Anger blogs

Hallowe'en practices

2011-11-01T11:11:00.000-07:00

I'm becoming more disturbed about our celebration of hallowe'en these days. Maybe it's my mind decaying as it ages? Why do we continue to practice something we don't even understand? We don't believe what the ancient Druids practised and yet we follow some of their behaviours in this day and age of modern technology. Ah, a revelation. Perhaps we need one day a year to delve into the strange and unknown and relish in it knowing that it's only for one day. In the meantime we're demonstrating our familiarity with cutting off body parts, torture, bloody and dying bodies slowly winding their way to their false graves, and grotesque masks that are meant to scare the bravest souls. If all this helps us to face the dark side, so be it. If it simply gives those so inclined permission to practice such behaviours outside of Hallowe'en we're merely continuing our barbaric behaviours. I'm confused by this need to exhibit behaviours we wouldn't practice otherwise. We already do this while drinking too much (another excuse to do the inexcusable). And, we say we wouldn't have done or said certain things if we hadn't been so angry (another excuse for our behaviours we wouldn't condone otherwise). Perhaps I'm lamenting our species' cruel history that hasn't left us yet. It seems like we're "celebrating" our fascination with horrendous acts on October 31 rather than "acknowledging" it as something we need to let go of--as in, "a work in progress". I'm all for facing the dark side and accepting it as is. But, I'm struggling mightily with embracing it without thought and without recognition of its origins. Are we quietly and sub-consciously condoning cruel and sinister behaviours or are we struggling to accept that such behaviours continue and realize how helpless we are to stop it? A dilemma, for sure.

Suicide prevention in schools

2011-10-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

This week there was a news clip of how schools are teaching suicide awareness to students following the untimely death of an 11 year old. Many of the comments elicited from the students centre around how persons in difficulty should just talk about it in order to get help. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. (A proviso: I'm not the expert, even though I worked with many suicidal clients during my career as a social worker. However, from these encounters with these persons I gained some insights I would not have learned elsewhere.) Simply asking students to speak out only works if everyone is truly open to hearing what the other person is really saying. Our society is built on the notion, or myth, if you will, that we all are to succeed in life and that everyone has equal opportunity to do so. For someone to admit weakness is to admit failure in achieving this elusive goal. Far too often a sign of weakness is frowned up and quickly attacked by teasing or by tossing cliches at those who show their vulnerability. Sports are a prime example of how this is played out. A player does not disclose their injuries before a game as they know full well, from experience, that the opposing team will go after their injury to get them out of the game. Sports exemplify societal values. So, knowing that, young people, especially teens, are at a very vulnerable period in their lives. It's a time to discover who one is and how one fits in to the rest of society. I have a clear memory of starting high school and seeing a group of class-mates standing around and telling stories. I had to decide then and there if I would join the circle or stay on the outside. I decided to learn how to be a joiner, even though part of me didn't like what I had to do to belong. There were some "outsiders" who were taunted and teased. No one was allowed to be "different" as otherness threatens the status quo. What's the solution to preventing suicide? I don't see any until and unless we are willing to drop the notion of "may the best man (person) win", and other such demands for supremacy. Until we as a society are willing to accept each others' foibles and our own, nothing will really change. Until we can accept our own internal shortcomings will we have the ability and willingness to truly be with someone both emotionally and physically when they struggle. We won't be dragging each other down but we'll be available to lend a shoulder to cry on till the struggle is overcome knowing that others will be available for us when we require the same attentive behaviours. After all, that's what human beings are all about. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is bonus.Oh, and please let go of the myth that depression is anger turned inwards. Depression as I've come to understand it, is a result of being alone, without resources, without hope. And, a percentage of the time (up to 10% of the population) it's a matter of our brain chemistry that isn't functioning properly. There is a time and place for medical intervention, including meds, but only as one intervention. A caring other also needs to be available to see the person through the inner storm. No shame, no blame. It's just how it is. Self-acceptance is only possible in a hospitable environment. I could go on. Maybe I will later.

