Category: Dating and Relationships
Ok a recent thread, which I won't mention, got me thinking about something.
Someone accused someone of defending their partner, and someone else called that a low blow.
All right: I'm maybe old school. I don't imagine myself to be a knight in shining armor or anything, but I'll be honest. If there is a debate or something, I do take her side. I know it's not logical perhaps but it is pretty well engineered into the biology and nature and coditioning of most males. Even the most feminist I knew growing up, the girls who said they didn't need a man for anything, would expect that their man would at least stick up for them in an argument. In particular where the other party was getting bloodied.
So, would any of you actually see it as an accusation if someone said you were sticking up for your partner? I know women typically do this less, and men typcially do it more: women are more likely to say they're not going to stick up for him he can do it himself, or under some guise of rationalism, real or imagined. I've seen both the real and the imagined.
Maybe I'm odd, maybe I'm old school. I'm as modern as the next guy on many counts. But as long as I'm Hers, I definitely am a bit of like a dog that way and will defend her. And the chick I am with is not even weak: taller than me, a lot of times has even a stronger opinion than I do about something and all of that. And yet, call it for love or loyalty, this is actually what and how I am, not too proud to admit it. I have grown, I don't defend just any woman as boys had it taught into them by men and women alike, both traditional and modern / feminist. But as to the partner I'm with, yeah I am unequivocably biased, irrationally so, admittedly a bit of a dog about it. Even if I do not act on it, I have some rather animalistic feelings that go along with this. Again, I know more men who feel this loyalty than women but I don't know if this is just the people I know.
Anyway, thoughts? Right or wrong? If it's just nature, why is it then considered wrong. After all, in my case at least, I will never go try and say I'm being objective in that instance. Pardon the old-fashioned expression, but at that point I have picked a side and man enough to stand with Her. Is this more a male loyalty thing? An age thing? or what?
Sure I've known men, and been that guy, who stood with her then apologized and said Oh I know she is an independent woman and can do all her own yada yada yada fill in your dogmas. But it's not because I think she's weak. I believe by now I have in part figured it out: Being Hers, I stick with. And that is primarily when I stray in discussions from trying to be rational and subjective.
Now bear in mind I don't just jump in or do something stupid. But that incident on the other thread got me thinking. The only times I'd seen an accusation of that nature was leveled at us men in the early 90s when people imagined that we do that as some sort of artificial means of controlling her. I to this day do not understand the physics of that one, but ah I forget: social sciences are a far cry from physics.
I do think it may well be nature, though there is conditioning but conditioning does not account for all of it. Conditioning is when you do it for any woman anywhere because if you don't you're either not a gentleman - the traditionalist - or not sensitive to women's issues - the new feminists.
I'm talking belonging to someone and thereby being a bit of a guard dog and having their back. Some of you guys who aren't cowards and are willing to come out of the shadows, despite what is pitched at you, will admit to this, I bet. lol
Anyway food for discussion. Not a drag from the other thread, but it's the Internet: you can bring this shit up without people's panties getting into a twist, not in the same way as real life anyway.
Leo, I think it's a nature thing, though I've encountered women who expect their partner to always be on their side, and have cried and thrown their begging tantroms.. Do I think it's wrong? Um, it depends on the relationship and such. To each their own. Lets say, though, that if my man and I were in a debate and he didn't happen to be on my side, I don't expect him to take it. We disagree, it's normal. I consider myself to be a strong woman. I don't think it's a matter of write or wrong. I think it's how much you know your partner too. Again, this is my opinion. It's not right or wrong.
I don't mean if you and your partner are debating with each other, I mean if she is getting beat in some kind of a discussion and it looks like others are taking a personal attack.
I don't enter in, for instance if it is religious or faith-based, as her mind is more made up than mine is but I would defend her to say she is not a sheep or a follower.
And a lot of what she is involved in, I'm really not qualified to try and interject into anyway since I know scarce little in the social service things and the debates that come up there as to who should do what boundary or whatever.
But i mean just sticking up because you're with Her, or him if a woman is actually of this same kind of mindset.
Guess that much I should have clarified. lol
I didn't say if we were only debating with each other. As for the personal attack, I'd stick up for my man, and I know he'd do the same. Even if he doesn't, it won't break the relationship I'd be in. I do think it's a nature thing, though. If any of us are in danger, of course, naturally we'll stick up for one another. I should've been clear, forgive me. Again, I don't think it's neither right or wrong.
I defend my partner.
If my partner is wrong I discuss that in private.
I never make her look bad infront of others.
I won't allow her to be stomped on in a debate
Well, my partner is quite opposite to me in a number of aspects, and we quite often don't share opinions on things. As he's not one to go online and post in forums, I can't speak in terms of defending him from arguments in that context, but basically, he's big and strong enough to stand up for himself. He's actually stronger than me and would have some of the little drama queens on here for breakfast, Lol!
Seriously, he never would expect me to defend him if i don't share the opinion. He might defend me if I were being bullied because I'm not always very strong in doing it myself but i wouldn't expect him too.
My opinion of this would have probably been the opposite years ago. I guess i would have expected him to always defend me and I can still see why some couples would do it, especially as in that other post, everyone was ganging up on one person who happens to be your partner.
I think it is a matter of instinct. Be honest, how many of you would stick up for a friend or family member if they were being personally attacked or unnecessarily criticized, or a number of other things? Obviously most people who put themselves in a situation are able to stick up for themselves without a doubt, but I would find it odd if you didn't feel the urge to step in and back your partner up especially if this is someone who you are intimate with or love.
I stick up for my partner, provided my partner is right as I see it, or if she's being viciously attacked. And for anyone whose read my board post, you can extrapolate what I consider vicious. But then, I know my partner well enough to know that she could rip someone a knew one just as well as I could without my help.
However, and I probably should have addressed this in the other post. As I am the one who did the so-called accusing, I'd like to make something clear. I never actually said that the reason she was sticking up for him was the fact he's her boyfriend. I said she could find the point she was looking for if she looked past the fact that I was attacking her boyfriend. Meaning, if she read the other stuff that wasn't me proving her boyfriend wrong repeatedly, she'd find what she was looking for. As in, she'd find the part where I specifically addressed what she was asking me about. As in, I answered her fucking question and she conveniently missed it. As in if she went back and read it over again, excluding all the stuffed aimed at her boyfriend, she'd see her little lump of coal in her stocking. Are we all on the same page now? Good, back to your regularly scheduled postings.
whether I think someone I'm dating is right or not, I wouldn't defend him or her, period.
he or she needs to know that, when they're with me, I trust them enough to accept that they're their own person, and can handle debates they get into themselves.
this doesn't mean I'm unfeeling, or that I don't love them, but simply that I trust them enough to stay out of that sort of thing, as much as possible.
for the record, I wouldn't want someone I was with sticking up for me, just cause they're with me, or for any other reason.
