
deleted - way too self-aggrandizing... and self-absorbed....:D
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 29, 2006, 06:44 PM
Passive Aggression has got to be the biggest evil that exists in the battle of the sexes. The problem that we men have with passive aggressive behaviour is that it is too hard to pin passive aggressive behaviour to any one single act - it is usually an orchestra of many small individual acts that create a bigger situation, and too many women are masterful conductors of such behaviour and even shamefully take pride in their craft. I just tried to explain some of the passive aggression I have experienced and found that my explanation looked longer than the Bible so I erased it for fear this site wouldn't have the bandwidth.

It's about high time that the Abuse Industry tackles passive aggressive behaviours in women. If they spent half the effort convincing people to be aware of passive aggressive behaviour that they do condemning men for aggressive behaviour, I feel confident that the majority of the issues that exist in the Abuse Industry would almost disappear.

Let me ask a simple question: What is the purpose of behaving passive aggressively?

Answer: To evoke aggression in the other party.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE - if you behave passive aggressively, you are attempting to create aggressive behaviour in the other party. But who then is to blame for the nasty consequences of aggressive behaviour?

If my neighbour keeps beehives, I know that the hive has the potential to hurt me, but at the moment, the bees are quite docile and content. I however, decide to create some excitement and start throwing rocks at the beehive. The bees get angry and I get stung 25 times. Whose fault is it that I got stung? The bees? My Neighbour's? - CERTAINLY IT'S NOT MY FAULT!

The very fact that women rarely make an attempt to curb their passive aggressive behaviours illustrates just how much of an inflated hoax the abuse industry is. I mean, if the whole point of passive aggression is to create aggression, you would think that getting smacked around would stop you from behaving in a way that motivates someone to hurt you. I mean, after getting stung by the bees yesterday, do you think that I will go throw more rocks at that hive today - and tomorrow and so on?

If a woman behaves passive aggressively towards a man with the intent of enraging him, then is she not really the one soley responsible for having an enraged man in her face? Well, honey, looks like you always get what you want - see ya! I don't feel sorry for you. You are not the victim, you are the perp!

I wonder how many "victims" became victims by their own passive aggression? I wonder how many "victims" would be eliminated if society began to call women on what the intent of her behaviour was?

Didn't most of us men learn a lesson about being a shit head when we were young? Didn't we learn that having a big mouth and trying to piss people off eventually gets you a punch in the nose? Didn't we learn that if we don't want to get punched in the nose so much, maybe we shouldn't piss people off? - THEREFORE, is it reasonable to assume that women haven't gone through this learning process nearly as much as men, and the very fact that so many women CONTINUE TO ASPIRE TO EVOKE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR FROM MEN is in fact a testament that the abuse industry is indeed extremely false? Is it not also a testament to good men's self control in the face of such manipulation to not shmuck a passive aggressive female one when he would in fact paste the crap out of a male who behaved only half as badly? Is not passive aggression really a synonym for "Asking for it?"
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 29, 2006, 07:00 PM
Rob - Passive aggression is not only found in women.  Also, I would question whether passive aggression's "purpose" is aggression.  Passive aggression is a way to express anger without expressing anger, like pissing on someones toothbrush.  It's simply a passive mode of being pissed off.  I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about passive aggressive behaviors creating aggression.

As far as pa behaviors being akin to "asking for it" I think you might need to do some explaining with that one.  Many times pa isn't even noticed by the one who is the recipient.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: antimisandry on Mar 29, 2006, 08:05 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Many times pa isn't even noticed by the one who is the recipient.
Is that not the entire point of PA, to insult and upset so the other person (the recipient) feels guilt over a 'reaction'.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 29, 2006, 08:56 PM
Dr Evil - I realize that women aren't the sole perpetrators of passive aggression, they are just the masters of it.

What I mean by "asking for it" and creating aggression is somewhat difficult to explain, because it takes too long to illustrate a situation properly. But I will try and give a relevant situation that I experienced.

I lived with a woman for a few years and we split up after I found out that she had been cheating on me for four months (while trying to convince me to elope with her at the same time - ???). She moved out of my house and immediately moved in with the guy she was fooling around with.

I thought I had learned a thing or two from a previous bad break up that was also the result of cheating - and I put in a heroic effort to stay on the moral high ground this time around. During "the breakup", she told me what an asshole I was - and I replied that I'm sorry she felt that way because I really enjoyed going out with her. I didn't badmouth her to people, rather I said she was a nice girl but things just didn't work out - and then I would change the subject. I never attempted to contact her even once to find out what had all happened nor did I ask anyone any questions about it, but being that we lived in a small town of 5,000 people, I still seen her quite regularly around town - driving the new guy's truck. She would give me the "death glare" whenever she seen me, but I would just wave and smile.

I mean, I really pulled it off even though I was devastated by the betrayal. I was amazed with myself. People told me bad things she would say about me and I would cut them off saying that I just didn't want to know etc. etc. - But in retrospect, I realize that "not playing the game" was really the biggest game of all.

After two months of this, she came by where I worked and talked to me for the first time since we split up - not about what had happened between us, but rather as if nothing had happened at all. She informed me that she had moved in with the guy right after splitting up with me as if she was chatting with Oprah over a cup of tea. I remained calm however and didn't get angry with her nor criticize her. I just didn't want to go through all of that hostility that happens between ex's and I was determined to avoid it all costs.

So, after this visit, she began to call me 3 or 4 times a week - always telling me what her and new boyfriend did, or bought etc - sometimes she would get bold and mention things about sex. I always remained calm while talking to her but was horribly bothered it. After a few weeks of this, I told her that it wasn't a good idea for her to keep calling me up because I wanted to get on with my life.

The phone calls didn't stop, nor did the info she would "slip" out. So I bought a phone with caller ID and screened my calls at home - but I worked in sales and couldn't screen her phone calls there nor stop her visits - so the game continued - I just started brushing her off by telling her I was too busy to talk to her.

After another week or so of her continuing with this behaviour, I finally just outright told her to quit calling me because it wasn't fair for her to throw the guy she was cheating on me with in my face all the time. I told her that she was the one who cheated on me and now I had a right to get on with my life without hearing all of this crap and she was being rude. She asked if she was ever allowed to call me again, because she missed me so much - I told her I didn't want her to call me again for at least a year, then maybe we could try to be friends.

She stopped calling, but didn't stop visiting. She would always "find" a T-shirt of mine or something and still stop by at my work and visit and drop more information about her and dreamboat. She did this twice - on the second time I told her I didn't want anything back - keep it or throw it out, I don't give a shit.

I didn't hear from her for a week or so after that and in the mean time, snowmobile season had started and I am/was an avid snowmobiler and used to double the ex-girlfriend up riding in the mountains every Friday night. I was a member of the Snowmobile Club for years and like clockwork every winter I night ride on Fridays and day ride on Sundays.

Well, low and behold, guess who convinced her new boyfriend to drop $10,000 on a new sled (he never owned one before) and start doubling her up riding on Friday Nights. And guess what, they latched onto my group because "I was leading and I have the most experience night riding in the mountains and they didn't want to get lost". I tried to not let it bother me because there were 10 or 15 other people there that I usually ride with and I didn't want to embarass myself - but I did leave fairly early and didn't enjoy myself at all.