Bullying is the topic du jour

2011-09-29T19:38:00.000-07:00

Bullying in schools has been a hot topic lately, as a youngster recently committed suicide after citing being bullied as his motivation to end it all. Very sad. So unnecessary. Such a sudden ending to a promising young life. Once again the pundits are expounding profusely their solutions to the problem. Far too many of their solutions focus on the individual. "We just need to educate everyone. Or, we need to teach kids how to stand up for themselves. We need to instill self-esteem." Etc., etc., ad nauseum. If life were only that simple. To connect this to my theme of anger, let me explain further. Bullies are not simply angry young boys (girls, also) who know no other ways of solving their "anger problems". They are regular kids who happen to be practising what society approves of, only they take it past the "acceptable" level. It's not unlike sports players who play hard and then "step over the line" and get punished for it. They are encouraged to play to the limit but not to break the rules, or at the very least, not get caught. What's missing, to my way of thinking, is that we continue to fail to address the larger picture. The fact that as a society we encourage aggressive behaviours in order to make our mark on the world. We admire those who fight to get ahead and who won't let anything stop them. We just don't like it when they do it too obviously and hurt too many in the process. So, in summary, I'm saying that if we're serious about stopping bullying in school, in the office, in government, or wherever, we need to stop encouraging winning at all costs, and all that that implies. We need to be willing as individuals and as groups to confront anyone who pushes the limits and openly ask them to slow it down, stop, desist, or whatever. If they refuse to do so and do serious harm, then punishment may be warranted. But, for the most part, social sanctions are generally sufficient to stop aberrant behaviours. Here's an example, in case I'm not being perfectly clear: A male student is taunting a younger student. Other students notice and approach him as a group, telling him to stop and to notice what he's doing. If he can't or won't stop his hurtful behaviours, the other students will say what they see as bullying behaviours and that they'd like him to stop. Assuming he stops, a buddy of his might approach him quietly after and offer some support and suggestions for future encounters with those he likes to pick on. That's one way that bullying can be confronted. Not in a punishment-oriented way but in a supportive manner meant to confront, challenge and change inappropriate behaviours. Of course, the teachers would need to know how to do this as well. That would be absolutely essential if the school environment is to support such tactics.There you have it! My take on the subject, however brief.

Guilt vs Shame

2010-11-04T14:08:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going back to Kubler-Ross and Kessler who also write about guilt and shame in their book, Life Lessons. On page 112 they state: "While guilt is about what you did, shame is about who you think you are". I couldn't agree more. When we are willing to be accountable for our behaviours we acknowledge what we've done and any hurt we may have caused others or things and then we can make amends, providing of course that the offended party is okay with this. So where does shame come in? As I see it, we decide what to make of our behvaviours by what we believe about our selves and our actions. Our training usually is to find excuses in order to be accepted in spite of what we did. For instance as children our parents may have asked why we did this or that instead of naming the offence and asking us to own it and make suitable amends. Shame is believing we are no good. Guilt is recognizing our hurtful behaviours. Shame destroys--guilt opens the door to accountability and healing.

Men and Therapy

2010-06-09T09:02:00.000-07:00

I happened upon this article in AlterNet about men being ashamed to be in therapy, but more because they are not allowed to be seen as failures. Here's a quote to pique your interest:

A few years ago, I was interviewed on a radio show about the psychological concept of the broken mirror. Afterward, the (male) interviewer said to me off-air: "Damn! Now I get what happened to me yesterday! I came out of the bathroom after shaving and I'd nicked myself a little on the cheek. My girlfriend looked up at me and said "What happened to you? That's the second time you've done that this week?' And I just went off. I started yelling at her, and then I stormed off, and our plans for the day were ruined. And it was all because I had a manhood attack. I know she didn't mean anything like that, but that's what I heard. What the hell's wrong with me?"

This man experienced his girlfriend's comments as a stab at his masculinity. It was as if she'd said, "What kind of loser are you that you can't even shave properly? Any man should be able to pull that off!" To a guy whose self-esteem—particularly his masculine self-image—feels vulnerable (this includes most men), this simple interchange, silly as it sounds, can feel like as an unbearable assault. My radio interviewer, as best as I could tell, didn't suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder, nor was he particularly outside the norm. He experienced the broken mirror and reacted in ways that are typical, in one form or another, for many of us men.

This example, and the rest of the article for that matter, affirms much of what I've been writing about how our self-image determines our reactions to what happens to us and around us. As men have to perform to a certain standard to be accepted by other men any perception that they are not living up to these expectations is tantamount to failure and must be avoided at all costs.
In the incident cited in the example above the man attacks his girlfriend initially as a way of fending off his fear of failure.

