Why is that that most people, that I ask, seem to think that anger is acceptable?
But when I ask them if domestic violence is acceptable I have not found one taker.
Yet domestic violence is only the symptom or result of anger.
But still we find the symptom (violence) unacceptable and the cause (anger) to be acceptable!
Do you see how strange this sounds?
It’s like saying that the faulty oil pipe in the A300 Rolls Royce jet engine is
acceptable but the resulting plane crash that was caused by it is not acceptable.
I say that when we make the cause of domestic violence unacceptable we will
be on our way to creating a better world.
Anger is understandable but not acceptable, to me.
The couple needs to forge a way of becoming angry that does not escalate into violence. At some point, the couple realizes (separately and together) and learns how they can discuss the content and misunderstandings that are at the root of the urge to get angry. Then the anger is no longer needed as a frustrated expression or a desperately calculated “last-resort” solution.
One of the best blog sites on how one person can change the entire dynamic of a relationship is http://www.assumelove.com
I agree with what you say “the couple needs to forge a way of becoming angry…”. Our way, (my brother Steve and me) is to make the whole of anger unacceptable but understandable.
Steve and I discussed this the other day as to why no level is unacceptable and I explained that even though I may allow what ever level I choose at any point, because of our agreement, I have the right to say that any level I choose is unacceptable. I do not need to argue a point as to why it is not acceptable to me as our agreement protects me (and him).
I can simple apologise for not stopping it earlier (as for me to eventually say it is unacceptable I must have allowed it to pass an acceptable level for me at the time).
This level that I allow is dependent on how I feel but I am finding that the less anger that I allow the better results I seem to get. ie the less angry I get and the better I feel.
or maybe if both people acknowledge from the outset that what ever the outcomeis, that they both have a choice in how they think about, and therefore react to, the outcome.
if one thinks negatively about the outcome (ie why does it always happen to me), chances are they are more likely to get angry.
if one thinks positively about the outcome (oh well, I can make the most of it), chances are they are more likely to remain constructive (is how i see it)
if both believe they have no choice in how they respond to the outcome, then I guess anger will be a bigger part of their relating. just not my cup of tea (given I prefer constructive)
My point being that “forging a way” as Fran say is the way, what ever that way is is up to the individual couple or group to forge. Thinking ahead is what I call forging.
(funny though, that the word “forging” is like cast iron, very solid in its process)
I think that we require is a very flexible way, that will probably continue to change throughout the lifetime of the relationship.
I also think there are 2 parts of the way or process.
1. The agreement for how we would act during a conversation/discussion
2.How we go about analysing the process after the inevitable crash or failure.
As there is no such thing, in my view of a perfect way, I think it is inevitable that there will be failures and being ready to deal with them is part of the way and I guess wat Steve is saying that we both acknowledge that in any relationship it takes two to tango, as our dear old mum would say. In other words we can only identify the parts that fail but not the person that participated in the failure.
I wrote this morning:
“A dispute or a disagreement is like a plane crash. It can’t be fixed or resolved but we can identify its causes for future references.”
Although i can see you want to explain it in another way it is interesting language that you choose to use Steve. Ie choice and no choice, negative and positive, constructive (assumed destructive). I think this type of polar thinking is also part of the cause of anger. Ie I am right you are wrong.
yeah sure – lots of shades of grey in between choice and no choice (aka: levels of choice). Though I guess the point is to highlight the different levels of responsibility that we can potentially take for each given outcome.
I suspect there is a correlation with taking more responsibility& believing one has a greater level of choice (i.e. the more responsibility I take the more I own my choices).
Flowing on from that I also believe there is a correlation with greater responsibility/choice and outcomes that we can benefit more from in the long run. (I.e. the greater the responsibility I take for my contributions, the better the outcomes will be for me)