- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Do you believe "the meek shall inherit the earth," it's best to "turn the other cheek," or that kindness will overcome unkindness? If you do, you're probably teaching people to treat you badly. Read More
teaching people
This is a great insight - thanks for the tips!! Trying to please unhappy people is endlessly futile as well.
meekness
I agree that you teach people how to treat you. That the meeks face will be ground into the earth I disagree. I also disagree with rewarding bad behavior. But I also know that tit for tat does not work. There has to be a way to not reward bad behavior and not go toe to toe. I believe that is where meekness comes into play.
I have a big question for you
I have a big question for you about this that I hope you can respond to:
I am apt at doing this in my personal life, but at work it is difficult to respond unkindly to an unkind colleague. Office politics play into your actions, as do your career implications depending on who the unkind colleague is.
My question is: how would your advice apply in a professional setting?
Thank you.
To answer your big question
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. The best way to deal with unkindness regardless of the setting is with assertive responses. So, rather than being unkind in turn, express your displeasure while asking for a specific unkindness to be stopped and not repeated in the future.
For example, instead of yelling back at someone who has screamed at you, say "I don't like being yelled at so please lower your voice and don't scream at me ever again."
Its ok to be assertive at
Its ok to be assertive at work. Start with easy situations and eventually build up. Your mind will eventually rewire itself to behave assertive and not let people push you around. Walk tall. Chin up. Chest out. Your mind will follow.
In the workplace
In response to your question about what to do at work, I find if a colleague is being aggressive or speaks to me in a way you find offensive. "Hey, are you ok?" is a praise that will throw off the recipient from their path of baggage projection! They often stop, say something along the lines of "What do you mean?" or "Why?" to which you can answer "Well, you seem stressed" That way you are putting the responsibility of their ineffective communication back on them, sometimes they don't realise that they are coming across so harshly or that YOU personally find it offensive, some people wouldn't be bothered by the same things. I am yet to have someone not stop in their tracks, say "oh sorry, yeah I'm having to do...blah blah blah or "yeah aaah my kids this morning blah blah blah".
Aggressiveness at work
I don't think the message here is to let assholes turn you into an asshole. The alternative is to call attention to their behavior, tell them it's not OK, and tell them to stop or to come back when they can.
The key is to not engage with what they are doing. If they get you to do what they are doing, you've lost. Instead, calmly and directly stop the conversation.
"I don't like your aggressive attitude and I won't accept it. We can continue this conversation when you can communicate with me in a professional manner."
Then leave, whatever that means. Whether you do this publicly or privately depends on the situation--with truly devious people, you want witnesses, because this sort of direct confrontation drives some people into vendetta mode. On the other hand, humiliating people publicly is a very effective way to worsen an already bad situation.
Cesar Millan, the "dog whisperer", says that an aggressive dog is a frightened dog. Hearing that, I realized that some of my own (mild) aggression at work came from my own insecurity about whether my ideas would be accepted. I resolved to collaborate rather than confront people on work-related issues, and accept their input, and my work relationships greatly improved.
So sometimes an aggressive person can change their attitude if you step around the aggression a bit and try to see what they are really trying to communicate.
How to deal with aggression depends on who it's from and what it's about. Some people you must constantly and firmly push back on them, or they'll try to trample you. Others are simply (and ineffectively) trying to be heard.
Abusive behaviour is abusive
Abusive behaviour is abusive behaviour. It is incredibly irresponsible to suggest that Sally is creating her husband's abusive nature. That is not how the cycle of abuse is created.
new ameriKKKan sport
don't you know the newest fad, the way you prove how "cool" you are, is to find reasons to blame the victims? PsychTod is just getting on the Faux Noise bandwagon! Aren't they clever?
I absolutely agree. The
I absolutely agree. The solution is not for Sally to start treating her husband unkindly. It's for her to GET OUT of the abusive relationship.
Indeed, my experience with toxic people (whether actually abusive or not) is that other people can't really change their behavior, either through kind or unkind actions. The only real course of action here is to cut off contact as much as is reasonably realistic (this will vary depending on the situation).
Now, when it comes to people who are not actively abusive/toxic but merely have made a bad judgement call or have a frustrating behavioral tendency, I do think that "turn the other cheek" works. It's fine to briefly say "Hey, it's frustrating that you were late to our coffee date - can you work on that?", but holding onto anger over it or being a dick back to the person is rarely productive. It's just better to let it go and forgive, and know that a real friend will do the same for you when you (inevitably) mess up in the future. Ultimately, I think we all have flaws and friendships work better if we can accept the flaws of our friends without constantly trying to change them. I certainly know I'm not perfect and I'm glad my friends are able to forgive me when they come out (just like I forgive them). If there's someone whose flaws I just can't deal with (either because they push personal buttons or because that person is acting in an abusive manner toward me), I usually find it's better not to try and force the friendship.