It's good to see more recognition out there of the mess that we've gotten ourselves into.

There is a way out.

Helpless, not just angry

2010-03-31T08:42:00.000-07:00

I watched a documentary/film, "Collapse" online (to watch click on heading) interviewing Michael Ruppert. Many of you have heard of him, I'm sure. He presents compelling evidence of a world that's driven by greed and how it's destroying the very foundation of life as we've known it. He's very passionate about it and refuses to debate the issues any longer as he's convinced that there's no point as the writing is all too clearly on the wall (my words, not his). At one point in the interview he says he's very angry and later begins to sob.
I'm picking on the word, angry, that he used to describe his feelings. I immediately wanted to correct his choice of words and have him admit his sense of helplessness in the midst of all this information and evidence of the earth's impending demise. As men we are trained early on to never show fear and to conquer any fears we have in whatever ways necessary. Only weak-minded individuals show fear or don't risk all to overcome it, if necessary. Unfortunately, one consequence is that women are considered weaker than men because they show their emotions more easily. (I've spoken to this in previous blogs, so I'll leave it at that here.)
Let me get to my point. We're hearing much about how we're polluting the earth and how it's slowly dying and how we need to do something to correct it. So, people come up with ideas like (here goes) the Earth Hour when everyone is to shut off their electricity for one hour a year to demonstrate their willingness to participate in what, I'm really not sure.
We're also asked to separate our garbage, to recycle our bottles and paper, etc., etc. We pay extra charges on such items to pay for their proper disposal. (Question: Has anyone seen any studies showing that these charges have actually been used for their stated purposes?)
I'm always a bit slow in catching on to what's going on, but I think I've finally got it. So, excuse me if you're way ahead of me here. The powers-that-be don't want the masses to fully comprehend the mess they've got us in and so they ask us to "do our part" in achieving a solution to fixing the mess. They convince us that if we do small things like buy cfl bulbs instead of the incandescent bulbs that we will help cut down on the need for more coal mining or river dams, or whatever. What they fail to tell us is that they are willing to continue to develop land next to rivers that spawn salmon or to back up water to create dams that will destroy ecologically sensitive areas and that they and their elite friends will benefit financially and they will remain in power. No one in power beholden to the wealthy "landlords" wants to balk and say that maybe we need to approach how we're living from a world survival point of view and as an entire population we need to address our style of living and come at it from an entirely different point of view. I don't have all the answers here but I do know that it could mean lowering our living standards and choosing to live in smaller houses, and use public transportation, etc.
My conclusion (at the moment, at least)? We're being persuaded to ignore the larger reality of our overall demise by being asked to do something small right in our own homes/preferably in our homes. They don't want people storming city hall or the legislature. That way they can take care of our sense of helplessness (often expressed as anger) and we won't ask for real change.
Let's accept our feelings of helplessness and then do what we need to do to take care of it. Just staying angry won't solve it. Smashing things or swearing at politicians won't do it. We can live each moment as if it's our last and/or we can all get together and talk about some real solutions to ending our destruction of the earth. And, then we can work together to come up with solutions that will end our violence against our sustainer, our lifeblood--the earth.