If you're intimately in love with the person, of course you're going to stick up for them! No doubt about it. Agreed.
Even if they're wrong? You'd willingly make yourself wrong for the sake of your loved one? For what possible purpose? So you could be wrong together? You wouldn't rather educate your loved one so you can be right together, or you can be dating someone who doesn't look like a dumbass?
I know its a stupid question, but I think it applies here. If your loved one was about to do something stupid, would you do it too? If they were about to quaff a glass of drain cleaner, would you say "Don't do that", or "cheers"?
In short, why does being in love with someone mean you have to agree with them constantly? Do you honestly enjoy dating people who willingly surrender all facets of personal identity for the sake of your momentary satisfaction with them?
Me? Hell no! as I stated previously, I'd rather that my partner and I disagree instead of being wrong together. It's utterly stupid. Good questions, cody. Doesn't mean that I'll make him look bad, or that I'll bash him in front of others or any thing of that sort. It just means that I trust that he's capable enough of sticking up for himself. As would I, and thus don't expect him to always take sides with me.
Dolce, I'm pretty sure Cody's last post was directed at steelersfan, not you.
Cody is absolutely right, though, about not sticking with a partner just cause they're your partner. that's hugely flawed thinking, in my opinion.
Ah then I am hugely flawed, then. And in my case, She does not expect it. Sticking up for doesn't mean agree with, and the same instinct that drives you to stick up for your partner, is the same one that would keep you from joining them in something dangerous, or protect them from the danger. I think Wayne said it best. I think the old second wave feminist idea that it's because we think she's week, is entirely flawed. I've always been attracted to strong, independent women. Those are often been very different women than the one to say how strong or independent they are. They simply are.
Anyway, all great thoughts.
But you said in the original post that if its a debate, you take her side. That's not sticking up for her, that's agreeing with her.
Now, if she was in a debate, and the other guy started making death threats, and you stepped in, that would be different. However, that instance is regardless of the subject of the debate. Whether she's debating plato or potatoes, you can defend her without being on her side. When you say that you take her side, it means you argue the same idea she does, not that you defend her. So either your phrasing is wrong and its causing a misunderstanding, or you have to answer my questions.
I think it would depend. For me, I'm not on your side if you're wrong, or just because others are attacking him. That's just because like me, he can rip you a new one. However, if there is a threat or a viscious attack on him, I would defend him whether or not he defended himself. I do know that some people are incapable or are not as good at me in defending themselves. I can, but that doesn't mean I'd tear into my partner just because he did.
yes, leo, please clarify what you meant in your original post. I'm confused, now, too.
I'll defend my partner in the case of them being attacked unfairly. We are not talking physical here, but debate.
If they are wrong, I am not going to be wrong with them, but talk about it later in private.
I will not allow anyone to say bad, threatening, and such things about my partner without them knowing I am standing with her in that case or situation.
If she is holding her own, I have no reason to defend her, but if she's getting trampled, I have the right to defend her, and will.
This has nothing to do with her being a strong person, abled, or capable, it has to do with my feelings for her, and our togetherness.
I would expect the same from her, her support.
Cody's correct in suggesting my phrasing was wrong. And Wayne phrased it really well in his last post. I will stick up for her as a person, is what I mean.
Wayne I definitely think it's more of a man thing, the stand with your partner in public.
We as people probably overcomplicate this, but here's how I see it.
If I don't agree with her, I probably won't say that I do, though I also won't join in a dogpile. I may try and stop a dogpile from happening, but only if I can do so while staying out of the argument itself. Usually, though, I'll try and talk to her privately about stuff, and just sympathize.
I don't see being defended as a bad thing. It isn't necessary but it can be kind of nice.
However, when anyone tries using that sort of thing as a means of explaining why they're right, or why their point suddenly has validity where it wouldn't before, it muddies the water. It's pointless and serves no purpose.
Suffice it to say that I don't feel compelled to defend my partner any more than she feels compelled to defend me, and implying otherwise (as in, suggesting weakness of a point based on that) is rather silly. I do somewhat subscribe to the unified front thing though, and you won't catch me dead ripping my partner apart on a board. She's tough, she could take it, but if I have to disagree with her I'm going to do it straight out, not on some forum where others are going to judge. No thanks; there's enough drama in the world without inviting vultures for lunch
SW, others are gonna judge you in person, too, so what makes you think that it's somehow different on an online forum?
disagreements are part of life, whether you're in a relationship with someone, whether you're talking to a bank teller, or in numerous other instances.
Shepherdwolf I appreciate your perspective.
Yes, I don't say that I subscribe to Her thinking on things. In educator type arguments I'm not qualified to say, and in other areas we simply are very different. And I would never claim to be right because I was defending her, right in the argument sense. Only in the sense of what I personally see as honorable.
The honorable thing may be a male thing, a generational thing, or something like that I don't fully know. But your post was well thought out.
I guess, Chelsea, for some of us, where ideas and relationships are concerned, some relationships take priority over some ideas. I wish i had words for it, maybe Shepherdwolf is right in that word unified front. It's you don't want to publicly disrespect or antagonize your partner. And for some men at least, to stand behind Her can be a rich and wonderful thing. It's not, as your second-wave feminist types claimed, some sort of ego trip about controlling the other party. It is kind of an honor thing, I'll admit you that. At least for me.
Same goes with my daughter. I never got on her in public, but corrected in private. Even as a manager I never got on my people in front of another department. Not that I see myself as a domestic manager mind you but that is just another example I guess.
To defend one's partner is not to defend the idea, but the person.
Also, if you love your partner, you respect Her or him and so, in my case, for certain things I do tend to go along with what She does, because She knows a lot more about the subject than do I. And I see Her getting respected for it by peers and others in Her field.
So the waters could be said to get muddied there, but I would not in those instances claim I had originated something, only that Someone for whom I have a lot of respect has told me this.