Abusive spouses
Here's my opinion about this: Sally isn't creating her husband's abusive behavior, but she is perpetuating it. If she isn't willing to say, one way or another, "This will stop or I am gone", or just leave if she needs to, she's no victim. Marriage is a choice (at least in western societies.) If you don't communicate to your spouse what the deal-breakers are in your relationship, where the lines are, I think you forfeit the right to complain.
I don't think the word "victim" doesn't relieve people of their fundamental responsibility to take care of themselves. An abused person does have a right to better treatment than abuse. They even have a right to respect and love from a spouse. But that right is irrelevant if they're unwilling or unable to claim it, by standing up and stopping the abuse, or leaving and finding what they really deserve elsewhere.
Excellent comments
Hi Mark,
Thank you for both of your comments. I found them cogent, accurate in explaining the essential message of my post, and well written, too.
The Sally Example Is Problematic
I think both Sara and Mark are making valid points here. In this example, the best solution may well be for Sally to just leave. Or, she may be perpetuating the situation. I think the real point of confusion here is the example itself.
If she’s actually in real physical harm (or has reason to think she is), then her lack of assertiveness isn’t weakness. Of course, if she moved to another state for example, the situation would no longer be perpetuated. So, in that sense she is perpetuating it. (She’s also perpetuating it if she doesn’t perceive the situation as threatening, and is simply dislikes conflict.)
However, when using an example as potentially serious as domestic violence, it has to be qualified more than it is in this article. The overall degree of abuse should be clear. He may be just yelling at breakfast, but does it go farther than this at other times? More importantly, it should be made clear to readers that if the threat/fear of physical harm exists, then the only option is to leave, to seek the help of law enforcement and city services. If this threat exists, then it is not simply a case where someone has chosen to be a victim and is actively perpetuating it. That would be like suggesting if you are held at gunpoint, you are equally responsible for perpetuating the situation if you don’t simply explain to the gunman that his behavior is inappropriate and you are going to walk away if he doesn’t put the gun down. To suggest in a situation of domestic violence that the blanket response should be confrontation is irresponsible at best.
In defense of kindness... and abused individuals
I agree... to a point. But there ARE people out there who have only known unkindness and angry/abusive responses. Some of them, especially the ones already in counseling, need to be shown that the responses they have been trained to expect are not always the responses that they will receive, and in fact are not normal responses at all.
To immediately respond to bad behavior through negative reinforcement is rather extreme - especially if you do not know the history of the person that is acting in this manner. I understand that in many cases we are discussing an ongoing behavior, but that needs to be clarified so that individuals reading this article do not go out and start meeting "on the street" negatives with negatives.
Individuals deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding their behavior, or no amount of adverse responses will ever change it. Once it is established that kindness does not work, then one should move on to other things. But the approach of kindness should, in my opinion, always be the first attempt.
Great and shocking
That was an awesome article. My faith and my family teached me I always had to be nice with others ever, but the true is not all people deserve it. I think the low self-esteem is also related to the positive responses to bad behavior.
Time and money are limited resources
And I sure as hell will not spend mine on people who treat me poorly. When I actually implemented this new mindset, a lot of negative, toxic people were eliminated from my life. More importantly, I have a group of friends who are kind, loyal, and, most importantly, treat me with respect (and I treat them well, too).
That is sad to hear, Ester,
That is sad to hear, Ester, because you might actually set someone on the road to recovery from abuse be being more understanding of their response, and the underlying causes.
Of course, this does not apply to the habitually unkind individual; they need far more help than kindness can give.
YES ESTER I AGREE
I agree with Ester. Cut the toxic people out of your life.
You can love them from afar, but you aren't meant hang out with everyone you like or even love. At times that will include an abusive spouse, such as that detailed in the story.
If the relationship is poisioning the quality of your life, then they can find their recovery elsewhere. Preferably in a different zip code.
To SE. In most cases it is
To SE. In most cases it is not our responsibility to be the one to show these people that they need help. In my experience most people do try to in vain. There comes a point when enough is enough.
This article has the
This article has the potential to bring out atheists who will say: "see the Bible/Jesus/God/Christianity is useless" and defensive Christians, who will rile up the atheists more.
Sigh. The real problem is that Christianity shouldn't be a culture. Christianity should be a personal thing. (And not a "secret" personal thing- but that's another debate.)
So turning the other cheek is fine- it's when it is to the detriment of the other person that it is wrong. The first example in the article- the wife should have told her husband about his abusive behaviour, asked him to fix it, and still been kind to him, if she was wanting to turn the other cheek, to outrageously love him. She shouldn't do it under a feeling of compulsion or *trying* to be good- this doesn't work. She wasn't truly 'turning the other cheek' since she was rewarding his bad behaviour, and not encouraging him to change.
Turning the other cheek isn't about being a doormat to everyone.
Gandhi's non-violent protest is based on this principle- and that non-violent protest liberated a nation.
That non-violence and 'turning the other cheek' in Christ as he went to the cross liberated humanity.
no more
I've been a person responding with "kindness" or at most with withdrawal to unkindness, and forgave a perpetrator as soon as possible. Hardly ever voiced any displeasure. It was as if I had "KICK ME, PLEASE!" written on my back. I also suffered from lack of self esteem, depression, a divorce after "doing everything for the family" and being betrayed. Now I find "turn the other cheek" perverse. I am still a kind, sensitive person, but I know that when one allows others to mistreat him/her and then rewards them for that they are also to blame. (The primary responsibility is with the abuser, of course.)
