If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
dragonlady ) writes: In article , "Nikki" wrote: bizby40 wrote: I guess the bottom line is that I can't change the way I think about things, simply because I decide to. I *do* feel like she was out of line. I *do* think she insulted my daughter, and through her, insulted me as well. And I *do* think there is a difference between no longer having playdates, and banning them forever. The problem with this is that you've sentenced yourself to an eternity of being exactly where you are now in this situation. You must be open to finding a way to change how you think about this or you'll never be able to get over it. This other woman is never going to come up to you and apologize. It is completely up to you to change your thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of this situation. I *can* be done. It *must* be done in order for you to let it go. Once again, I have to disagree. I think it is entirely possible to continue to believe that someone else has behaved badly towards you without continuing to carry anger or hostility towards the person, or about the situation. I agree with both Nikki and Dragonlady. Note that Nikki did not suggest that Bizby has to change her beliefs. She said Bizby has to be open to changing her thoughts, feelings and perceptions if she wants to get over it. I believe it is entirely possible to change one's thoughts, feelings and perceptions about a situation without ceasing to believe that one has been insulted or wronged. -- Cathy A *much* better world is possible. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
"bizby40" ) writes: Trying to accept that she didn't do anything wrong doesn't sit well with me at all, because I think she did. Note: if you happen to want to try some of the techniques I mentioned that involve empathizing with the other woman, these methods do not require believing that she didn't do anything wrong. Or at most, they require believing it in a temporary and fictional way, the way actors play a character. -- Cathy A *much* better world is possible. |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Ericka Kammerer ) writes: did. I don't see how you get around that. Either the ban was unreasonable, or behavior egregious enough to warrant a permanent ban ought to be enough to make even birthday parties undesirable. Hmm. Here's an analogy: Suppose a young woman admits to a young man that the reason she's refusing some of his invitations is that she doesn't feel comfortable being alone in his house with him. Does she then necessarily have to stop seeing him in restaurants or at movies or at his house when his parents are home, because she's offered him such an insult that it makes no sense to continue the relationship? (I don't think so.) -- Cathy A *much* better world is possible. |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
Catherine Woodgold wrote:
Ericka Kammerer ) writes: It is irrelevant whether they are both receiving gifts. Gift-giving is not a tit-for-tat situation. When the mother bans interaction, she offers insult. She can't in good conscience then accept gifts. I disagree with this. Besides, it's the daughter accepting the gifts, not the mother. It's all in the family. That's why close relatives are not supposed to throw baby showers. When you're too closely related to the beneficiary, it still smells fishy. By the way, in my system, gifts are not central to birthday parties the way they are to showers. They are customary at children's birthday parties. Even if I, personally, don't think the gifts are all that important (in fact, etiquette expects that I see them as a distant second to the presence of my guests), the fact that they are customary and expected at children's birthday parties means that I am obligated to make extra sure that my behavior is absolutely above reproach--not just in my intent, but also in the appearance of my actions. Sorry, but that logic doesn't work for me, though perhaps it does for others. I'm better with simply accepting that something was horrible or that I'd been violated and simply deciding that what happened was not my fault, not my responsibility (if those things are true) and not taking it to heart. Can you explain how you go about not taking something to heart? This is difficult for some of us to do. I do it using Cognitive Therapy -- for example, avoiding statements using the word "horrible". Instead, a less emotional, and more accurate, word is used, such as "costly", "an emotional shock", "a significant negative event," etc. Albert Ellis called it "horribilizing" if a person kept on using the word "horrible" with accompanying ongoing negative emotion. Apparently you can use the word "horrible" and still not take something to heart. Can you just decide to not take something to heart, and then not take it to heart? What if someone else decides to try not to take something to heart, but doesn't know how? Can you explain how? To me, it's about having confidence in one's self. The horribleness of someone else's actions is a reflection of them, not of me (unless I've done something to earn it). It's my job to keep myself from crossing the line between self-confidence and arrogance, but to me, I don't see how I can take something negative to heart unless I somehow believe something negative about myself. If some part is deserved, then I believe fixing the problem is better than stewing about how horrible I've been. Stewing makes me feel worse, and fixing makes me feel better, so that's a pretty powerful reinforcement. That's not to say that I don't feel regret when I screw up or that I don't have my feelings hurt or that I don't sometimes wonder whether I might have done something to earn the "bad thing." And, of course, even if you feel pretty good about yourself, another person can make your life pretty miserable if they're in a position to keep pecking at you. But by and large, I just don't choose to let someone else define me. I don't really know how to describe that except as a choice one can make. Detachment. That's the virtue that's needed in this situation. Oddly, I've never seen detachment as a particularly useful tool for me, anymore than I saw distraction techniques as helpful in labor. I was better off being plugged in and really experiencing things and moving through them than trying to pretend they're not there. The same is usually true for me with interpersonal issues. I'm usually better off really experiencing the feelings and poking at them and thinking about them and so on. But it's not so debilitating to do that if you're not so quick to take other people's issues to heart. I think it's hard to detach from one's emotions. It's easier to choose not to adopt other people's emotions/thoughts/beliefs (though maybe some would see those as one and the same). YMMV--maybe I'm just wired weirdly ;-) But that's how it seems to me for myself. |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Ericka Kammerer ) writes: Even if I, personally, don't think the gifts are all that important (in fact, etiquette expects that I see them as a distant second to the presence of my guests), the fact that they are customary and expected at children's birthday parties means that I am obligated to make extra sure that my behavior is absolutely above reproach--not just in my intent, but also in the appearance of my actions. I happen to believe that it's considerably more reproachful to (unnecessarily) prevent someone from inviting a friend to their birthday party, or to prevent someone from attending a party, than to accept a gift from someone one has insulted. It's OK if your values and priorities are different from mine. Thanks for the explanations about not taking things to heart etc. Emotions can be rather complex things. -- Cathy A *much* better world is possible. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|