Chelsea, I don't like airing my laundry in public, particularly true if I really know and like the person I've got a problem with. So I see what you're saying, but whether it's a forum, a bus or a coffee shop, you probably aren't going to catch me dead venting about something Meglet has said under the eye of others. She affords me the same courtesy, and I appreciate that. As partners, people don't have to agree all the time, and they aren't going to. I just happen to subscribe to what Leo's saying about there being honourable ways of showing it and putting your best foot forward.
There's another angle too though. Even if I completely agree with Meglet, I don't necessarily see a reason to publicly state it. I won't dogpile other people if I can help it, so if she's got a cause she's interested in, she personally will know how I feel, good or ill, even if others don't. If others know, it's because I feel I have something productive to add. I can say this for myself, and for most other honourable people I know...but it's not about who's bashing who, or disagreeing, or anything lie that. Quite frankly, most of the people I know aren't going to lose sight of the point of an argument simply because someone else is disagreeing with their partner. To assume otherwise is unkind at the very least and arrogant to the point of self-congratulation at the worst. Counterproductive, in any seyse.
In other words:
1. I won't lie outright to support my partner in matters like this, but if I can offer support, I'll damn well try.
2. I can disagree with my partner, or she with me, without being public.
3. Not being public does not mean there is no support. The most important communications in a relationship are private.
4. I am not worried about telling people what I think, and it matters fairly little whether or not my partner is involved at the time. I know this is true of her as well.
Hope that wraps things up as far as misunderstandings on my stance.
I still don't understand why you care about not simply voicing your opinion in public when she's having a discussion though. Are you really afraid that people will know that, gasp, you might actually have your own opinions which differ from your significant others?
My girlfriend and I have different opinions on many things, and I love that. It allows us to have discussions on a meriad of different subjects. It allows us to be individuals while still being in a relationship. Why are people so afraid of that?
I'll never understand this seemingly pervasive idea that you have to completely conform with your significant other. It seems to extend to more than just opinions and discussions. It often extends to hobbies, evening activities, and friends. I know many guys and girls who gave up a hobby they enjoyed because their partner didn't enjoy it with them. I know some who stopped attending movies or bars because their partner didn't like it. I know others who gave up friends because their partner didn't like it. I don't get it.
There is absolutely no reason that I can think of for you to worry about, or even want, to be in complete lock step with your girlfriend or boyfriend. Why do you want to lose individuality as a person and become known only by your identity as a couple?
I’ll try to explain it from mine and Leo’s view.
If I’m missing your point Leo add, but I don’t think I will.
It is not being in lock step with my partner, it is respecting her, and showing her love not to get in to a heated disagreement with her over something she thinks in a group.
Sure, we’ll have different opinions on a subject, and these can be voiced as long as the debate or argument doesn’t turn vicious, harmful, or to the point where someone is trying to degrade her.
A discussion is a free fall for all until it gets mean, and I personally refuse to have someone disrespect my partner.
Sure, they can say she’s flat out wrong, and she might be, but when it gets to the point of nastiness I’m going to help her, or stand up for her.
This has nothing to do with her abilities to do it,
Next, I am not going to disagree with her to the point I’m disrespecting her either.
Even in private, I don’t argue, but speak in a calm manner, so I’m surely not doing this in public.
I’ll not be saying things like
“You’re stupid.” You’re ignorant.” “You’re dumb, and you need to get your head out of your ass.”
My love extends to her feelings, and that means protecting them even when others are trying to degrade her. I simply won’t stand for it, and I don’t do it.
If that is wrong, so be it.
People can say as they like, but they’ll not get my agreement, even if I think it. It just doesn’t go that way for me.
I don’t have the need to be “right” all the time.
Sometimes love means you allow something to pass for the time being.
I’ll put it this way. If my right hand start to hurt, I don’t cut it off, I try to do everything in my power to make it feel better, keep it healthy, strong. It is my right hand, and I need it!
Leo, you seem to be making this about gender, or trying to. I agree with you on many things, but we seem to have different ideas about gender. I don't think one sticking up for their partner or not doing so is defined along gender lines, but rather personality. Anyone who knows me knows that I will stick up for a loved one, be they family, partner, or friend, if they are under unfair attack. I will not defend them against just and/or fair criticism. But attack? Absolutely. To me, that's often the nature of love, depending on one's personality. And that doesn't always mean I agree with my partner either, though if I'm going to call them out on where I think they're wrong, like others have said, I do it in private. But I don't know where you're getting this, guys always stand up for their women and women not so much for their guys. Ridiculous, in my book. I had a partner I used to stand up for all the time, but he very rarely did for me. Granted, I fought those battles as I needed to, but it sure would have been nice if he'd actually shown those involved that I had his support instead of just telling me I did. His actions would have meant far more than his words at that point. but it was far more like him to take the passive make no waves road he usually did. So believe me when I say that sometimes, women stand more as the defenders than men do.
thank you, Cody, for your last post. what you said is exactly what I was trying to get at.
this idea that SW has about not confronting his girlfriend in public, when he disagrees with her, or when she disagrees with him, is beyond ludicrous, to me.
like Cody, I also know more people than I can count, who gave up their individuality, all in the name of being in a loving relationship with someone. I don't get that, at all, nor can I support such a stance.
so, no, Greg, I don't agree with what you're saying, nor do I think that's an honorable stance to take.
Loved your post sister. Smile.
I'm not giving up my individuality in the slightest. What I find beyond ludicrous is all the compartmentalizing going on. For instance, there is no tie between what pastimes I enjoy and whether or not I'll join a dogpile where my partner is the one being jumped on. You're turning a simple preference into a question of individuality, and that's both illogical and irrelevant.
I have discussions in public all the time where I do not present an absolutely unified front with my partner. I do not have to be in lock-step with her. If she's getting attacked and I'm there to see it, I'm probably going to have something to say about the fact that she's getting attacked, at the least. If I think she's the one out of line, I'm just not going to get into it during a public discussion, that's all. I'll wait till a better time presents itself and then say something like, "Okay, that discussion from earlier...I didn't think such-and-such was a good idea". Rather than make my disagreement with her into a public spectacle, I let it remain what it is: a personal thing.
