I know. She should have appreciated the fact that he didn’t give her a chance to respond to his remark before he left. Running away from confrontation is better than running towards it.
Okay, what about “You may not speak to me that way without suffering repercussions which may be decidedly unpleasant for you, including possible unemployment, criminal penalties, loss of respect from your peers, and/or getting your ass-kicked halfway to next Thursday”? Same thing, more words.
How old are you? The original OP was not saying “be nice or you’re grounded!” Apples and oranges. Grown ups – real, full fledged, reasonable adults – don’t freak out when told that they are violating boundaries.
And, if I read the original OP correctly, the butthead was supposedly a Marine. He had by-god better be able to take reasonable orders without pitching a hissyfit or he’d be in be in the USMC equivelent of Leavenworth until the Moon turns blue with cold!
It was a justified amount of confrontational, because the guy earned it. He was looking for a fight, he provoked a fight, and he got one. As for going down the hall to say it, if the guy yells at you and leaves, you don’t really have a choice except to go after him if you are going to (rightfully, in my opinion) tell him what you think of what he just did.
The phrase is a response to a confrontation someone else initiated; it is not something that would initiate a confrontation.
“Please don’t speak to me like that again” is whiny and puts you below the other person unless the tone makes it perfectly clear that the only reason you’re using please is that your momma brought you up right, but what you actually mean is “talk to me like that again and i’ll serve you your balls (eye and otherwise) cooked, peeled and sliced.”
“Talk to me like that again and I’ll call HR”? “Mommmeeeee! Tommy is being mean!”
iow, would I have used that line to that guy? Well, I would have been more likely to go along the lines of “oh no waitaminute, you Do NOT insult me and then run away. You gonna call me names, you stay and defend it.” But I absolutely agree with the gist of it: LVgeogeek was a lot less confrontational than I would have been!
I have a question: why are some posters opposing “asserting your rights” to “getting a favorable outcome”? Is being run over a favorable outcome now?
Nava, whose foreparents went to war half a dozen times in the last two centuries to defend their rights from the government.
I think it is confrontational in a sense–it literally confronts the offender with a demand–but in many contexts, to not engage in this confrontation would be to do injustice to oneself and to the group you and the other person are working with. Certain things simply can not be allowed to stand without comment–even if “comment” must amount to “confrontation.”
-FrL-
Mad Pansy - I’m 32 so I’ve been working for more than long enough to know how to handle myself in a professional situation. There is what I want to do and then there is what I know is the better course of action moderated by the need to remain professional etc. Telling people what to do is never pleasant, as a supervisor I also couch orders as requests, as I do when speaking to waitpersons or anybody that is in a position of subordination. Because no matter what, as an adult it is unpleasant to be told what to do - even if in reality we are being told, why not at least retain an illusion of free will? Having to bring in a higher authority or rules as a means to coerce behaviour is distasteful - why not appeal to their better nature as people and let their conscience dictate.
To Featherlou, yeah the guy did earn it, and I don’t neccessarily fault the agression, but when the initial abuse is met with agression, we shouldn’t be surprised that the ante is raised further with more agression. Wouldn’t it be better to try and shortcircuit the process and come to a suitable conclusion than meeting agression with agression? Afterall, if I get the agressor to moderate his behaviour, without neccessarily submitting (folding before his agression) aren’t I the winner?
I think that if you need to appeal to HR to moderate or regulate office behaviour, or the sanctions HR can impose, rather than societal mores and standards of polite interaction you are ultimately a loser. The agressor is compelling the abusee to behave in a particular way (with the agression), the responder is also using the threat of office rules and sanctions to compel behaviour - which is in and of itself an agressive act. (if you don’t do what I want I have this metaphorical stick to whack you with)
A prime example - I do not make suggestive or crude jokes in the office, not neccessarily because of the sanctions I may face (in my location sexual abuse standards are very low) but rather because I may make my colleagues uncomfortable, which is not something I want to do. I often ignore rules and laws I don’t agree with.
The crux of the matter is telling people what they may do, rather than appealing to their humanism to enlist compliance.
