We are not what we do, but what we do does in many ways stem from what we are.
People have just not learnt to accept the different, and when you accept the different then what happens to the designation of “different”? Does it still bear emotional weight when you’re ok with it?
Dr Phil was talking about controlling behaviours in spouses, and when someone says my husband always does this or never does that, he said there is no person that always or never does something or nothing. Yes, so an example is aggressive people. We often deride them as bullies. We think they are maybe psycho, but in fact who are the truly supportive people? Those who really achieve? Is an aggressive person of necessity a hot head? We know passive people also, and they are often praised for being gentle and supportive. But is it not these same passive people who just panic when someone is injured? When any real crisis arises?
If women show aggression, most of the time they get called feminazi or something. Yes, it’s the same judgement about feminine males in reverse. I have known very aggressive people. People who act as they decide and will act on others, and they were some of the most trustworthy and supportive people I know. Aggression doesn’t equal ignorance or even insensitivity really, but we push people out of balance. A naturally aggressive person is called an ogre almost constantly. This drives them to be that ogre as nothing else is permitted socially.
Being forced into a passive role when it doesn’t fit your nature is frustrating, and it’s the same with aggression. There are naturally passive people, and we tell them they are weak, indecisive, untrustworthy. They eventually withdraw, and even resort to passive resistance.
Sometimes it takes more strength to not respond with action than to do so? Indeed, a naturally passive person is not necessarily disengaged.
Sort of like telling a child that they are bad for so long, they become bad? We don’t allow the natural differences to be natural. We have concepts that hurt everyone involved.
Being passive is sometimes a choice also? Indeed, and nothing denies someone of one temperament the choice to adopt the opposite position. As a matter of fact, yin people going yang, and yang people going yin raises another dynamic, assertiveness. If a person is naturally yin they won’t stay yang for very long. It’s not in their constitution, and if they push it they will crisis.
I became sick. Denying women a yang role if it’s their natural temperament is not in keeping with balance, and this is not a manifestation of duality. It’s a short circuit. It’s static and not dynamic.
I find naturally quieter people get laughed at when they try and act assertive. Then they become even more withdrawn as if people think it’s just a joke. Hmm, well there are styles of assertion. Assertion for the purposes of this discussion is not synonymous with aggression. A yang person can be assertive by choosing forbearance. A yin person can be assertive by choosing proactively. Neither of those choices are really crossing into the other temperament are they? An example of yin and yang interacting is a yin person may initiate a hug. If they are hugging a yang person, who was likely busy with something before the hug happened, the yang person may choose to prolong the hug.
When I became sick, I was too weak to be very assertive. It seemed to spiral me down. Not allowing your spirit to be what it is can lead to a degenerative cycle.
I like this idea that you’re not taking on the opposite, but using your own style of assertiveness. It removes the pressure that we have to be “other”. You don’t have to be the other. The other is other for a reason. The unity is not preserved by blurring duality. Duality exists as a natural linkage, but we think we know better. We tell people what they should be, rather than saying “Well people work together in this dynamic way”. Is the “should” in any way the truth?
No, because it then also just goes in circles. People will change the “should” depending on circumstance. Yes, and broad systems like that mostly are no longer suitable. This doesn’t mean the dynamic isn’t still there. If “should” is circumstantial, how can it be called “should”?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.