The next weekend - you guessed it, there's the ex and boyfriend waiting for my group in the parking lot - and the next weekend etc. I seen the pattern & I called up the ex, for the first time since we split up, now around four months or so ago. I asked if I could come over to talk to her (she talked to me enough that I knew HE was working Nightshift at the mill). She told me that I couldn't come over to talk because her boyfriend would get mad. I said I didn't really give a shit and was coming over anyway, if he got mad I'd just explain that I thought it would be alright since she'd called and visited me at least 30 or 40 times since we split up.

Now, when I got there, I confronted her directly. I asked her why she was always calling and why she was up snowmobiling with me etc. I told her I didn't want to play games but that I thought that she was doing these things to try and make me mad so that she would know that I still cared. I told her she could always just ask if she really wanted to know - and then I told her that I did still care, and I was really hurt etc. and that I was trying hard to keep it together so please stop all of this crap and just leave me alone! I also told her that I thought it was really unfair, since I had put in so much effort to be decent about what had all happened, that she chose to invade my Friday Night Snowmobiling. I told her that I know the mountains are public, but I thought it was mean for her to expect that she could just take (gumby) up riding with me, uninvited, like I won't care. I asked if her if she was trying to start a fight between me and (gumby), because it seemed like it to me and I told her I was having a REALLY hard not losing my temper with this whole situation. So I asked her PLEASE, could you leave me alone with my Friday Night Snowmobiling etc.

Guess who was waiting in the parking lot the next Friday Night? Only this time, we were absolutely not on speaking terms anymore, because now I was furious. To top things off, everytime we stopped in at the Club Cabin to warm up, she would sit directly across from me and start making out with her boyfriend.

AND YET, I didn't say anything or get mad.

Then her boyfriend started blabbing to everyone about how good his new sled was and how Polaris Snowmobiles are pieces of junk

And this is what I remember happened next:  

I stayed looking down at the floor of the cabin and my voice started low and calm and ended in a furious rage by the time I finished saying:

"You know, it's one thing that you were fucking my girlfriend behind my back for months before we split up, and its another thing that she moved in with you the day after we broke up. She calls me several times a week and rubs my nose in it trying to make me mad while knowing that I outweigh you by 30 pounds. You come up and go riding with me like its nothing and I'm getting so mad I feel like smacking her one for it but I can't hit girls so I guess that I'm gonna kick the shit out of you twice as bad to make up for it."

By this time I looked up to see his ass quickly exiting the cabin - without even suiting up...

And I ended it by screaming at the top of my lungs: "But what really pisses me off is hearing a fucking prick like you cut down Polaris Snowmobiles!!!"

He (and the ex) were already gone and I satisfied myself by punching a hole in the wall.

He dumped her the next day.

---
Now, Dr. Evil, that is what I mean by passive aggressive behaviour's purpose is to evoke aggression in the other party. Aggression begets aggression, passive aggression is just a form of aggression - but the rule still applies.

I am not Job. I know my shortcomings, I know when to remove myself from a situation (learned painfully from experience), I DON'T know what to do when someone uses passive aggression to purposefully hurt me and make me angry. I DON'T know what to do when someone uses passive aggressive behaviour to stalk me and harass me into losing my temper.

Exactly what to do you think my ex was trying to accomplish with her behaviour? Do you not think that she was purposefully trying to anger me? Why or why not?

And the frustrating thing about passive aggression is it takes a post as long as this one just to probe the surface of it.

Dr Evil, if your wife left you because she was having an affair with me you might very well be in a lot of emotional pain. Now, if I purposefully showed up at your favourite pub, sat a few stools down from you and bragged about my sexual prowess with my new girlfriend (ie. your wife) to the other patrons while fully well knowing that you are within earshot, I would be behaving passive aggressively. If I did this to you for four or five months until you finally got so angry with me that beat the crap out of me - who's fault is it?

Sorry that this post is a gazillion miles long - that's the problem with passive aggressiveness. It's sneaky and underhanded and cannot be explained nor properly conveyed in brief.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 29, 2006, 09:16 PM
Well Rob, it sounds like you busted out of your own passivity and got openly honest in a loud way and your situation improved greatly.  You are a good example of how standing your ground in an honest fashion is far superior to masking anger and hurt with passivity.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 29, 2006, 10:23 PM
Dr. Evil,

I don't believe that your definition of "passive aggression is a way to express anger without expressing anger" is accurate, rather I believe this is only a tiny fragment of a definition of passive aggression.

Passive aggression doesn't have to have anything at all to do with anger. It has to do with aggression. Aggression is not necessarily a bad thing either.

And women are far more passive aggressive than men, it is not exclusively feminine, but it most certainly is a feminine trait and its purpose is to evoke aggression out of males to get the response she wants.

When a woman "comes onto a man", she does so passive aggressively by twirling her hair, her body language, touching him on the shoulder or on the chest etc. - the purpose of this is evoke the man's aggressive behaviour so that he will ask her out or take things a step further. This is passive aggressive behaviour, a series of subtleties intended on encouraging someone else's aggression - and through that aggression she achieves what she really wants.

This is classic female behaviour. Using men's aggression to get what she wants. She gets YOU to ask her out, She gets YOU to initiate sex, She get YOU to propose marriage - all things that she wanted from you in the first place. Very few men will do ANY of the afore mentioned things without first receiveing passive aggressive cues from the woman - yet its his aggression that completes the deal.

But herein lies the problem and if society doesn't pull its head out of its ass and aknowledge passive aggression for what it truly is, we can MRA our asses off and women will always passive aggressively sidestep the issues with a "who, me?"

In another post - the one about the College of William and Mary where a girl got drunk and slept with three men in one evening and the one man got charged with rape... it would be interesting to see, if there should be a hidden camera, how many passive aggressive cues this woman gave off to the men to let them know she was in drunken heat. How many hair twirls, how many chest touches etc - I mean, do you or I really believe that she just walked around at a party and screwed three guys separately because they pulled her into a bedroom, without speaking to them about anything else, they propositioned sex to her and she just said OK? Bullshit, women are equally complicit in initiating sex - its just that they are on a different and much more hidden plane.

I mean, you try to defend a rapist by saying that she was twirling her hair - yet your girlfriend can watch you speaking to a waitress and FREAK OUT by all the subtle cues the waitress gives you and your girlfriend WILL deduce that you are being hit on by "that bitch".  

Passive aggression is like the wind. We know its there, buts its much harder to prove than something solid and more visible like a rock.  

But this truly is the crux of the problem that men face. Virtually everything "our esteemed and learned abuse counsellors" address is open aggression - a very male trait. But the thing that never gets addressed is the passive aggression that encouraged the aggression in the first place. You can address aggression until you are blue in the face, but if you don't want to admit that passive aggression is a direct cause of aggression, we will forever be doomed to run around in fruitless circles.

Hey, it still takes two to tango.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: zarby on Mar 30, 2006, 12:14 AM
A woman virtually always knows how to push her man's buttons especially after years of living with him. He may control his responsive feelings for years. If he loses control just once, he goes to jail.

The politically correct position though is that you "cannot blame the victim." This so called victim may have been working for years to get a response. The so called perpetrator may have been heroic in not responding. However, it is simply not politically correct to point this out.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Galt on Mar 30, 2006, 01:52 AM
Probably the best advice is to stay as far away as you can from a person who is heavily into the use of passive-aggressive tactics.  One hallmark of passive aggression is that it's "deniable".

There is almost no way to tell that a person may be like that initially, unless you watch how he or she behaves with relatives, close friends etc.  He or she won't do it to you right away.  That's also reason No. 590854390 not to get married to someone 6 months after meeting that person.