I think the idea is not that a person should not assert his or her right after being insulted, but the response should lower the heat of the conflict, not increase it. Try fighting fire with fire and nothing good will come out of it.
If the original aggressor is a reasonable person under normal situations he or she would eventually cool down and listen… otherwise, speak to someone who is reasonable and has authority over the situation.
YMMV of course.
You’re right. That would have been displaying a good attitude. I’m curious, though: how would you initiate this discussion? Is “initiate” too aggressive a word? How do you get appeal to the better nature and conscience of a person who curses at and personally insults another person? And what rules and laws are okay to ignore? This is all so confusing.
For a start not by telling them what they may or may not do…
don’t all those touchy feely relationship advice books and columns always say that we should focus on our own feelings rather pushing blame?
Personally I like Q.N Jonses’ statement - nice and factual, assertive without being confrontational as it doesn’t demand action - but lets the other party draw their own conclusions.
Faced with the situation in the original thread, I would probably wait a few hours before discussing it with the other party, opening with an apology for making the mistake, followed by a statement that personal insults are really unbecoming, and that I was surprised by the level of anger. Then I would ask if there was some sort of underlying problem - as the reaction seemed out of proportion to the mistake. Hopefully this would lead to more understanding and a better future working relationship.
Oh - btw no need for the scarcasm, you are intelligent, reasonable and I am sure somewhat observant, I am sure there are times that you own knowledge and assesment of the situation will at times be more astute and over-ride rules. The easiest of which to identify is jaywalking, but I am sure there are many many more
In a perfect world, you are spot on. The problem is, there are some folks out there who do not respect ‘societal mores’. That’s one reason that HR is there.
Myself? I would have phrased it in I terms . “I do a lot better if folks don’t yell at me and call me names.” I don’t disagree with you about telling people what they may or may not do. It could have been couched better.
My husband would have decked him. shrug
But, see, bullies have a sense about who to pick on. They won’t pick on people who are not percieved as ‘weak’. They would not pick on me or Hubby (unless they are on drugs 
)
One of the underlying issues with this discussion is that most Dopers are reasonable, civilized people who wouldn’t dream of doing what the antagonist did in this situation. Trying to reason with such a person is like pounding sand down a rat hole. There’s no future in it. If you’ve never met such a person, you can try to understand it but … you really have to be there. If you’ve never met such a person, consider yourself lucky. If LV had ‘lipped off’ or thrown a punch, the situation might have escalated. No offence, but she had no other option than to notify HR.
I think it’s rather ineffective when worded that way. It comes off as a command that you can’t enforce. The perp could simply say, “Yeah? Well fuck you, you worthless piece of shit” and you’ve gained nothing.
I would have said something like, "I don’t have to stand here and take that from you" and then walked away. I understand LVGeo’s feelings, and the perp was 100% wrong to address her (or anyone) that way in the workplace, but phrased the way it was, I think her statement could be interpreted as a challenge.
I would have walked away (when I actually could), called the cops, and then informed another superior that the police were on their way. I interpret that exchange as extremely threatening and can easily see it moving from the verbal to the physical arena.
It is a complete throw down phrase. Personally I wouldn’t use it unless you mean it as a throw down because it’s gasoline on the fire if the person you say it to doesn’t accept it. It’s a black and white phrase, either roll over or pull out the big guns. Or could respond in the most irritatingly mocking manner “oh reaaaaally now, and jussssst what way would that be Maaaaa’am? I want to unnnnnderstand.” Sheesh, would that be infuriating to most people.
For my personal experience “you will never speak to me that way again” is a phrase used by women in a position of power. That is, my mother, the odd elementary school teacher, a stark raving mad psycho bitch bully from hell boss. So again for me, it’s a throw down phrase from a bully in a position of power.
“That’s out of order” maybe is guy talk with the same meaning. Eg, a face saving throw down, or you crossed a line, and now you’ve got a chance to back down before it really escalates.
LVGeo was getting bullied by someone extremely out of order. I’m with her 100%, but maybe there was a better phrase she could have used.
I haven’t read the thread in question, but I’m baffled by this concept that you should avoid being “confrontational” with someone who IS ALREADY CONFRONTING YOU, and inappropriately at that.