Statistics and more statistics

2010-03-21T15:20:00.000-07:00

On Friday evening my wife and I went to hear a lecture by a Vancouver psychologist who's been doing research in the field of domestic violence for many years. He was invited to speak to the men's resource centre. His topic was to be about what we can all do to end domestic violence. Unfortunately he didn't speak to the topic and we left before he had a chance to answer questions later in the evening.
What he did do was quote stats saying that female partners are as violent as male partners and that we've been operating too long with the bias against this realization. His presentation offered numbers but little commentary or reflection other than to decry the misleading stats that showed males as primary domestic violence perpetrators. And, he showed stats showing that children receive more abuse from mothers than from fathers.
I would've liked to question him on many fronts but it wasn't the right place to do it. The audience was small and it would've meant taking over the floor, something I don't approve of.
In this blog I can raise some of the questions and put them out there for consideration. While I can go along with the notion that women are violent as well as men I believe we need to place that in its proper context. On the one hand, we could surmise that men have slowed down their physical abuse under pressure from the courts and society and women have gained courage and the temerity to use the same tactics in return. That might be labelled as progress of sorts. Years ago it was taboo for women to fight back. She was to stay in her subordinate place and be quiet. In our move towards equality of the genders women have become more like men. There are numerous movies that show women fighting back "like a man" in violent relationships.
What I thought was missing from the presentation that night was this recognition and a comment on how much our society thrives on violence. Men prefer, I believe, that women learn to fight like a man. It means they don't have to change their world view--how the world operates. That being the case, it's unfortunate that we're not asking everyone to look at the harm that power over others does and how it interferes with healthy, intimate relationships.
The other statistic that was not quoted was the ratio of women dying at the hands of men compared to women killing their male partners. Especially, after she leaves him or threatens to do so.
All being said, we can build a case for whatever we want to believe by quoting stats in our favour. My point is that while stats may help us to understand the extent of the problem they don't help us to understand the underlying support for the violence, in this case, and how it affects everyone, especially the children.
I highly recommend the book I'm reading now, Sex and War, by Potts and Hayden. If you get a chance, go to your library and read it. It helps explain the history of our need for violence but also points out that it's possible to change our biology or at least begin the process. Or click on the heading of this blog to read an interview with the authors.
That's it for now.

'Tis the Season..

2009-12-22T13:16:00.000-08:00

...to be jolly? ...to be with friends and family? ...to celebrate one's life? ...to be lost and alone?
Christmas is the season of expectations. Expectations are what we believe ought to be.
Remember what I've "taught" so far? We act according to what we believe!
If I believe (substitute, expect) to be happy at Christmas I will be disappointed or hurt if it doesn't turn out that way.
I'm not saying that we can't have expectations. It's just that we need to be prepared for something happening that may not meet our expectations this holiday season. Turning to alcohol or other drugs to numb broken promises is not the way to go.
We need to be okay with whatever happens and be thankful for whatever it is we do receive and what we are able to give.
The saying, "Expect nothing, receive a lot", might come in handy this holiday season.
In my last blog I wrote about accepting ourselves as we are. How about accepting others as they are as well? Again, we don't have to approve of their behaviours if they are hurtful, but we don't need to change others to our liking before we will be okay.
"'Tis the Season to be okay with who I am."

Shame vs Guilt

2009-12-22T11:46:00.000-08:00

One last blog on "Life Lessons" and I'll leave it for others to ponder further, if desired. I'm particularly confused by the definitions of shame and guilt in the chapter on Guilt (pp. 105-116). Most of the time the authors use these two words interchangeably. But for a moment they state otherwise. To quote: "Shame and guilt are deeply connected. Shame comes from old guilt. While guilt is what you did, shame is about who you think you are." And, later they add, "...we are not our mistakes." Unfortunately, that's where they stop and then go on to intertwine the two words. "Filled with guilt and shame" (p. 113) "God...sees us as guiltless". (p.115) are two such examples of mixing the two words as though they were one and the same.
Let me expound on my take on these two concepts and then I'll drop it.
Guilt is not a feeling--it's a thought, a belief. Guilt is the recognition of having done something hurtful. Without guilt we could not be accountable for our behaviours. Shame is the decision we make to assign these behaviours to our being--our sense of self. "I did it, therefore I'm no good". Here's where the dilemma begins. If I tell myself that I'm a bad person for what I did, then my whole being is in need of repair. That's a huge assignment--impossible in my estimation. As long as we believe that we are bad we will spend all our time and energy trying to cover up our badness or try to make it up somehow. It becomes impossible to fully accept ourselves as we are as long as we believe that part or all of us is bad somehow. And this is where the downward spiral takes hold. As we try to repair ourselves or make ourselves better persons we are not, by definition, accepting ourselves as we are. We become miserable and self-loathing and ask for forgiveness or we go into hiding hoping not to be found out. If that doesn't work, as planned, we split ourselves into "good and evil" components and begin to make excuses for ourselves. Anytime you hear yourself or someone else say things like, "It wasn't me that did it, it was the alcohol." Or, "I lost it when my temper took over." Or, more commonly perhaps, "You made me angry and I just reacted. You would, too." (Sometimes called "The blame game".)
The solution, as I see it, is to stop assigning blame to someone or something else for our behaviours. We need to accept what we did (i.e., take full responsibility) and make reparations to the injured parties, IF they are okay with that.
We've all heard about telling our children that we love them but we don't like what they just did. That's a way of accepting them as they are but asking them to acknowledge their hurtful behaviours.
In summary: "I'm okay--what I did is not. I'm willing to own my behaviours and make amends."
This approach will go a long ways in keeping us sane and responsible.
That's my take on the subject.