I've seen men married to that type of woman, paying for everything for her while she *deniably* sabotages everything she can for a little excitement, or petty revenge, or whatever. I'd rather coat my little finger with mustard and chew it off than be in that kind of a situation.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: neoteny on Mar 30, 2006, 02:31 AM
Yeah, well. My ex-wife used to pull these ones, but at least there was the 'honeymoon' period at the beginning for several months.
My last ex-GF pulled 'em right from the beginning, but I was smitten w/ the "young GF" (15 years younger) thing and hoped that things will improve. I proved to myself that I'm indeed extremely good at self-deception. (Mind you, the ex and the ex are from different continents, have different mother tongues, grew up in different socio-economic circumtances... maybe it is me who's inviting the needle. :lol:)
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Chris Key on Mar 30, 2006, 04:13 AM
As an adolescent I was quite aware of the sexist nature of society, and I would question the societal myths that existed at the time, and this led to my oldest sister and I engaging in a lot of debates.  Argumentation was quite intimidating, as my sister would tend to use the various straw-man arguments that are used by the feminists, and at the time my family were unaware of feminism and it's true nature, so they would believe her claims at will.

The process allowed me to become VERY perceptive of others, as I became VERY understanding of my sisters mentality and the manipulative techniques that she would use.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: zarby on Mar 30, 2006, 04:17 AM
The sex roles become established at an extremely young age.

I have a daughter and two sons. I could tell the difference
between the behavior of the girl as opposed to the boys
almost immediately upon birth.

Those who say boys and girls are not different are full of huey.

They are very, very different.

We are living now in an age when it is pretended men and women
are the same when that benefits women and the differences
are exaggerated when that benefits women.

What should be is that men and women complement each other.
Men contribute what they are best at and the same for women.
Each appreciates the strengths of the other.

Well, I am not sure we see that in my lifetime.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 30, 2006, 05:01 AM
Quote
And women are far more passive aggressive than men, it is not exclusively feminine, but it most certainly is a feminine trait and its purpose is to evoke aggression out of males to get the response she wants.


Prove it.  I think you are making a huge generalization here but will wait to see if you can offer evidence to support this claim.

I think you are confusing typical manipulative behaviors for passive aggression.  When a woman twirls her hair this can be manipulative but it is not necessarily passive aggression.  She's trying to get what she wants just as you were trying to get what you wanted in the relationship scenario where you described your own persistent passive behaviors.  Weren't you acting the way you were in order to get what you wanted?   If so, that is dangerously close to the hair twirl don't you think?

Show me a valid peer reviewed study that shows that women are far more passive aggressive.  I doubt you will find one.

We all manipulate.  We all use behaviors to get what we want.  Some are passive and some are active.   Some are overt and some are covert.  Some are clear and others are fuzzy.  If you want a primer in manip 101 just go watch the grocery checkout lines and observe the kids who want that little bag of candy!  lol  Sounds like you are trying to generalize about how one sex manipulates and calling it bad. Seems too black and white to me.


http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030530.html
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 05:26 AM
Wow, Dr Evil, I have to say that I'm blown away by your position and accusation.

Why don't you just ask me to prove that women move their asses differently when they walk? How can you prove that? Does it mean that they don't?

I will do some searching, but I think you're right, there will not be many peer reviewed studies on such things, mainly because it is so hard to accurately guage passive aggression, which is mainly my point in the first place. The second part of my point is that all those wonderful intellectuals who do peer reviewed studies NEVER do studies about this kind of passive aggressive behaviour nor its results. - THATS WHAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT!

Dr Evil, I don't think that I am confusing passive aggression for typical manipulative behaviour. I am quite confused by what you believe passive aggression to be. Even the word passive aggressive defines it to be what I am saying. I believe passive aggression IS typical manipulative behaviour. Perhaps you can expand on your definition of what passive aggressive behaviour is because this is the first time I've ever heard of passive aggression being defined the way you state

So are you attempting to say that the way a woman "comes onto" a man is not passive aggressive behaviour?

I'm sorry, but I think that you are confusing passive aggressive with just plain passive.
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 05:46 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Anyone had much exposure to someone really crafty in the ways of passive aggression?  

I have seen many couples over the years where the woman was a master at passive aggressively infuriating her partner.  She knew just the buttons to push and would wait for the right moment and then push away! (usually related to sex or money, his not making enough or a subtle stab at him not being good enough in bed) The guy would react right on cue and get upset.  Oftentimes he would yell.  Then she would claim victimhood at having been yelled at and the focus of the conversation left the previous sphere (which she didn't like) and entered her victimization.  He screams "I'm not yelling!"  She would then pour a little salt in the wound at the right time and he would blow!  Maybe he would push or shove.  Then you leave the realms of yelling and enter into a possible domestic violence charge.  The whole thing was a set up from the beginning.  He didn't know what hit him.  They go to a therapist and the focus is not on the original issue but on his domestic violence.  

Men need to be able to discriminate this sort of sucker punch and to not react.  By reacting and getting upset you are giving your power away.  You are letting her shift the ground away from the topic at hand and into the realm of you being a meanie and her being victimized.  It takes practice and work but once men get the hang of this it starts to transform the relationship.


Dr Evil,

I think the thing that confuses me the most about what you are accusing is that this is your original post, which clearly talks about a woman pushing a guy's buttons with the intention of getting him to react "right on cue". This is how you started off a thread on passive aggression and you have quickly digressed into saying that your own description of passive aggression is now only "typical manipulative behaviour".
Title: Passive agression
Post by: zarby on Mar 30, 2006, 05:48 AM
I will be happy to do a study on how women move their asses when they walk. I wonder if the government would fund my study?
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 30, 2006, 06:07 AM
Quote from: "Rob"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Anyone had much exposure to someone really crafty in the ways of passive aggression?  

I have seen many couples over the years where the woman was a master at passive aggressively infuriating her partner.  She knew just the buttons to push and would wait for the right moment and then push away! (usually related to sex or money, his not making enough or a subtle stab at him not being good enough in bed) The guy would react right on cue and get upset.  Oftentimes he would yell.  Then she would claim victimhood at having been yelled at and the focus of the conversation left the previous sphere (which she didn't like) and entered her victimization.  He screams "I'm not yelling!"  She would then pour a little salt in the wound at the right time and he would blow!  Maybe he would push or shove.  Then you leave the realms of yelling and enter into a possible domestic violence charge.  The whole thing was a set up from the beginning.  He didn't know what hit him.  They go to a therapist and the focus is not on the original issue but on his domestic violence.  

Men need to be able to discriminate this sort of sucker punch and to not react.  By reacting and getting upset you are giving your power away.  You are letting her shift the ground away from the topic at hand and into the realm of you being a meanie and her being victimized.  It takes practice and work but once men get the hang of this it starts to transform the relationship.


Dr Evil,

I think the thing that confuses me the most about what you are accusing is that this is your original post, which clearly talks about a woman pushing a guy's buttons with the intention of getting him to react "right on cue". This is how you started off a thread on passive aggression and you have quickly digressed into saying that your own description of passive aggression is now only "typical manipulative behaviour".


The original post made no claim that passive aggression was far more prevalent among women than among men as you have done.  I am questioning your generalization.  Also if you note the original post it was focused on a man learning how to deal with passive aggression in relationship not simply complaining about how women are this or women are that.  