I am still against revenge and understand that both the victim and the perpetrator were "taught" to behave this way by their caretakers.
Pop psych poop
This article is both right and wrong. Unfortunately, its brevity lends to pop psych poop interpretations. In short, it provides enough information to be extremely dangerous but not enough to actually be effective.
What is allowed is encouraged.
Nice article, although many of the commenters set up a straw man of either passive acceptance or aggressive response. In many situations, one can stop bad behavior by identifying it and stating your expectations. Other situations may require a more aggressive approach.
The example of Gandhi's success is often mis-credited as only due to his non-violent approach. The Brits could have easily destroyed him, but there would have been consequences that would likely have been self-defeating for them. So it is in our personal and professional lives. Choices have consequences. Failing to make a choice also has consequences.
Mom was wrong when she said that fighting never solved anything, but there are options between attack and acceptance of injustice. There is a time for peace and a time for war. As we learned from Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse, be nice... until its time to not be nice."
teaching children to be assertive
I struggle with the issue of teaching my seven-year-old daughter to be assertive when her peers are treating her badly. She is a very kind-hearted, sensitive and naive child, and has attracted at least one future "mean girl" who takes advantage of her naiveté. Fortunately, I can see what's happening and try to shield her from it by avoiding this child, but she cannot. In fact, the child I am speaking of recently left her off a party invitation list, but requested that my daughter help her deliver the invitations to other kids at school!! She refused to help her out of fear she'd get in trouble with a teacher, thankfully. I know the child's mother and talking to her is hopeless ... she's not especially honest (in other words, I've picked up on several of her lies) and feels her child is an angel.
How do I teach my kind-hearted and sensitive girl to stick up for herself -- or even to recognize that others are often not working in her best interest?
Turn the Other Cheek
The article's recommendation that aggressive behaviour should be met with aggressive behaviour sounds to me like a recipe for confrontation. The simplistic illustrations used assume that Sally and Tommy are sainted souls who play no role in the toxicity of their marriages, accept being just too nice. Neither scenario rings true to me.
The casual dismissal of the age old appeal to "turn the other cheek" illustrates a misunderstanding of the context of a very effective non-violent technique. Jesus was instructing his contemporaries to physically turn their faces into their attacker's blows. The attacker, likely a Roman soldier in an occupied land, would then have the choice of striking his victim on the nose or delivering a back-handed blow. The attacker either escalates or breaks off the violence. Gandhi and Martin Luther King used similar techniques. Life is not always about arguments over breakfast.
There is no shortage of aggressive, rude and outspoken behaviour our society, and it seems unhelpful to advocate more of the problem as being the solution. There are all sorts of alignment techniques that work to diffuse a situation and get to the root cause of the problem. Humour and empathy used with a sense of purpose, almost always trump confrontation. Your readers are seeking more tools, not just justification for indignation.
What Stephen?
He does not say to meet aggressive behavior with aggressive behavior. His point is that when someone treats you badly you need to speak up. This most certainly can be done in an effective speaking voice without losing your cool. I've been that too nice person in the past. Always letting everything roll off. Always staying to myself it's not that big of a deal. Do you know what happens? The offenders, or toxic people if you wish, get worse. Their treatments and behaviors get worse. What was truly not a big deal now has become a major problem with people getting hurt. The ONLY think that IS effective is speaking up. When that doesn't work you have no other choice then to cut them out of your life. Some may say well but life it to0 short etc etc... and that is correct that life is too short for anyone to be treated in anyway that is less than descent!
Great post that some seem confused by
Another great post, Clifford. I think, in reading the comments, some people have confused your meaning of general "abuse" with the more serious matter of domestic abuse.
Perhaps instead of "abuse" you could say nastiness, mean treatment, aggressiveness, etc. so fewer people will be confused by your very important and helpful advice.
Also, it never fails to amaze me how people simply fail to understand what is clearly and unambiguoysly stated such as your clear message to be assertive, not hostile. Geez!
Abuse is abuse, the name
Abuse is abuse, the name and/or level is valid no matter how it is ranked or minimized.
Anonymous
I totally agree with what you have say. I feel any type of treatment that is not descent is a cause to speak up and by turning the other cheek they are let off the hook. It really can be anything from a rude verbal comment to a spouse being hit. And as I was getting to in my last post, the longer you let it go, not only the longer it goes on, but the worse it gets as well.
the article did not say be
the article did not say be aggressive it said be assertive, meaning actually saying to the person that you dont like it period and if you dont stop im out of here.And he clearly gave examples of repeat offenders. I see so many parents stuff their emotions with a repeat offender spouse and they teach their children to do the same. Then the parent wonders why their adult child ends up being a doormat in abusive relationships. Or even worse becomes the abuser in relationships.
Post new comment