Discovering Tonglen meditation

2009-10-25T14:18:00.000-07:00

I'm reading the book, The Compassionate Life, by Marc Ian Barasch and just read about his introduction to tonglen. I'd never heard of this form of meditative practice before. The Dalai Lama apparently practices this every day. I mention this in my blog because Barasch refers to tonglen as a way of approaching people who are suffering or insufferable, if I may, by taking in their misery and breathing out positive or helpful thoughts. Essentially it's asking us to stay long enough with the pain and misery we're experiencing in another person to absorb it and then releasing it as positive energy. The writer cites a personal example of being passed quickly on the highway by a young male who, while speeding by, gave him the finger and honked his horn. He says he could feel his temper rising and wanting to chase the driver. Instead he remembered what he'd learned from tonglen and breathed in the driver's rage and frustration and imagined the driver's emotional claustrophobia and agitated need for speed. He also recalled being young and riding the testosterone express, as he puts it. I saw the similarity to what I've been speaking about in this blog. He writes that he was amazed that he didn't feel anger but some kind of sympathy for the driver, along with a "whoosh of inner freedom". He no longer wanted to react but was freed from experiencing his own hurt. His conclusion? "With tonglen, I get to choose life."
To reword it using what I've been "teaching": Stopping long enough to discover what's hurting us, we now have the choice to make a plan to get through the fear(s) without choosing controlling or abusive behaviours.
If tonglen helps us to do this all the better. The more ways we can learn to take care of our needs while at the same time learning how to be in the world in a more cooperative, compassionate manner the better.
At least that's how I see it.

Anger as a feeling

2009-09-23T20:06:00.000-07:00

I've been lamenting Kuebler-Ross's and David Kessler's incoherence on the definition of anger in my last two blog entries. I ended the last one emphasizing the difference between a feeling (in this case, anger) and an action or behaviour. As I've stated in some of my earlier blogs anger lets us know that we're experiencing a fear that we believe will not go away. A fear that we believe won't go away can destroy us emotionally or hurt us deeply. Please note, however, that as long as we believe that the fear of the moment will somehow consume us and destroy our very being we are left with little choice but to take action and defend our very existence. It's normal in life-threatening situations to decide to defend ourselves using violence if necessary, but not necessarily violence. We always have the choice to lie down and die, so to speak. But, by instinct, it would seem, we choose to defend ourselves verbally or physically when we perceive ourselves to be in a life and death situation.
So, how is it that when we find ourselves hurt by someone's comments that we can perceive that to be a life and death situation? What do we have to believe, i.e., tell ourselves to make it such a dire situation? Most of the time we tell ourselves that we must defend our character or our reputation, etc. We may not be consciously aware, mind you, of making these assumptions. As the authors cited earlier refer to briefly, we are trained out of being self-aware, especially of our feelings. To feel is to be weak, according to male-role training. For women it's not much better. Women don't want to be seen as cry-babies either, by and large. We also are trained not to stop long enough to notice what our thoughts are at the moment. We act quickly to appear to be decisive and in charge. If we are seen to be thinking things over we're often accused of being too careful or sensitive--a no-no in our still homophobic society.
The bottom line is that we need to reacquaint ourselves with "yours truly" and find out what we are experiencing each and every moment. This is cumbersome at first as it's quite a different way of being with oneself.
I suggest you try this exercise. Ask yourself what you're feeling and what you're thinking at the moment. Limit yourself to the 8 basic feelings I've outlined in my early blogs on this site. They are again: Happiness, Contentment, Passionate, Excitement, Hurt, Sadness, Fear and Anger. And, to help you with this exercise when you notice that your choice of feelings does not include one of these terms ask yourself this standard question: "If this is what I'm thinking what am I feeling?" That way you can go back to finding your feeling and discovering how you are being affected in that moment; how you're responding. Then, and only then, can you determine how to act, based on the decision not to do others, OR YOURSELF, any harm.
Clear? Go.