Learn to look at your own behavior first.  You still haven't commented about your own passivity and why that is any different from your own definition of passive aggressive behavior. In your description of your experience with your gf it seemed as if you were more the passive party than she.   You might want to explain how your passivity is somehow different from what you describe as passive aggression.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: antimisandry on Mar 30, 2006, 06:26 AM
to chirp in with my own experiences here, if i may.

when i argue with my significant other, whether we're talking present or past, i will rely on solid facts when using 'PA'. On the other hand, PA seems be about general insults or exageerations when incoming.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 06:55 AM
Dr. Evil,

Actually I openly stated in my diatribe that "But in retrospect, I realize that 'not playing the game' was really the biggest game of all."

I perfectly recognize that "not playing the game" is in fact a more passive aggressive act than responding to passive aggressive behaviour. In retrospect I realize that not complaining nor attacking her character must have drove my ex near insane. What my original intention was after breaking up was to put in the effort not to get bitter and play head games - but, this is more of a game than anything else, because she needed that response from me. She needed to know to that I was hurt by her leaving and by her betrayal. Not giving it to her was an insult to her and motivated her to try and extract this reaction from me to assure herself of her own self worth.

So what is a proper response? There can be no proper response. Showing anger at the time of a break up is dangerous - because it can quickly degenerate into a situation where you are literally becoming verbally abusive and it wouldn't take much for it progress into something worse. So we get indoctrinated by all those who are apparently much smarter than you or I on how this kind of behaviour should be suppressed and avoided at all costs - which I did.

But not giving a proper angry/hurt response will just motivate the other to extract that response from you. It's like being in a flushed toilet. You can resist all that you want, but eventually its going to lead to the same place.

And this is what I am referring to - that those in the abuse industry, in all their wisdom and self proclaimed glory - never acknowledge this simple need and behaviour in human beings, nor do they wish to study it for it would decimate all of their previous "findings".

Now, before this relationship that I described in this thread, I had another long term relationship that ended the same way. It ended with me finding out I had been cheated on for a few months already. The difference was that in the previous relationship I gave in to my more animalistic tendencies and got angry - not just angry but furious. When she pushed my buttons I reacted - and my reactions made me look bad and eventually I found myself in a situation where my reactions made me look abusive. And truthfully, if you just took a sliver of those situations, I can see how it would be labelled abusive. I always have, and still do, regret the way I reacted to that situation. I always wished I had behaved with more dignity.

But, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. That is what I attempted to do the second time I was placed the identical situation - and my second attempt was not successful either, even though I tried to take the moral high road - I eventually failed.

Perhaps a psychologist would tell me that I "needed" to express my anger. The abuse industry and society however, would inundate me with demanding that I behave with the patience of Job.

What is the proper amount of anger? What is the proper way to behave? Is it possible to regulate your anger so that only the "proper" amount escapes from you? What if you recognize in yourself that you do not have the patience of Job?

Dr. Evil, your accusations against me makes me inclined to think that you know the secret. Please explain how one can properly react to a bad situation without being a verbally or mentally abusive male (according to all DV Standards) while at the same time not being passive aggressive?

There is no winning in that situation. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. My point exactly: Why is the Abuse Industry so reticent to acknowledge this?
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Julian on Mar 30, 2006, 07:32 AM
With respect Rob I think one of the problems could be that you are deferring to a mythical figure called Job for your inspiration and mythical figures (stats) created by the abuse industry.

Now I don't know much about Job but he sounds to me like a bit of a glutton for punishment. I don't want to appear to be rude to any followers of the bible but there are times the good book appears to me nothing more than a masterpiece of propaganda written with the idea being that whilst you/the masses were tolling in the field working your fingers to the bone, your/their masters were indoors having one hell of a party at your expense.

Things haven't changed that much even today.

The abuse industry is not that much different. It is there to empower itself at your expense and your peace of mind. It doesn't want you to have an harmonious relationship with any women **EVER**.

It wants all women to feel abused and violated and all men to feel they are the cause of this imaginary abuse. My personal is that once it feels it has achieved it's aims it'll more than likely find itself a new victim.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: K9 on Mar 30, 2006, 07:42 AM
Perfect scenario for a restraining order Rob. These phone calls and visits, unwanted by you , are classic examples of stalking. She was stalking you to get a violent reaction. Said reaction is proof to the world of the passion she is able to get from males and improves her self worth in her mind.
The LAST thing you should have done is go to her place.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 08:11 AM
Julian,

My reference to Job is simply an easy reference to illustrate the idea of being patient and un-responsive in the face of anything that is thrown our way. I don't really mean to bring any religion into this except that the DV Industry demands that all men behave with this unreasonable "patience of Job" in the face of anything that gets thrown in our face. That is all that my reference means. Nothing more and nothing less.

Dr Evil,

As for your generalizations comments. While I understand what you are getting at, I get quite frustrated by this line of thinking as it is a common straw-argument that Academic Types like to throw around in the face of good old fashioned common sense.  

If I generalize that "batting eyelashes" is female trait, or "peeing standing up" is a male trait, am I wrong in making these types of generalizations unless one can find a peer reviewed study done by someone who possesses an almighty "Ph D?" And if I can't find a study that shows that more men pee standing up than women - does this mean that I have to ignore this common-sense assumption in relation to all future things?

One common trait that I notice about Academics in the "Soft Sciences" is that much of what one gets while researching such subjects as Psychology is how most theories and studies are continually being debunked and proven false by others in the same field. I just recently finished reading a paper on Attachment Theory which spends half of its efforts debunking the previous attachment theories. Seems like many of these peer reviewed studies don't seem to last more than a decade at a stretch before it is challenged to be false. Doesn't seem too smart to me make any social or moral assumptions/policies on theories that apparently have a shelf life of a decade or so.

Yet, us lesser mortals who don't possess a Ph D are continually encouraged to throw common sense to the wind because "Dr Don't Question Me - I Have Ph D" says it is so.  

How do you think we got into this whole DV mess to begin with? It's not because people with good common sense used their better judgement. It's because those who worship academia have thrown common sense to the wind and demanded that they be believed on the assumption that they are smarter than everyone else.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 30, 2006, 08:19 AM
Rob - My concern was that you made a huge generalization about "women being far more passive aggressive than men" and I asked you to back that up.  You now seem to be saying that you can't so we will let that drop.  Men and women can both be passive aggressive.  One sex doesn't have a corner on the market just as men don't have a corner on the aggressive market.

The point of my first post was to call attention to the problem and start looking for strategies that will work.  You are absolutely correct that the abuse industry, fueled by the duluth ideas, will turn a deaf ear to most verbal provocation and will instead focus almost exclusively on the physical responses.  This adds one more reason to the many we already know that turning physical in a relationship to solve a problem is a horrible choice.  This is starting to change in the last 4-5 years since people are now more aware of a woman's violence.  I can remember about 10 years ago that the pat answer was that no matter what, if someone became violent they were the problem.  Now that tune has changed and other nonsense variables have been added like, "she was defending herself" or "she was abused and therefore was responding" along with a host of other excuses that create innocence for women who are violent.    

K9 - I too was thinking of a restraining order but just hate to use the unscrupulous tools like that.  I suppose all is fair in love and war?
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Metal MRA on Mar 30, 2006, 08:42 AM
Just for argument's sake:

Main Entry: passive-aggressive
Function: adjective
: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)

I don't think the hair twirling and chest thumping (or whatever the hell women do when they flirt) would quite qualify under the Merriam Webster definition.  Manipulation would be one thing, but for passive aggressivness, there has to be negative feelings, resentment and/or aggression.  Unless the girls were out purposely trying to get men just to take out some (passive) aggression out on them, I don't think it would quite qualify.  Hopefully this will help us focus on the true meaning.....
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 08:50 AM
Dr. Evil,

I have no intention of dropping anything.