And, as I said, none of this has anything to do with what I'll do in the evenings, or what hobbies I'll quit doing. Unified front is purely a public image, and if I didn't make it clear before, let me make it clear now...it is not unified in absolutely all things and does not constitute agreeing with her out loud only to rip her apart behind closed doors later. At worst, it constitutes knowing when to speak your mind; in my book, if you don't know how to do that, then you have a lot of work to do in the social-skills department. Couples who routinely air their problems in the open are the sorts of public displays that make people cringe, shake their head or walk away because an argument gets out of hand or because it's clear that the publicity of the spectacle is further shaming the one who might be in the wrong. That's damned inconsiderate.
Just one more thing, in case this yet again wasn't clear:
Opinions, all by themselves, are very often perfectly fine to voice. I'm not at all limited in what's said in discussion, and neither is she. My biting my tongue comes into play only in certain contexts, and what one or the other of us thinks about the Bruins or the tax hike doesn't count. If I hold back, it's because I don't really care to make her feel worse in public. It's because proving her wrong, displaying a hole or agreeing with others who are arguing with her may make her feel undermined. Can she take it? Sure she can, I have no doubt of it. Is there a better way, one that deals a little more with dignity? Personally, I think there is, and so saying, that's preferable.
Yes. I agree totally. So it is me, sister, Leo, and Shep. Smile.
when I have a disagreement with someone, or when I feel someone I care about is being unfairly attacked, I'll say something right then and there. not cause I think that the whole world cares about my goings on with the person, or even cause I like for the entire world to know about my goings on with the person, but simply cause that, in my view, is the dignified thing to do.
have any of you who share Greg's view, actually stopped and thought about how many couples break up, all cause they did what you all are advocating to be the dignified thing, which is walking away, and bringing the issue up at a later time? I doubt it.
also, Alicia brought up a great point about this not being specific to one gender over another.
I don't think it's terribly gender-specific. At worst, I will say that many men, and a little fewer women, seem a bit more apt to label it quote-unquote honourable. This is by no means an absolute, though, and I'm not on that particular bandwagon.
Chelsea, let me give you an example. Say Meglet and I are out at a family dinner and she says something in a lively discussion that's a little too sharp. Meglet would probably never ever do this, but let's say she did. Now, I can tell her right then and there that she was out of line, or I can do the polite thing, iron it over by making a different comment or attempting to deflect, then talk to her when I've got a minute alone and explain the problem I had. Any couple who breaks up or has serious issues because of that simply lacks the wherewithal to be a good couple. It's called prioritization, and it's integral to strong social skills. I apologize if this comes across as really hard-nosed, but I feel you're either missing my point or are disagreeing with it in a fashion that simply doesn't make sense. For me to call out Meglet in front of my family, or hers, for me to make a spectacle purely so I can get my point across right here and now...well, in the grand majority of cases, this will cause more ripples than is warranted.
A couple who buries an issue only to unearth it days, weeks or months later is going to struggle, unless that issue is recurring and won't go away.
A couple who simply picks their battlegrounds is - on those terms at least - not only healthy but considerate. I think that's the heart of it right there. If you can't agree with that, then I don't know what else to tell you, and I also don't have to take seriously anything else you might have to say in related fields specifically regarding couples and their ability to communicate with conflict. I've simply seen far too much, in my own life and in the lives of others, to make this point shake. When something happens a certain way, succeeds or struggles or fails, and cause a leads to effect B over and over, one cannot but see the pattern and, to one extent or another, embrace it. Call that a bit conceited if you wish, but experience and patterns generally don't lie.
No no, if my lover is wrong, I will indeed point it out, but when it comes to little silly tisk tisk ticky tacky stuff, screw that. We argue, we argue, we make up we make up. I wouldn't let them do something stupid, chelslicious. Makes more sense since SilverLightening broke it down. Sorry all for the confusio.
Yes, Wayn said my mind, only more clearly.
I wasn't making it about gender, we're all conditioned now for a more egalitarian society. More it was a general observation. Observations don't make the things they observe. I realize it's not politically correct to make a general observation even if phrased as a question, which included age as well, both as possible factors, which I didn't even say I was sure of either, which I'm not. But it's easy to ruffle the illogical feathers of political correctness. If age and or gender did play a role, of course there would be acceptions.
I phrased age and gender as a question. So now, half a question makes things so?
I also don't think any person calling it honorable is on a bandwagon, it's just a word that describes some things to some people.
Ok, I think I see a few problems with the discussion here. Let me see if I can clear up the waters a little. I apologize in advance if I misrepresent any of the opinions held by others here. Please correct that if I do.
It seems that we, Chelsea and I, are discussing disagreements. An attack is not a disagreement. Attacking is not what I read the opening post to be referring to in its wording. If we're talking about attacks, my opinions change drastically.
We are talking about discussions. I'll use a situation I find myself in quite often. My friends and I often have game nights where we gather at each other's houses, play a lively game of dominos or what have you, listen to music, have some wine, and discuss the issues of the day. Sometimes that's politics, sometimes its religion, sometimes its sexuality, sometimes its the different talent characteristics of Tom Cruise versus Brad Pitt. It varies.
Now lets say that my girlfriend comes to join us, and she takes the stance that red wine is by its nature superior in all ways to white wine. I take the stance that the better wine depends on the taste and the occasion. That sometimes a white can be better than a red, or vice versa. Sometimes its better to have a blush. This can be a discussion we have, though I don't agree with my girlfriend. I won't go, "Well you're my girlfriend, so I'll agree with you". Also, if my friend John then says, "Well, whites are constantly superior in all ways to reds". Assuming he doesn't follow that statement with, "you stupid red-loving troglodyte", I can easily side with him against my girlfriend because its a discussion.
Now if he does follow it up with, "you stupid red-loving troglodyte", I can defend my girlfriend without agreeing with her. Reds can still be inferior without my girlfriend being a troglodyte. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I can easily hold the two opinions simultaneously.
Likewise, to usurp SW's example slightly, if my girlfriend were to say, "Reds are better and anyone who doesn't agree obviously doesn't know wine well enough", I can rebuke that without having to wait until I'm in private with her. I can easily respond by saying, "Well I feel that's a bit harsh sweetie. Everyone has their own pallot for wine". That both disagrees with her, and rebukes her comment without having to wait for privacy, and doesn't end the discussion at hand.