I don’t see what’s wrong with that particular phrase, either. Once after being yelled at by a boss, I calmly (and I think that’s the key) said. “Are you done now? Good. You don’t get to speak to me that way.” He replied that as the guy who signed my paycheck, he could speak to me any way he liked, and I countered “No, that means you can *fire * me. And if you’re not happy with my work, that’s what you should do, because if you speak to me that way again, I will leave.”
Now, while I admit that my results may not be representative, he never spoke to me that way again. There’s nothing wrong with asserting your right to be treated respectfully.
I agree. It’s like those parents in the Olive Garden hissing, “Stop that right now! You may not behave like this in public!” without ever actually doing anything about it. The natural reaction is, “Oh, yeah? Or what?” So in that sense, yes, it’s very confrontational and not terribly effective, unless you have the actual power of fists or payroll to back it up. And even there, you can’t stop them from talking to you like that again, you can just give them a bloody nose after they talk to you like that again.
Maybe it’s a “womanly” explanation, but I still go back to: I can’t control what you do, but only what I do in response. I do think a lot (not all) of men still suffer under the illusion that they can MAKE someone do something, or not do something. You might intimidate them, sure, but their actions are still their choice. Saying, “You will never speak to me that way again,” is probably not factually correct, and absolutely unenforceable. It’s a bluff, and like all bluffs, may work sometimes but won’t work always.
I’m certainly not saying one should not be assertive. Absolutely, one should. But being assertive without being effective is just dumb. I, too, like Q.N. Jones’ version much better: “Excuse me, but speaking to me in that way is disrespectful, inappropriate, and unnecessary. We can discuss this rationally,” Factually correct, assertive and yet it makes no claims to control anything out of the speaker’s control.
I know I’ve gotten in trouble before on these boards for holding this sort of opinion, however…
I think of myself as being a friendly guy who is NOT an aggressive person unless pushed, but the “unless pushed” part is pivotal here. I have a right to go about my business without being put in a situation where I get that knot-in-my-stomach sense of “That guy just slapped me down and I have to suck it up” (and I try my darnedest never to put others in that situation either).
No! I don’t have to just take it. Sorry. Actually, NOT sorry. Why should I be submissive to bullies? Screw YOU pal.
The. Other. Person… Started. This. Shit.
“You will never speak to me that way again” is at the MILDER end of assertiveness. You have a right to go higher. If the antagonist only cops that level of assertiveness, he or she has gotten off lightly.
Absolutely. Which is why no one in this thread has suggested you should “suck it up.” Unless I missed something.
There’s a huge “avoiding confrontation” “suck it up” straw man in this thread, and I don’t know how he got here. Is it from the other thread? (I haven’t read it, and probably won’t, at its current size.)
No worries. Adding my 2c here, not claiming anybody else’s. Just adding my thoughts.
I agree that counter confrontation is entirely legit here, but you need to weigh the result of that confrontation. If I felt threatened (and I would have) a personal confrontation isn’t going to help me or put the smack-down on him. In that case, I go to the “counter-confrontation by proxy” choice, i.e., call the cops and get management involved. Those levels of authority will put him in his place in a way I cannot (without getting my ass kicked, anyway).
Hah! That’s the first time I’ve ever been accused of being passive :g:
My point was not that passivity is the correct approach, but that telling someone what they may or may not do does not work, and will not ever work. Why spend your time and energy getting upset over something that you will not change? If someone wants to be an ass to you they will be an ass to you. Saying “You won’t speak to me that way” isn’t going to change their behavior in the way you want it to, and it’s more likely that they will simply retaliate.
It’s not a matter of aggressiveness or assertiveness, it’s a simple behaviorist approach. If you respond in such an exaggerated manner, you’re rewarding the behavior. If you choose not to let it affect you, then you’re depriving the aggressor of their intended response, and you save yourself a ton of heartache in the process. Life is too short to let assholes get to you, and the only people whose opinions about you should matter (and hence the only people who are really capable of offending you) are the people you love and respect. If you don’t love or respect someone, why let their words carry any weight with you?