I have asked a question of you a few times now. If I can't find a peer reviewed study, does this mean that assumptions are false? What if a peer reviewed study has never been done in this regard? What does a peer reviewed study really have to do with anything? Dr Phil says lots of shit, but common sense tells me to disagree with him. Dr Farrell also says lots of shit and common sense tells me to agree with him - except for his views on sexual fondling and incest, which common sense tells me to disregard because he's just plain out to lunch.

We do it every day on this board. We find a Ph D or a study to back up what we say and say "See... Dr So & So found in his study that X happened." Then the next day some other Ph D comes out with a study saying that X% of women will we be physically assaulted in the next 5 minutes and we use our common sense to debunk the second Ph D because we don't agree with the said view. So what does a peer reviewed study really matter, when we continually play both sides of the fence to our advantage? Common sense is all that can prevail.

Ph D's and peer reviewed studies shouldn't be viewed as some almighty holy grail because in the world of "soft science", as I have already stated, it is easy to observe that a "peer reviewed study" will be challenged and debunked usually in around a decade or so.

I have personally been told anecdotes by several women who said they tried peeing standing up - but I think that plumbers were correct in not bothering to find a peer reviewed study to support their assumption to omit urinals in women's washrooms.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 08:52 AM
Metal MRA,

But now you are assuming that "aggressive" has to be a bad thing. And it doesn't have to be. It can also be assertiveness.

Donald Trump is aggressive in the world of business. This does not mean that he is acting out in anger by doing business.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Metal MRA on Mar 30, 2006, 09:22 AM
Rob,

I am right there with you on that one.  Believe me, I have used outright aggressiveness in the past with no qualms at all!!  Assertive I would think is generally a more 'PC' term since aggressive has the stigma of a sort of 'hard-headed male' trait (not that I give 2 flying fu(%$ about PC)

Let's check it out:

Main Entry: as·sert
1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively

Main Entry: ag·gres·sion
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

So, it seems that assertive, and aggression may be closely linked.    I wonder, could one be assertive without being aggressive?  But I digress..

Yes, Donald Trump is DEFINATELY aggressive in the world of business, but could it be labeled as passive aggressive according to the definition I listed before?  Negative feelings and resentment seem to pretty much be a pre-requisite of passive aggression.  Does Donald Trump have these feelings towards his business competitors?  Maybe.  But it seems that the negative feelings and resentment HAVE to be present for it to qualify as passive aggression.  That is my only point.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: FP on Mar 30, 2006, 10:40 AM
Quote from: "zarby"
I will be happy to do a study on how women move their asses when they walk. I wonder if the government would fund my study?


They funded a study for the flow rate of various ketchup brands, I say go for it. Certainly if you dressed it up a bit, perhaps something about health and milkshakes. :lol:
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Julian on Mar 30, 2006, 11:10 AM
Maybe it might be a good idea in this discussion to avoid the use of the psychiatric term passive aggression.

I keep thinking that if you want an example of women's aggressive nature then maybe consideration of the White Feather campaign might be a good example.

For those of you who don't know this was a "war effect" mainly conducted by women and the purpose was to shame men into conscript.

Anecdotally I would suggest that this sort of behaviour is still exhibited in the female populous but in perhaps a more covert fashion these days.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 30, 2006, 11:19 AM
Rob - If Ph.D.'s are so "dime a dozen" and putting out such a volume of data you shouldn't have a bit of trouble in finding something to support your claim.   You don't seem to get the idea I have been trying to gently get across to you.  You can talk all you want about your own experience or the women or men you know etc, but to make a blanket and negative statement about either gender is going against the rules here.  Can you simply take responsibility for what you wrote and just say ooops?  If so, then let's move on.  If not then that's a warning for you.   Your choice.  I have no more time to fool with this.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 11:59 AM
Well, Dr Evil,

Sorry to butt heads, but I'll take the warning rather than recant the common sense and observations that my life on the planet has given me. I never made a blanket statement about either gender. I did say that passive aggression is more of a female trait than a male trait. I never said that only females are capable of it. I also said that the purpose of passive aggression is to provoke aggression. I still believe that.

You also asked for specific examples, then asked for further explanation of examples and then attacked for providing examples. I don't particularly understand that logic.

As far as Ph D's and their findings, this entire board and in fact the entire MRA movement is made up of regular individuals using their God given common sense to question the "findings" of such studies. If a Ph D does a study that has passed review by his peers and thus that study becomes irrefutable, then why are we even concerned about Men's Rights? There are 10's of Thousands of Peer Reviewed studies that have shown that men are the cause of domestic violence and all other evil things in the world. They must be right then.

With great disappointment, I will not say "oops" to assauge your demand. I'm going to declare that I will Stand my Ground.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: angryharry on Mar 30, 2006, 12:36 PM
Did I see some scumbag above denigrating those who have PhD's in Psychology?

This is an outrage of the very highest order!

Death is the only fitting penalty.

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology - and I know quite a few others who are similarly endowed, and I have to tell said scumbag above that he is correct!

One of the main reasons that I quit being much involved in the psychology 'profession' was because of the amount of hokum that was part and parcel of the whole area; e.g. see my piece

http://www.angryharry.com/esinterviewwithAH.htm

I would not say that all those who are in the profession are imbued with hokum, nor that all the research is hokum. Much of it is very good indeed. But there is far too much nonsense espoused within the profession and far too many people within it who do not have the intellect to deal with the complex problems that they purport to understand.

And some of the issues purportedly addressed to a high standard by psychologists are, in fact, far too complex for **anybody** with a human brain to understand.

The worst offenders in my view are the psychoanalytic types and those who claim to be able to reach deeply into the minds of people.

The more experimental psychologists who employ strong statistical methods to analyse their data across individuals in order to identify more superficial - and more simple - phenomena have much to offer; but, even here, their thinking is often wooly - and, indeed, often clouded by prejudices and politics.

An example.

When I was an undergraduate I got very excited over a piece of research that demonstrated that individual brain cells in a cat's visual cortext were very choosy about what they responded to. For example, some of these cells would only respond to straight lines of a certain orientation. Others would only respond if these lines were actually moving in a certain direction. Change the orientation of the line, or its direction of movement, and a cell would suddenly stop responding.

Anyway. This relatively simple experiment had major implications concerning issues to do with the way in which the brain 'worked'.

When I got my hands on the original paper and the data I studied all the details surrounding the experiment. I poured over them for about two days. And what did I find? Well, I found 12 flaws that undermined the validity not only of the experiment itself but, as a result, also of the conclusions derived from it.

I was mortified.

I wrote politely to the main author (at Oxford Uni) and I got a reply; and he agreed with me!

Anyway. I then started looking far more closely at the details surrounding many other studies in my area, and I found that **most** of them were 'very weak' to say the least.

And, in some cases, the conclusions of the authors were not only unwarranted, their data showed results which, if anything, implied the complete opposite of what they were concluding.

I was astounded.

In a nutshell: 'Psychology' is a mess. This is partly to do with the sheer complexity of the subject, partly to do with the lack of intellectual ability among ****many**** of those in the profession, partly to do with 'arrogance', and partly - particularly nowadays - to do with politics.