The thing I have to wonder about the idea of waiting for privacy is what do the people who your girlfriend is attacking think of you waiting for privacy? That is to say, if Meglet were to make a harsh comment toward SW's mother. Perhaps she called her racist or said her dres looked like someone vomited on her, what have you. How would SW's mother feel about her son not defending her against his girlfriend? After all, she won't be there when he rebukes her later. How do you who espouse this idea balance the two extremes?
Okay, Cody. Most of what you're saying in that last post makes sense, and I completely agree with the fact that you can put forward a differing opinion from your partner in public just as long as no one's an ass about it. Speaking up in the first place doesn't make you an ass.
In my own experience, whether or not I'd rebuke immediately depends on the severity of the infraction and the circumstances. If it was really serious and risked exploding, I'm going to speak up. Otherwise, I'm not, because most of the people I know are at the very least going to be willing to accept an apology later. So in the instance you gave, if Meglet stepped out of line with a comment my mother found insulting, and I waited to say something, then my mother would be willing to accept Meglet's apology later. This would be true, at least, provided the insult or mistake wasn't enormous. Sometimes you do have to speak up right away.
I will say this though. Even in a spirited discussion I'm probably not going to make a huge point of ganging up on my partner. Say we're with five other people, and all of them including me feel that wine preference depends on the situation. If she's saying white is always better, and all the others are saying what I'm thinking, then I'm not going to perpetuate a dogpile. I'm probably going to redirect the conversation, since stating the same thing over and over again when it's five or six to one quickly becomes pointless.
Cody said exactly what I was thinking. therefore, I stand by what I said earlier, which is that it makes a huge difference when people communicate in the here and now, rather than days, months, or weeks after something happens that pissed them off.
just imagine, "hey, Meglet, remember when we were with my mother five days ago, and you made that off-handed comment? well, I know I didn't tell you then that I thought it was quite harsh, but I'm telling you now that I thought it was."
I can almost guarantee that Meglet won't even remember saying what Greg claims she said that was distasteful, not to mention the fact that, by then, rehashing it will likely bring up hard feelings, when Meglet wants to know why the hell Greg waited to share his thoughts till they were in private, rather than just telling her when it happened.
suffice that to say that I still wholeheartedly disagree with Greg, and others who feel that a situation should be severe enough, before they share their concerns with their partner.
Chelsea, since you're bound and determined to misconstrue what I say and the lengths to which it should be taken, I think it bears noting that your disagreement on this stance has little significance any longer. It would, if you were willing to put my stance into some sort of realistic perspective, but since you're not, you've very clearly drawn the line behind which you're apt to stand.
Did I ever say or suggest that I would wait many days, weeks or months to bring something up?
Did I ever say that I would categorically never speak up right at the moment of the offense?
Have you given any empirical evidence that supports any of the claims you've made?
...No?? I thought not.
Cody, you are on board as far as discussion.
Sure, and I believe I stated this, I can disagree with my lovers opinion in a lively discussion, that is fine.
We are talking about attacks, or ganging up, as Shep says, and the answer is still I’m going to stand up for my lover if she is verbally attacked.
This as you pointed out, doesn’t mean I agree with her, and I don’t need to say or even agree with her to support her.
So we are dear there.
Now on the mother thing. That is an extreme example, and I hope I’ve got better taste then to pick a girlfriend that would even say something like that to my mother, or anyone else.
I a sorry, but I’m still not going to take her down completely right there.
There is a way to handle such extreme cases, and I’d simply apologize to my mother for my lover’s behavior. “I’m sorry about that mom.”
I’d not tell my mother that my lovers was sorry, or make an excuse either, just simply apologize.
Now, and as Shep pointed out, it won’t be days later. As soon as we have a private opportunity to talk about it is when I’ll be bringing it up, not then and there.
I refuse to bring my lover down in front of anyone, mother, sister, brother, father, best friend. And even more so for a strangers feelings, or whatever.
I have stated why before, so I’ll just refer to that.
If a person, as Chelsea stays, wants to break up with me, because I refuse, to be argued with, and I refuse to argue with her, because I have that need to be right, so be it.
I just feel we don’t have to be on top of everything all the time, and my lover is the last thing I want to hurt, embarrass, put down, or correct in front of the world. I don’t have that kind of need.
Cody you're spot on, I think.
I can't fake it so I can't just heartily agree with Her on matters of religion. I usually just don't participate then if I'm going to take sides against her in an argument with other people. Do those other people know that she and I think differently on religion? Yeah, and many of them actually know why. Some say they're praying for me others, say Brother I understand and we laugh.
So I don't think you misconstrued anything.
I will say, though, that while I would disagree with something in public of hers, I think I'd take care to do so in a respectful manner, like SW was saying, because of the feelings we have for each other. Doing it in a respectful manner doesn't make you wishy washy, doesn't make you lock step with their thinking, and all that.
For those who said we give up identities because we do this, or give up activities, you couldn't be further from the truth.
She will never participate in the Coast Guard Auxiliary, has no interest in it, just doesn't really get into all that. Is she behind what we do? Sure.
And I don't do a lot of what she does. I think like SW was pointing out, some people are drawing conclusions where there are no logical connections.
She came with me, for the first time last night, to a Change of Watch ceremony. I'm going with her today to her Christmas party, a place chalk full of educators and social service types. You enter each other's worlds that is one thing. You being respectful in how you handle conflict with the One you live with, that is another altogether.
I'll add, that I agree with Shep, that you can just back out of the conversation. If it is getting out of hand I can suggest to my lover it is time to leave. If she won't leave with me, I can excuse myself, and she and I will still deal with it later.
Greg, since you and others apparently couldn't tell what I was doing in my last post, I assure you that I was presenting a hypothetical situation.
this means that I was simply trying to get you to think, just as Cody has done. I wasn't expecting, or even anticipating, that you'd actually be encouraged to do things differently in your offline life.
so, instead of assuming, as you clearly don't like others doing, perhaps try asking me to clarify next time, if you misunderstand the intent behind what I'm doing, which clearly, you did, in this instance.
I think some people are misunderstanding Cody and I, when we say that people often give up their individuality, to please their partners.
in bringing that up, we aren't advocating that everyone do things their partner likes, if they themselves aren't interested in said activities. what we're saying, is that, oftentimes, that's a way in which people stick up for their partners, that ultimately ends up hurting their relationship, in the end.
contrary to what some of you think, this actually is relevant to the discussion, as Cody and I were both pointing out instances in which the majority view on this issue is often harmful.
as Cody said, there are ways to let one's partner know he or she said something distasteful, right then and there, without putting him or her down, as many of you seem to think would happen, if you took the time to say something immediately.