Life Lessons, cont'd

2009-09-22T20:09:00.000-07:00

I ranted last time about the authors of the book, Life Lessons, citing anger as the cause of the horrific car accident. Their conclusion? "We must learn to express it [anger] in healthy ways so that we can control it before it controls us."
Unfortunately the rest of the chapter doesn't outline how to express anger in healthy ways. But the implications of this statement are that as long as we are somehow able to express our anger in healthy ways we will be able to control that which could hurt or destroy us, i.e., our anger. It's as though anger needs "controlling" when the authors themselves state that anger is a feeling. As I've explained in my earlier blogs on this subject a feeling does not act. We act according to what we want to have happen or as a reaction to what has happened to us. Feelings inform us of what we're experiencing in response to what's going on around or within us. For a moment the authors agree with me. "Anger is just that--a feeling. It's a feeling to be experienced, not judged. Like all our feelings, anger is a form of communication, it brings us a message." I buy this totally. They write further about how we need to learn to get in touch with our feelings, not ignore them. And, that anger tells us that we haven't taken care of our hurt. So far, so good. And then, unfortunately, they go back to the same old tired lines about how anger accumulates, builds up and eventually explodes. True enough, as long as we don't stop long enough to determine what our fears are when we experience anger, we often do decide to ignore our feelings and go with our beliefs and then act out our wishes.
They write later that untreated fear (whatever that is) turns into anger and if we don't deal with our anger it will turn into rage. However, the assumption agains seems to be that anger, (while just a feeling, remember?) is something to keep under control by learning to express it properly. They seem to condone hitting pillows, yelling at God, etc. Is that not "uncontrolled anger"? Or, is that their example of expressing anger in "healthy" ways, in ways that won't harm others, at least.
I have trouble with that model as the person hitting the pillow is still playing out violence in response to their anger. It's just not as dangerous to others for the moment. No real change here. Simply redirection.
And, the closing sentence in the chapter: "We can learn to live lives where anger is a feeling that passes, not a state of being."
The authors touch on what anger is (a feeling) but hang on to the old beliefs about anger being something undesirable. I believe that's because they're doing what most people have learned to do--to see anger as an action, or behaviour, rather than a feeling which, by definition, is a state of being, not a decision to act. Two very different things.
More on this later.

Life Lessons

2009-09-20T21:30:00.000-07:00

I recently picked up a used copy of the book, Life Lessons, by Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross & David Kessler. This book is written to "teach us about the mysteries of life and living". I noticed that a whole chapter was devoted to the topic of anger, so with this blog in mind I immediately went to it and started reading. I did this because I'm looking for writers who may have grasped a similar understanding of anger that I've come to. I'm not saying that I have The Truth but that I strongly believe that our usual definitions of anger are keeping us captive to our own faulty beliefs about anger.
I plan on responding to some of the concepts they've written in this chapter, not to disclaim them as authors, but to challenge their definitions and examples according to the model I've proposed in this blog. I do this also because these authors are held in high esteem in the community and hold much influence. So I was disappointed that most of their writings on anger were simply reflective of the mainstream thinking re anger.
The chapter begins with a story of two male drivers who race alongside each other and eventually crash killing five people in the vehicles. One of the drivers survived. The authors conclude that anger killed them (page 145). It wasn't their decisions to race alongside refusing to give way to the other, apparently. It wasn't the unfortunate timing of their decision to risk life and limb, it seems. It was anger that killed them according to these authors.
Let me be facetious for a moment. Perhaps Anger should have been charged with manslaughter instead of the surviving driver since it was Anger that killed them. I'm capitalizing Anger to denote it as a persona capable of acting on its own.
I realize that they don't simply leave it at that, so my intention is to go through the chapter and comment on their take on this very vital topic.