Well, that's my view!
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Stallywood on Mar 30, 2006, 05:34 PM
I think women use the passive aggressive approach lot more that men do. I believe this, because most women cant afford to take the covert aggressive approach, this would fail. Our society is set up so a woman can be as PA as she wants, and the man gets screwed in the end. Passive Agression, is taylor made for a woman i.e. the weaker sex. Also, I think that if a man uses PA, he will eventually get his a** whipped.
Stally
Title: Passive agression
Post by: contrarymary on Mar 30, 2006, 06:17 PM
THIS IS AN HONEST QUESTION.

Dr. Evil, would it be considered passive-aggressive to use such terms as,

"I was thinking that maybe we could...."

"That's a good idea, but perhaps you could...."

"You know, I was wondering if maybe it would be better if..."

or is this considered passive?
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 07:30 PM
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:A3xF_YeppJIJ:www.aare.edu.au/01pap/bet01229.htm+girl+bullying+passive%2Baggressive&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=35

Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, I>also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).

There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 30, 2006, 07:45 PM
http://www.relationalaggression.com/research.html

    RESEARCH & THEORY

• Studies have consistently documented higher rates of aggression in males than in females. Crick & Grotpeter argue that this is because aggression has been conflated with overt physical acts, and that these behaviors are not ones which would adequately express aggressiveness in females. It appears that girls intend to inflict harm on others just as often as boys-the difference is in how they express these feelings. Girls tend to aggress in discreet ways, through their relationships and through third parties. Now that these behaviors are coming under the purview of "aggression", the cultural wisdom regarding higher rates of aggression in males will need adjusting.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 30, 2006, 07:48 PM
Good job Rob.  Nicely done.

E
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Quentin0352 on Mar 30, 2006, 08:56 PM
I found this one to be interesting top. Their definition is different I'll bet but an interesting study.

Quote
While research has not yet suggested that different factors trigger men's anger, researchers continue to uncover differences in how men and women experience it. Such was that case for Raymond DiGiuseppe, PhD, chair of the psychology department at St. John's University in New York, in his research to develop a new anger disorder scale. In a survey of 1,300 people ages 18 to 90, DiGiuseppe investigated 18 subscales of anger, including how individuals experience their anger, how long the anger lasts and what they get angry about. While he found that differences in men's and women's total anger scores were not significant, he did find differences in the way they experience anger. Specifically, men scored higher on physical aggression, passive aggression and experiences of impulsively dealing with their anger. They also more often had a revenge motive to their anger and scored higher on coercing other people.

Women, on the other hand, were found to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger, compared with men. DiGuiseppe found that women used indirect aggression by "writing off" a higher number of people--intending to never speak to them again because of their anger.


http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar03/angeracross.html
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Sir Percy on Mar 30, 2006, 09:13 PM
I have to agree with AH on the poorly constructed derivative nature of much research in Psychology and add that it is compounded by moving away from the basics and adding conflating and confusing nomenclature - just to score academic smarty points. Cats cortices are not the ordinary human in the world.

The best work remains largley under-rated these days, from Eric Berne. His transactional analytical techniques are eminently convertible to what is called the 'inelegant experiment' which is much better suited to the real observable world outside of the laboratory and easily applied in developing and understanding everyday wisdom. Leave aside for the moment the borrowings from 'mainstream' Freudian Superego, ego, id - translated to Parent, Adult, Child - and focus attention on the very readable 'Games' that people play. These were all readily observable but cleverly transcribed into formulae. Most concern neurotic behaviours which typify Feminism and some extremes of female behaviour. That is not to say that men do not engage in them too, but Berne was quite clear in ascribing them to women predominantly. It is probably why his work was left behind as feminism came to the fore!

The 'games' are easily seen in public policy development over the past 15 to 20 years, particularly the "Let's you and him, fight" game where the protagonist ( usually women)  sets a social agent (you)  - such as the Police or the Courts - against 'him', a man in her life,  with devastating consequences.

Go back to the PAC transcription and we see the enforced rise of Parent, taken over by the State, which regulates and relegates Adult to Child. Look at so many female behaviours which are Child - passive aggression being one such - and how many are Parent - laying down rules for others, particularly men in easy reach. Being the Adult is not comfortable for women in general as, despite all thier rhetoric about empowerment, do not like to stand on their own two feet of accept responsibility for the consequence of their own actions. Again, not all women, and some men are the same.

Being the Adult has become almost the necessary default position for the MRM as there are so many sections of society unwilling to go against the Parental State. What the MRM and MRAs need to do is to guard against becoming Parent themselves or throwing a tantrum and being the aggressive Child.

On the issue of aggression. There is some confusion apparent in these posts between aggression which is active, often distributed and usually physical on the one hand and assertiveness, focus and drive on the other. Both of these areas are usually overt. Passive - aggression is covert.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Sir Percy on Mar 31, 2006, 02:07 AM
This is justice UK style for a boy who had fled his Mother's house where he had been regularly beaten by her and her relatives:

"If you don't go with your Mum I'll put you in a place where you can't see your Mother or your Father - How do you like that?"

This is Mr Justice Singer abusing a defenceless 10-year old boy in the passageway outside Court 32 at the Royal Courts of Justice on 23 January 2003, aided and abetted by a CAFCASS Children & Family Reporter and two of Her Majesty's High Court Tipstaffs.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Chris Key on Mar 31, 2006, 03:05 AM
In regards to the refusal of the state to identify *Passive Aggression* as a precursor to violence:

The clergymen and religious savages of the past denounced the domain of science as a form of *evil* - they demanded the abolishment and prohibition of the subject - as it possessed the ability to expose the logical fallacies of religious indoctrination.

The feminists are just as ideological and savage as the religious fanatics, and both of the parties believe that the domain of science is a form of *evilness* that is conspiring to *oppress* their existence.  Many feminists have referred to logic as a form of *Rape*, and declared the act of scientific argumentation as a form of *Misogyny*.

The feminist savages are trying to repress the scientific domain, as they realise that it's very existence is a huge obstacle that WILL prevent their ideologies from gaining societal credence, as science is able to expose the corruption and logical fallacies of feminism.

Objective evidence is derived from scientific investigation, therefore the feminist savages are trying to implement a system in which *Political Correctness* holds precedence over *Science* during the implementation of the law.

Affirmative action, feminist-indoctrinated laws and state-funded feminist agencies are classic examples of how the ideologies of feminism are repressing the domain of science, just as the religious savages were able to do during the middle ages.

In regards to the manner in which women utilise the act of *Passive Aggressive Behaviour* to incite a response from men, I think Rob has stated all that needs to be said.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Mar 31, 2006, 07:58 AM
Quote from: "contrarymary"
THIS IS AN HONEST QUESTION.

Dr. Evil, would it be considered passive-aggressive to use such terms as,

"I was thinking that maybe we could...."

"That's a good idea, but perhaps you could...."

"You know, I was wondering if maybe it would be better if..."

or is this considered passive?


Hi CM - I think the basic difference here is the above statements all seem to be "accommodating" and attempting to promote harmony while simultaneously giving feedback.  That's quite different from passively expressing some sort of aggression.  That's my $02.

E
Title: Passive agression
Post by: angryharry on Mar 31, 2006, 09:10 AM
If you go to any school playground and watch how boys and girls differ in the way in which they treat those whom they do not like, you will see a remarkable difference in the way that they go about 'punishing' them.

In general, boys will be overtly aggressive, either physically or verbally. And they will be very direct. It will be very obvious to an outside observer who is the target of their enmity.

Girls, on the other hand, will tend to ostracise and to 'needle', and they will spend much time colluding quietly among themselves, whipping up antagonism towards the target and generally denigrating them.