Hm, interesting points here. I personally feel that my girlfriend and I could even have a spirited discussion without it having any negative effects. I just trust her like that, and know that she can defend her opinion as well as I can when she wants to. I also know what subjects not to touch upon with her.
I guess a lot of it has to do with the agreements you make in your relationship. That is an entirely personal decision.
Chelsea, I don't get why you say couples break up over not hashing something out right then and there, in front of company, the public, etc.
I understand and agree with what cody was saying: disagreements during a discussion are one thing. They're usually trivial things that won't make a difference to your relationship one way or the other. I doubt cody would break up with his girlfriend over the kind of wine she likes if it's not the same as his preference.
If a couple debates, among friends let's say, about whether reality TV is more idiotic than soap operas or vice versa, two people can take opposite sides if they're in a partnership without making the situation hostile. if people truly have strong feelings about the topic and things get out of hand, why would you want to hash it out in front of everyone for the sake of upholding your oppinion. I'm not saying to back down from your oppinion: You wouldn't suddenly say, oh, well I changed my mind. My beloved partner is right that soap operas are a bit more tolerable than reality tv, etc. etc. etc. As was explained, there's no need to tare each other apart like vultures for the sake of standing your ground. If you think those who hash things out in front of friends and family are the ones that stay together more often than those that don't, please watch a bit of the movie called "the breakup". The movie sucks, but it points out the inevitable: if a couple fights or argues in public, mind you, I didnt' say disagrees, I said argues. Big difference...Anyway, if a couple argues in public, it's pretty much a sign of the partners losing their grip on the relationship. If they indulge in a heated argument over something inane in the presence of friends, they make themselves into a spectacle. I guarantee you that most of the biggest advocates of oppinion feel uncomfortable and annoyed if they see two people, who are supposed to be together therefore they're supposed to be loving or at least civil twoard each other, rip at each other's throats for the sake of standing their ground regarding a certain viewpoint or oppinion. When a couple argues in public, one or both parties, in my oppinion lack respect for each other. They lack civility twoard each other. Being a couple by no means translates into thinking alike all the time, but I think civility has it's place within a relationship.
And by the way, I dont' get why anyone would talk to their partner about an incident days, weeks or months later. That's being passive and that's not what's being said here. The peopel who advocate talking to their partners about an incident in private are going to do it minutes, hours or maybe a half a day later. something like that. I doubt anyone's going to wait months to rehash an incident, both because by that point it would be irrelevant and because neither would really remember the incident as clearly.
In the case of my partner insulting my mother, I'd handle it immediately, but not in front of my mother. My mother is an in-your-face woman, so if my partner even insulted her in the slightest, he'd probably get a slap in the face from her or at least a reprimand that felt like a slap in the face--no joke. But should there be such an incident, I excuse myself and my partner, go into the privacy of another room, and I speak to him there. If I can't control myself enough to excuse the both of us to do this in private, both because I don't want to involve my mom in it anymore than she already is and because it's more tactful to do so, then we have a serious problem. If I can't hold back from exploding at him right then and there, we've got an issue beyond the insult of the moment. We've got an issue of him annoying me to the point where I dont' care if I embarrass myself or him any further, I'll just spill it all out right in front of everyone--no holding back. That's not a sign of a decent couple with good communication skills. That's a sign of a couple on the brink of splitting up or at the very least, a sign of two stubborn mules who shouldn't be in a relationship together in the first place.
Cody, I don't think people are saying you can't have a debate, at all. I think, at least to my understanding, that when it gets hostile or very heated, that usually issues can bubble over from beneath the surface and things can get messy.
Chelsea, cody's scenario did make up think. Yours, for lack fo being realistic enough, just confused us.
I understood you just fine, and. However, when you used the example of waiting a few days, I had to explain by example that I don’t wait a lengthy time.
I personally give up things for my partner’s sake, feelings, wellness, and whatever term you with to apply. I call this compromise, not giving up my individuality.
In fact, when I decide I’m connect to someone at the hip, so to speak, we are a unit, and I’ll not be hurting my right hand to appease someone else’s feelings, or be right.
Ok guys. I'm talking from experience here:
I was in a relationship once where arguing and debating was constant and it didn't matter where, when, how, etc. The guy just loved to argue. Furthermore, we couldnt' be more different from each other. He was a republican, I'm a liberal. He watched fox news, i scoffed at the idea of it. He was a momma's boy who, at the same time didnt' really respect his momma, and I hate guys with both characteristics. So we argued all the time. Not just about the big things, but about everything. In public, in private, no matter.
And guess what? I found my individuality was more mangled and bulldozed by his manipulative and argumentative nature than it would have been had we consciously agreed to agree on all things, regardless of our oppinion.
He listened to country music, I went into the relationship detesting country music, but since he hated my kind of music so much that he made a big deal about it in front of friends and family, I just avoided the drama by agreeing to listen to his preference. (hint: I magically began to revert to detesting country music once again soon after our break up).
He monopolized the relationship with his prefered activities, tastes, plans, etc. And I, despite being strong-willed and having oppinions of my own, gave in because he made a scene about everything regardless of who we were with, or where. He had very little respect for me, my point of view, my likes, etc. So he remained an individual, and I lost my individuality altogether for the time being. That was a toxic relationship , in more respects than just the one I outlined. Yet we each tried to stand our ground. all the time. I lost in more senses than one, clearly.
Fastforward a few years: now I'm in a healthy relationship, where my partner is much more mellow, doesn't really revel in confrontation but can certainly hold his own in a debate. He has very definite oppinions and we frequently differ in how we feel about random things, but we dont' argue about every little thing, and certainly we dont' make a spectacle of it in front of friends and family.
Similarly to what cody said in his last post, we know what topics to touch on and which to leave alone when with company.
My partner and I certainly do have a lot in common. We both love music. Yet, though we share a general interest in it, we differ in the genres and bands that we genuinely enjoy. We've both introduced each other to the things we like, but we haven't attempted to alter each others preferences, or else subscribe to one while foresaking another in favor of couplehood.
We both enjoy books: He reads archeological fiction while I can't stand it: it's boring for me. I read realistic fiction or memoirs whereas he finds them to be boring. But we don't sacrifice what we like in the name of our relationship.
