Passive agression

[Galt]

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.

[neoteny]

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:)

[Chris Key]

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.

[zarby]

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.

[dr e]

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

[Rob]

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.

[Rob]

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".

[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?

[dr e]

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.

[antimisandry]

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.

[Rob]

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?

[Julian]

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.

[K9]

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.

[Rob]

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.

[dr e]

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?