A further difference is that girls might be attacked by other girls simply because they are not wearing the 'correct' shoes, or because their hairstyle is not the one that they approve of; whereas boys tend to target each other on the basis of some behaviour that they disapprove of - the main exception being where something like racism is involved; wherein skin colour alone might provoke extra aggression.

The aggression of boys is mostly overt - and is much more readily observable - whereas that of girls is far more covert and it is very difficult to see from the outside.

In some sense, it seems that boys are often proud of their hostility towards others and, as such, they are more than happy to display it, whereas girls seem more ashamed of their hostility, and would prefer that no outsider noticed it.

And this is where boys often do let themselves down rather badly, in my view.

Because they seem often proud or, at least, 'unperturbed' about their own 'disruptive' or hostile behaviours, they seem far more ready to engage in them. And so, for example, they are far more likely to disrupt the classroom even though the teacher is there.

Another difference is that boys tend to spend their 'playtime' doing something highly physical with each other, such as playing football, whereas the girls are much more prone to chatting and gossiping; particularly about relationships. Indeed, in this area, teenage boys and girls are absolutely MILES apart.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Rob on Mar 31, 2006, 12:40 PM
It is my belief that this kind of behaviour that we are discussing here is the cornerstone of the feminocentric society.

If the MRA movement could choose to win only one battle, wouldn't this be the best one to win? I believe this is the common denominator that is present in virtually all of the other issues that we deal with. We are currently living in a society where "overt male styled aggression" is regulated as if in a totallitarian regime while at the same time "covert female styled aggression" is allowed to be practised as if we are living in the lawless Wild West, with each individual exacting vigilante style justice as they see fit.

If this style of aggression were to receive the same publicity, scrutiny and condemnation as "male aggression", I believe it would force a domino effect that would topple the insanity of domestic violence, false accusations, sexual harrasment, judicial bias etc etc. Ultimately, the only people that would still get charged with these things would be the "fringe" - the people that are way out to lunch and should be charged anyway - however, the common man would no longer be criminalized with such ease and impunity.  

Accountability for this type of behaviour would take the sole focus off "evil men" and would shine a light on the earth shattering concept of equally complicit in creating a bad situation.

Is there anything better that we could ask for? I don't want revenge, I don't want dominance/oppression and I don't expect men to look like shining examples of virtue.

I think it unreasonable for any sane person to hope that the genders will ever live in perfect harmony, but I do expect of society that it holds both genders equally accountable for the situations that get created, and therefore allow us to perhaps live in better harmony than we currently do.

As a movement, it seems that we, the MRM, are running around, each on our own, taking a potshot here and there at peripheral issues. But really none of it makes much of a difference to the Goliath that we are facing.

So I ask you, is this issue we are discussing in this thread not the chink in the armor? If we needed to choose one place to attempt to break through the front line of feminism, isn't this the place? Wouldn't widespread public acknowledgement of this cut the trail for the social reform that we are seeking?
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Julian on Mar 31, 2006, 01:05 PM
Quote
The aggression of boys is mostly overt - and is much more readily observable - whereas that of girls is far more covert and it is very difficult to see from the outside.

In some sense, it seems that boys are often proud of their hostility towards others and, as such, they are more than happy to display it, whereas girls seem more ashamed of their hostility, and would prefer that no outsider noticed it.


That last sentence for me sums up the feminist movement in a nutshell ie hostile and hidden.

Quote
And this is where boys often do let themselves down rather badly, in my view.

Because they seem often proud or, at least, 'unperturbed' about their own 'disruptive' or hostile behaviours, they seem far more ready to engage in them. And so, for example, they are far more likely to disrupt the classroom even though the teacher is there.


Wouldn't it be a worthy endeavour to consider this trait in a positive light? For example if we all comformed to society we'd all probably still be living in mud huts etc making absolutely no progress.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Julian on Mar 31, 2006, 02:36 PM
Quote
So I ask you, is this issue we are discussing in this thread not the chink in the armor? If we needed to choose one place to attempt to break through the front line of feminism, isn't this the place? Wouldn't widespread public acknowledgement of this cut the trail for the social reform that we are seeking?


It's one of the many chinks Rob but the problem is there are some very intellignet people writing on this particular issue that can't even put a name to this "female aggression"

To me it's just bullying as defined by Tim field here:- http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Title: Passive agression
Post by: angryharry on Mar 31, 2006, 06:45 PM
Hello Rob

Quote
So I ask you, is this issue we are discussing in this thread [hidden female 'aggression'] not the chink in the armor?


Yes, in a way it is. And it **is** being addressed by MRAs all over the place.

My email box and the posts on the men's forums are postively overloaded with examples of female aggression or 'abusivenes'. The data on female violence, female sexual abuse, female deceitfulness etc never stops coming in. And, indeed, exposing female 'failings' seems to be the #1 area of men's activism. So much so, in fact, that this has actually exasperated me often in the past. Not because it is not HIGHLY relevant, but because, on its own, it is just not enough.

In my view, what the public really does need to become much more aware of is this notion that there are huge organisms out there that are serving themselves; because as soon as one starts seeing the world in this light, many things begin to fall into their proper place.

For example, if people were able to see how the feminists and much of the abuse industry postively ***thrive*** on stirring up hatred towards men, then they would more readily appreciate what is going on, and why. They would begin to see how and why they were being manipulated and so, for example, they would also begin to see how many powerful groups benefit by fiddling the statistics on, say, domestic violence and rape.

Without this understanding, they will simply swallow all the anti-male propaganda that is perpetually enveloping them, because they tend to trust those 'organisms' that are creating it; e.g. the NSPCC, the women's groups, the government, the judges etc. As such, it is very important that these self-serving groups are exposed.

A resonable parallel would be what has been happening over the Iraq question.

Bush has lost much support over Iraq, not because he is wrong about the existence of certain murderous groups of fundamentalists. On the contrary, he is right about them. He has lost much support because the public can now see other **motives** behind the invasion; e.g. oil.

And, similarly, if the public's eyes can be opened to the ulterior motives behind the actions of the feminists etc etc (e.g. the generation of funding) then they will far more likely withdraw their support for them.

Putting this another way: Anti-war activists made precious little headway talking about the 'innocent victims' of the Iraq war. They really started making headway when they managed to expose the various distortions of the truth over the reasons for the invasion, and when they also managed to expose some of the hidden motives behind it.

And, similarly, when it comes to 'men', precious little headway will be made by talking about how poorly 'innocent men' are being treated. What needs to be done is to expose the various distortions of the truth that various anti-men groups are engaging in, and to expose some of the hidden **self-serving** motives behind their activities.

By doing this, their propaganda will become far less effective; because people will begin to see through it.

In a nutshell: Yes, it is very important to show people how women are very good at hiding their aggression. But it is also important to show people that their main sources of information concerning gender issues are ***highly*** disreputable.

And there are a few other very important issues as well that MRAs **must** address in order to make significant headway. For example, as Dr Evil has said a million times, unless men become far more aware of how their chivalry towards women is often misguided, women will continue to be able to treat men badly and get away with it.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: lkanneg on Mar 31, 2006, 08:17 PM
Quote from: "angryharry"

Another difference is that boys tend to spend their 'playtime' doing something highly physical with each other, such as playing football.