He's a guitarist and a total nerd when it comes to the insturment. He's very technical about it, and while I enjoy the sound of a guitar, I don't really get into the technicallities of the insturment, though I make an effort to listen attentively and learn from him regarding the topic, because I like to know about what he's interested in.
Similarly, I'm sure Leo listens to his wife about education, child development, etc. without rushing out and joining her in her interests head-on while foresaking his own.
There is a balance to be had as a couple. And contrary to what was displayed on this thread, the couple who debates can lose individuality just as much, or more so, than the couple that chooses to carry themselves with respect and tactfulness--and to hold a united front as Greg called it. It really depends on the couple, and the factors within the relationship. But if you're genuinely into each other, you're going to want to practice respect and tactfullnes twoard each other, and you'll pick your battles...And you'll even reserve some things for private moments, regardless of how you feel about an incident. It's instinct. It just depends on how far a person will take it. If you have no such instinct, maybe you're on a different track altogether. Even in Cody's example, where he doesn't altogether agree with Leo's stance, tactfullness would be practiced. I'm living proof of the fact that the partners who argue a lot can just as easily trample over each others likes and dislikes, and you can maintain your individuality very boldly while being in a more civilized partnership.
Here's one more anecdote--or scenario--I have a huge mouth. I tend to say a lot of what doesn't necessarily need to be said, especially when family members aggravate me . My partner knows that. And several times, after a family gathering, if I've made an ass of myself and I said something out of turn, he tells me so. And we discuss it. adn I put it into perspective. and I dont' do the same thing again because of it. If he joined into the argument, I'd just blow up at him unnecessarily and we'd have problems stemming from it, either because he butted in or because he further embarrassed me, etc. Instead, I apreciate the fact that if I'm making an ass of myself, he takes me aside and calmly puts his two cents in. I like that he doesn't add to the drama by sticking his comments where I've already caused a stirr.
Thats' just one example. It's an example of mastered communication. it's the furthest thing from the idea that the people who communicate with their partners at a later time, in private, will fai, whereas, those who hash it out in front of everyone, right than and there. So I don't get where you take your point from chelsea. Sometimes, great communication between partners means, control, it means cyncronicity...As ahalf of a couple, if you have the gift to know when and where your comment is needed, you're golden, as opposed to just gabbing away whenever you feel you should in order to defend your own oppinion.
Haven't you all ever heard of airing out your dirty laundrya and how that's not a good idea, especially if you're in a relationship with someone? that doesn't just extend to personal matters within the relationship. That can include arguments in general. The couple who airs their dirty laundry won't be a happpy one. Not in my experience at least.
Bernadetta, the hypothetical situation I posed confused some of you, not all of you.
Wayne understood me just fine, according to his last post. so, since someone got it, I won't bother repeating myself.
also, excuse me for not clarifying that, when I said I don't get why people would wait any amount of time to talk to their partner or whoever else about something, I should've added that I, personally, wouldn't do that. I'm a firm believer that there's always a way to make one's feelings known in a tactful way, and, for the record, I never argued otherwise. everyone got it, now?
Bernadetta, since you and I posted at the same time, I have something more to say. you and others are getting up in arms over what I've said, along with totally misconstruing my words.
as I've stated previously, many of you are confusing the fact I advocate immediately speaking up to one's partner, with absolute hostility.
I'm not a hostile person, nor, as I've also said, do I enjoy putting my business out there just so the world can be prevvy to the goings on between my partner and I. however, I do feel that the sooner I communicate effectively about things, the better off we'll bbe, in the end.
does this mean calling my partner names, yelling, or any number of other things many of you are ascribing to what I'm advocating? no, it doesn't mean that, at all, and never would.
if you read my posts thoroughly, you'd realize that I said I'm a firm believer in there always being calm ways to talk about things, and yes, even manage to get the point across that you're aiming to...again, without hurting the person you're talking to in any way, or otherwise causing a scene.
Bernadetta's right.
So more on the loss of identity issue. There is history on this one: A woman by the name of Gloria Steinam, many of you probably read her work in college Women's Studies courses, spearheaded this. She claimed that women who get their name changed have sacrificed their identity for marriage, and a whole host of other things.
There can always be brought a story to illustrate how this happens, in particular using the extremes, but I'm not sure she's right regarding all that, and subsequently the common identity arguments either. I was willing to change my name to Hers, when we got married, though she took mine. I thought about it: I was a fresh graduate from college and she was already a teacher, and so on. The arguments about the name being connected with the career can seem downright sensible, and I did not have one yet, so, just being a generally decent human being I put that forward. Lol to her it all sounded silly.
You don't lose your opinion just because you don't speak your mind on it all the time. If pressed, you might just tell them the truth, but if you're in a situation where you walked into it, and you know people are very different from you in one aspect or another, you're not going to go out of your way to speak your mind, unless it's called for.
Having an opinion and speaking it are two different things. No amount of magic shows, for instance, could change either my mind or my brother's about evolutionary biology. But some of Her friends are very convinced. We're not going to change each other's mind, I think they're illogical and they maybe think I'm a heathen or something, those that actually know for certain.
You don't want to be in a situation where you are always having to do this, then it gets into hiding who and what you are. But just walking into someplace where you know people have a strongly different view than yours, most people a majority of the time, will gracefully bow out or play it cool.
None of that is sacrificing your identity. Sometimes it is uncomfortable, sometimes it can cause problems. But to truly take away your identity is one partner doing as Bernadetta describes, usurping themselves over the other. I have given up on buying the Gloria Steinam thinking that everyone is taught in those college courses, and even in high schools, and so also see no real value in the idea that not standing up to your partner in public is an erasure of identity.
I'm not sure for each what the motivation is, but most humans are pretty concerned about our identity, we all work to maintain it consciously or otherwise.
Oh and I also understand the normal high-spirited fun that can happen like the soap opera vs. reality TV discussion.
there are different from discussion, debate or arguement. From the title of this topic, i think Uncle Leo is talking about Arguement, not so much of discussion or debate. In arguement, most of the time you will find that there is always a winning party and losing party. That doesn't need to be either you agree on something as an unite dentity or as an individual.
I think having an opinion is very different from voicing your opinion or trying to be prove that you are right all the time, or, in some cases prove your partner are wrong in public.
And no, it is not about gender or age thing, it comes to what One's believe and One's values.
