Nag coiled himself down, coil by coil, round the bulge at the bottom of the water jar, and Rikki-tikki stayed still as death. After an hour he began to move, muscle by muscle, toward the jar. Nag was asleep, and Rikki-tikki looked at his big back, wondering which would be the best place for a good hold. "If I don't break his back at the first jump," said Rikki, "he can still fight. And if he fights--O Rikki!" He looked at the thickness of the neck below the hood, but that was too much for him; and a bite near the tail would only make Nag savage. "It must be the head"' he said at last; "the head above the hood. And, when I am once there, I must not let go." Then he jumped.
Riki-Tikki-Tavi
Rudyard Kippling
FTN's post about being an avoider for a day was quite the interesting read. His writing shows how a normally confrontational person tries to tone it down. He tries to not let Autumn in on every, single thing that is annoying him. Finally, he can stand it no longer and nearly explodes.
I am happy that FTN is able to be that confrontational with Autumn. Honestly, I'm a little jealous. Being an avoider is no fun. Although confronting the person, who wrongs you, is the best course of action, that can lead to unexpected results. Both Sybil and my mother were (are) emotionally labile.
Although I don't want to turn this post into one about my mother (I'm saving that for later for all of you followers of Freud), I learned from an early age to avoid her temper at all costs. She was not an easy woman to live with. My father could seek refuge from her at work, but I had to wait until school to have my refuge. Sybil is a little like my mother. Whenever I confront her on an issue, I find myself being flailed around the room, metaphorically speaking. By changing the subject or bringing up my faults, she makes confrontation very difficult. In an effort to maintain peace and tranquility, I find myself swallowing my issues.
That was it means to be an avoider. By being non-confrontational, one tries to maintain the peace at any costs. Kind of like France. Intellectually, I know this will only lead to an invasion of Poland, but in the short run that seems easier. It's only Poland. Because I know what eventually happened in Europe by not confronting an aggressor until it was too late, I have worked very hard on improving my communication skills and confrontational skills.
AA people tend to become passive-aggressive. That is the pitfall of trying to maintain peace "in our time." The irritations are still there, but we don't deal well with them. Instead, we circumvent the confrontation process and use sneaky methods. I am ashamed to admit that I have caught myself doing that, rarely. That is something that I always guard against.
As hard it was for FTN to avoid all of his issues for a day, it is just as hard for a non-confrontational person to be confrontational for a day. It means we have to expect an unpleasant reaction. We must go against our conditioning. It is hard work for us too.
8 comments:
I think that I totally understand your need to be an avoider - in order to avoid as many volatile situations as possible. I can't say that I blame you... just from what you write about Sybil, I want to avoid her. ;)
But seriously, I think that trying to keep the peace as much as possible is very admirable.
I suppose I should clarify that I don't attack my wife on every little thing that happens that annoys me. It is important to learn how to choose your battles, whether you are confrontational or not.
I'm probably more confrontational with other people. And I don't mean that in a bad way. But at my job, with my good friends, I don't steer away from conflict. Because of how Autumn is, I pay much more attention to her feelings and how she is going to react when I do the "confrontational" thing. I choose my words wisely. I think before I speak.
So there is an "in-between" area somewhere. It's not an all-or-nothing situation. I see why you avoid confrontation with Sybil -- she doesn't "fight fair." But you definitely can't avoid the serious issues forever.
In my world (where all things me make sense) I see two kinds of avoiders:
1) Those who choose to be because they hate confrontations.
2) Those who choose to because they deal with (or live with) a militant confronter and know better than to constantly take the bait.
aphron, I haven't known you long but I get the feel you're probably type #2 or something at least similar to that. I'm somewhere around there as well.
As an aside, for a couple years when I was teaching myself how to not engage in arguments when Queenie got rolling (on unimportant junk) I amused myself (and annoyed her) by practicing my array of facial expressions. Maybe that's why I ended up on the drama team at Church, to make use of all that practice. Jus thought you'd wanna know.
I can't avoid things because it makes me feel bad - everything's all bottled up inside and I know there's always a breaking point. So I'd rather just get the confrontation over with and go on to enjoy life. But I agree with So Gone (in most things, but this especially) that I'd want to avoid Sybil, too. Just doesn't sound like there is much point to arguing with her.
On another note, thanks for reminding me of RTT! My siblings and I used to watch the animated version of that story over and over again.
I must agree with Satan. When someone refuses to se their own faults there's no point in arguing with them.
You can't make them see they are also at fault. You can't make them change. You can't make them want to change.
In the heat of an arguement both Cubed and I can be like this.
In a normal sane moment we both want to improve ourselves because we love each other very much. We live and learn every day, and I think our ability to admit fault to each other in our docile moments is what helps us tolerate each others intolerant and irate moments.
From your descriptions of Sybil... there's no such thing as a docile and sane moment of clarity for her.
all-
I've mentioned before that Sybil has a "scorched earth" style of argument. I tend to try to reach a consensus; she tries to win. It takes a supreme effort to make her see my side. Even then, she will put a modifier on it.
For example, the grocery store incident argument ended with her saying that she never asked me to get her purse in the first place. Although she did apologize for what she said, she would add modifiers: didn't ask me to get her purse, I had no right to say that in front of my parents, etc.
" ... she tries to win."
OK, more and more I get the impression that perhaps Queenie is moonlighting as Sybil. Queenie can't stand to lose and won't offer a true apology (at least to me and the girls).
Now why'd you have to go and add that? :)
I also have to agree with Satan... (Isn't that a one way to hell? haha)
I can let things pass but sooner or later all that has been bottled in will come out! I try very hard to never let it get to this point but sometimes it just can't be helped. I also practice being very clear in my communications just for the simple grace of being understood the first time not the 10th! (somehow it hardly helps)
It could be safe to say that picking and choosing your daily battles may be helpful??
Hang in there....
Post a Comment