My two cents--Nintendo and Sony have changed all that.
Title: Passive agression
Post by: Julian on Apr 01, 2006, 01:45 AM
Quote
For example, if people were able to see how the feminists and much of the abuse industry postively ***thrive*** on stirring up hatred towards men, then they would more readily appreciate what is going on, and why. They would begin to see how and why they were being manipulated and so, for example, they would also begin to see how many powerful groups benefit by fiddling the statistics on, say, domestic violence and rape.

Without this understanding, they will simply swallow all the anti-male propaganda that is perpetually enveloping them, because they tend to trust those 'organisms' that are creating it; e.g. the NSPCC, the women's groups, the government, the judges etc. As such, it is very important that these self-serving groups are exposed.


Yes I was just thinking about some of the articles I have read on the sex consent issue. A couple of them mention how much money is being offered. £500K here £2.5M there to various advocacy groups not to mention the cost in Policing, Courts, prison etc. Then we have the hidden cost of the degradation of gender relations. It's all very much a parasitic gravy train.

Did you notice how a couple of those articles managed to mention Domestic Violence?

I mean what's that got to do with the subject or is it as I think, put there just to up the anti?
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: SIAM on Nov 29, 2008, 09:30 PM
Quote
I have seen many couples over the years where the woman was a master at passive aggressively infuriating her partner.  She knew just the buttons to push and would wait for the right moment and then push away! (usually related to sex or money, his not making enough or a subtle stab at him not being good enough in bed) The guy would react right on cue and get upset.  Oftentimes he would yell.  Then she would claim victimhood at having been yelled at and the focus of the conversation left the previous sphere (which she didn't like) and entered her victimization.  He screams "I'm not yelling!"  She would then pour a little salt in the wound at the right time and he would blow!  Maybe he would push or shove.  Then you leave the realms of yelling and enter into a possible domestic violence charge.  The whole thing was a set up from the beginning.  He didn't know what hit him.  They go to a therapist and the focus is not on the original issue but on his domestic violence.


Just got to bump this topic, because Dr E hits on a good point here (know it's an old thread but the subject matter is timeless! :greener: ).

I've been there in a previous relationship (my previous marriage  :yikes:).  When your partner does this kind of button pushing, believe me, this is a sign your relationship is nuked beyond recognition.  OVER.   Some people (let's face it, WOMEN) dish out this passive aggression right from the get-go.  Guess what? Your relationship didn't even taxi to the runway, let alone take-off. 

Passive aggression puts you in a no-win situation, and the aggressor knows it.  The aggressor also knows she can feign innocence if you bring up the issue of passive aggression. 

People who put up with it do so because they're STUCK.  They can't just leave the "relationship" - they have kids, they're married, it's not that easy.  So they're hostage to this form of stealth aggression.

Only thing I can say is: if you see signs your partner is displaying this kind of behaviour, get the hell out if you can.  You're on a hiding to nothing.
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Nov 29, 2008, 09:42 PM
Yeah Siam, sometimes people put up with this crap simply becuase they are not aware of the ploy and simply react rather than deal.  Men need to learn how to combat this sort of terrorism and the first step is learning to spot it and call it out.  Once it is out in the open it loses its power quickly. 
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: . on Nov 30, 2008, 12:53 AM
Wow, this thread really resonates with me.  I have experienced passive aggression and I reacted to it in all the predictable, ineffective ways.  Now that I live alone (with 50% custody of our son, and a bit of free time), I get to thinking about what was good in my past marriage.  The hot cooked meals, the readily-available affection, the stable companionship.  Those are all gone now.  I could easily get down about the loss of them, but then I remember the feeling that I had when I moved out and got my own place.  No one to nag me, push my buttons, manipulate my emotions, socially isolate me, threaten me, blackmail me, etc.  For the first couple weeks, the sense of freedom and elation that I felt was so powerful.  There was peace in my mind.  I didn't have to justify, explain, counteract, disagree with, endure...  I could just do what I wanted to do, when I pleased.  I spent my money how I liked, and just did what I needed to do.  My obligations shrunk down to just me and my son, and it was like an enormous weight had been lifted off my shoulders.

Over time, I think I have taken for granted this sense of liberation that I have enjoyed.  When I start missing all the benefits of my marriage, I remember the benefits of autonomy.  It's a lot more solitary, and a bit austere, but I'm free.  When I have doubts about whether the divorce was worth it, I think of that first week in my own place, and it's all the convincing that I need.  The divorce was worth it.  But I don't have to rely only upon my own fading memories of all this in order to provide me clarity about the question of whether the divorce was worth it.  The Bible states it plainly:

Quote
Proverbs 25:24: (http://bible.cc/proverbs/25-24.htm) "It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman."


There's the solution...  Just move out.  There's so little time that we have to live on this earth.  No amount of therapy will change "the other" person.  Therapy will only teach YOU how to adapt to them; expectations of reciprocity and cosmic justice only serve to heighten the pain that you're in for when reciprocity and fairness are not forthcoming.  Unless you have some sort of Zen state that can shield you to the latent hostility and shaming that a contentious woman maintains in her emotional arsenal, it may be better to just live out your days in peace.

Read Ecclesiastes...  All is vanity.  We're going to die, and everything that we argue and debate about -- in fact, every achievement we can conceive -- will eventually decay and be forgotten.  We only have this life in which to enjoy the opportunity for happiness.  Arguing about who is right may have a point, but it accomplishes nothing except helping us to validate ourselves.  Why not just do what will make you happy, and try to spread the love around?  You'll be dead someday anyway, so eat/drink/be merry while you have the chance.  Yes, I encourage every MRA and MGHOW to read Ecclesiastes.  What a perfect book for men who have suffered from the passive aggression of a wife.

I guess the question to ask is what should we do.  Not who is right, not how awful the problem is, etc. but rather what should we do.  If we are being victimized, we should end our victimization, not seek validation.  We certainly know that men are out there who suffer from female-imposed passive aggression; we can make a difference in their lives by providing them an opportunity to bond with other men in healthy ways.  Like entrepreneurs whose vision tells them, "There's money to be made here!" we should be emotional entrepreneurs for men who suffer from these afflictions, and think to ourselves, "There's happiness and peace to be felt."

If only we would take the actions to start the organizations that will give ourselves and other such men these healthy outlets.  Time's a-wastin'...  Let's get out there and do something.
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: dr e on Nov 30, 2008, 05:11 AM
John -  I think each situation is different and yours was obviously one where moving out was the right thing to do.  There are many other fathers who simply need to learn how to deal with this sort of thing and it can be stopped in its tracks.  I have seen it repeatedly.  For this sort of man moving out would be overkill and would deprive him of his children and deprive his children of the presence of both parents which we all know is a blessing for kids as long as there is love within the family.  Most women when confronted with this will see the error of their ways and the relationship can get back on track.  There are surely some women who are unable to do this and will never be able to relate and from those we need to run as far and as fast as our legs allow.

The problem today is that the hyper delicate balance of power in our relationships has been thrown off by brainwashing everyone with the idea that women have been oppressed and that men don't deserve attention or concern for their needs due to their past indiscretions.  This leaves women, especially young women, with a sense of entitlement and a lack of compassion for men that is ruining the balance of our relationships within families.    Men come into relationships with a strong hierarchical viewpoint and a strong sense of fairness.  When these two get walloped by a brainwashed female who sees her own needs as more important and worthy and the man's needs as ridiculous you are in serious trouble.

There are many times we need to just fold our hand.  Knowing when to run is a tough one. 
Title: Re: Passive agression
Post by: outdoors on Nov 30, 2008, 07:33 AM
my ex invented passive agressive behaviour and i must say that at times i show symptoms of it.