If my family or any of my love ones, e.g. close friends, family members, or someone or something i care about, i'll defend them. Although, i would rather stay as mutural as i can. But, if you come and attact my family, i will bite back without a doubt.
Thanks Joanne. And thanks for being rational and not jumping down my throat. I had had that question posed to me by others in discussion and given the proper, socially-conscripted, gender-neutral age-neutral politically correct response, but I couldn't say I ever really knew one way or the other.
Nobody is the same. Imagine how boring it would be if you committed yourself to someone who is exactly the same as you, someone who has everything in common with you, someone who agrees with every single thing you say and believe, someone who loves the same food as you and orders out the same thing you do every time the two of you go out for dinner. It is quite frankly unrealistic. The one thing every person has in common with everyone is that they are different in some way. If the person you are dating or who you are with can't look past the little disagreements, or you are overly picky about stupid small things, that's a problem. If they can't get over it don't waste your time, and if you can't get over it don't expect to keep people around for a long time. What it comes down to is priorities. There are some things that every couple should be on the same boat with if they are intending to get serious. That is, if they both want to get serious at the same time. Having kids is probably the best prime example. Now, the more important priorities don't get thrown out in the public forums like here, hopefully. Say for example, if two people have been dating for a few years, come on here and get involved in a discussion about having kids, finding out that the dude wants to have children and explains why while his girl says she doesn't want the burden of children, and realizing they do not agree on this, that is a huge communication issue. It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of thing happened because a lot of people suck at communicating. But the little things that I mentioned earlier--- things like why comedy movies are better than action movies shouldn't become an end all, be all, to any relationship. If two people who disagree on the comedy versus action movie are dating, and one person doesn't make a strong argument and the other one calls them out for it in public, so what? What is so degrading about that? Unless the dude calls the girl a dumb bitch with a poor taste in movies, there's no reason to get all up in arms about it. And there is no reason to have to keep everything private all the time as well. But if that's your preference, so be it.
thank you, Ryan. that was the point I was trying to make.
Ah so there is some misunderstanding.
I actually agree with Ryan and Chelsea. I and the Chick are such opposites that we even joke about how the balance of us has created
So how would this work anyhow in public then? Well, for the reasons many of us outlined earlier. But although I can't really agree with her on many things, I have grown to respect where she is coming from. It is possible to not see eye to eye with the other person, but at the same time respect how they got there, where they are coming from, and all.
this, I do unashamedly.calls a well-adjusted daughter.
yes, everything needs to be balanced. I wasn't disputing that, so how there was misunderstanding about what I said, I have no idea.
it's ridiculous, to me, that people freely attach so much hostility/overall horribleness, to sharing your thoughts with your partner.
I stand by earlier posts I made, with regards to speaking up when something happens, rather than waiting till a later time.
that doesn't mean jumping down the person's throat, as I've also said. it's just the right thing to do, in my opinion.
there are ways to show the other person how you feel, without getting up in arms in any way. sometimes, that means supporting them when they're right, other times, that means speaking up when they've been unfairly attacked, or being honest about the different perspective you have about whatever situation is at hand. never, in my opinion, does vocalizing things to one's partner mean making yourself heard, just for the hell of it.
I stand by what I have said. Read it. I think I explain myself well.
Ryan, I don't know, I really love hanging out with Wayne Dina.
again, i think the original of the topic is not about either you agreeing with your partner's decision or not, but is about either will you defending your partner in public space. Say, if your partner and his or her friend having an arguement, or hitted discussion, will you then go away and leave your partner there or you will defending him/her. Well, that is what i thought or think the topic discussion suppose to be anyway.
It is okay on your uniqueness, or on individualism. After all, like some already pointing out, everone is different and unique from each other. But, from my understanding, and the way i interpret this topic is about "will you defending your partner in a public space when he or she gets atact by other party". And that, is not just about two people, a couple having disagreement or arguement, is about third party involvement.
Yes, Joanne, you got it. Don't take offense at this, but you with a language barrier understood it better than many a native English speaker on here did.
But topics branch, as this one did. Smile.
Wayne's last post is right on.
even knowing what the intent of the topic was, though, that doesn't change where I stand.
Defending your partner and agreeing with what they say are different. If someone says that their idea is stupid and not well thought out, that shouldn't be taken as a personal insult as so many people are quick to think. You aren't accomplishing anything and you have nothing to defend your partner against if you tell someone to back down for any other reason than a personal insult.
In a casual public discussion/debate My partner and I have absolutely no problem taking a different perspective on an issue, because we can trust each other well enough to know that just because we're expressing a differing opinion, it doesn't mean we're judging the other to be stupid, unworthy, or any other degrading label you can name. Hell, sometimes we joke about the other taking our side just to avoid confrontation or to make the other happy, because we both believe its unhealthy to be dishonest in a discussion or debate. that being said, we will not use language that makes our disagreements personal, and we will not dog pile the other person, because there is always a polite way to disagree, and preserve our feelings.
We both do draw the line at confronting the other in public about anything that can't be handled in private. such as our personal relationship problems.
Please note, the last does not apply to friendly discussions and debates, but it would apply to things such as a seriously below the belt comment/remark, or some social error I wouldn't want to bring up in public, because its not worth embarrassing someone over.
For example, if an up scale restaurant places 2 similar forks for salad/the main course, and they happen to use the wrong one, I'm not going to drop that bomb right then. Because, its not productive. Maybe i'll lean over and whisper the info but even then, I will go out of my way to be sure i'm not being condescending, or rude.
If its appropriate, in a situation, I may send a text, just to voice the issue before I forget.
I've seen some relationships where one or both of the individuals take the I won't disagree with preferences or opinions thing to such a degree that one or both people don't have an accurate perception of their partner.
that isn't healthy, at all. I always find it really uncomfortable, when you see its clear someone is avoiding speaking their mind/being themselves around there partner. You can usually tell when people are not being genuine in these situations. Doubly so, if you know both people, and someone is contradicting their opinions to preserve their partners ego. that is extremely unhealthy. when I see couples do this frequently, I feel a little ill.Being able to express yourself to your partner in healthy ways should be a cornerstone of the relationship. Even if you're just in it for sex.
TLDR My partner and I strive to communicate in healthy non destructive ways, because we care about one another, and because we never want the other to question our intent in debates and discussions. We balance our values, and the others feelings in such a way healthy expression is possible.