Anger as a friend

2009-07-12T14:22:00.000-07:00

We've all heard the expression: "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" Sometimes our friends don't support us the way we'd like, or they gossip about us and turn their backs on us. When that happens we experience a fear of loss. We may lose the friendship and companionship we thought we had and so we panic and decide to try to control the situation in order to prevent the loss from occurring. That's when our "friend", our anger, sometimes comes into play. Instead of recognizing our fear of losing the person's friendship and how that might be hurtful, we dismiss or ignore that information and decide to act on the thoughts that we do notice when we are angry. Usually, if not always, these thoughts are ones that will attempt to re-establish the situation to what it was like previously. So, rather than risk losing the self-image we have of ourselves as worthy of friendship no matter what, we choose to act to change the persons we accuse of hurting us.
When we notice that we are angry, it's time to stop long enough to find out what's going on. What are we afraid could happen in this situation? Being open and honest with oneself is important at this point. There can be no blaming or fault-finding, but simply recognizing how hurtful the present situation is. Then, and only then, can we make a plan to get through that moment without choosing to be controlling. We can still ask for what we'd like, but only if we're prepared to get through the response to our request without using more controlling or abusive behaviours.
The bottom line? Being okay within oneself, with oneself, and by oneself. Not that we don't need community, but that we need to be our own best friend within the community of our choosing.
Anger can be our friend. It's only an enemy when we don't take the time to befriend it.

A quote of the day

2009-05-05T10:33:00.000-07:00

Anger is the feeling that makes your mouth work faster than your mind.
Evan Esar
American Humorist (1899 - 1995)

This quote was posted on the internet today, which reminded me that I haven't entered a blog for a while. It also reminded me of the way people prefer to think of anger, i.e., as something that is essentially out of our control. Esar, the humorist, defines anger as a feeling (so far, so good) that makesyour mouth work faster. The word, "makes", implies an involuntary action or one that is beyond one's immediate control. While he may have written this in humor, truth is often told in jest.
We would like to believe that anger makes us do things we can't really control. That way we have an excuse afterwards. It's much like drinking too much alcohol. "I drank too much and didn't know what I was doing", is a common post-party excuse. In this case, it would be "I was angry and didn't know what I was saying".
In both cases we alleviate ourselves of the responsibility for making the decision to act, either to drink too much or to stop and recognize what we were angry about. As I've stated earlier, anger is the fear of impending emotional destruction and our actions are based on what we decide to do with those fears.
Once we accept that everything we do or say is a decision, the responsibility for our actions is no longer out of our control. No more excuses--only decisions we made at the time.

Making nice at Christmas

2008-12-19T21:35:00.000-08:00

The Christmas season is meant to bring joy and happiness to everyone. Families are to spend quality time together and at least pretend to be enjoying each others' company. Parents may agree to put differences aside for a time to allow the children to have a pleasant holiday. Many couples split after Christmas when the pretending is over.
So, what's causing this need to put differences aside for at least one time per year? Tradition? Perhaps. Or, a recognition that we really are supposed to get along and let our differences fade away as we resolve them in our own minds and with each other.
As I've pointed out earlier, our beliefs determine our actions. If we believe we have to love everyone and everyone should at least like us, we may be greatly disappointed. We may try to avoid this disappointment by lashing out at those who don't want to be our friends or at the least, our acquaintances.
Another option, to restate it in different terms, is to accept that not everyone will be compatible and that it's not personal (unless, of course, we've hurt someone deliberately or unintentionally). If that's the case, we can always attempt to make amends or at least acknowledge our awareness of the differences without expecting the other person(s) to accept our version of "the truth".
Happy Holidays? Why not? Without pretending we can let our differences fall into perspective and celebrate what we have, rather than what we don't, or can't have.
Enjoy the journey.

Inciting hatred

2008-10-13T18:45:00.000-07:00

Watching the elections build-up in Canada and the USA, it seems like we still prefer leaders who are tough and who are willing to tear the opponents to shreds in order to get the top positions. Some might call this "controlled anger". We tolerate words of anger directed at their opponents as long as they don't push it too far by today's standards.
However, it's rather scary when audience members call out "Kill him" during a campaign speech. Or, when the man on the street calls candidates names, like "terrorist".
Why is it that we have to create such superficial differences between political parties in order to distinguish ourselves from the other? Let's admit it, there's really not all that much difference between people, and any extreme differences are usually censored, unless of course, the powers-that-be create an artificial distance large enough to act as a threat to the "common good".
Our history tells us how violent we can become, much like mobs, when the "gang leaders" (politicians) begin to label others as bad and dangerous. Wars depend on this mentality. The latest hate word, is terrorist. Not so long ago it was communist. In Germany it was Jews during the 30's.
When we incite hatred we condone violence one way or the other.
It's like we're still unable to distinguish what's a real threat to us unless others define it for us. It's mob mentality likely from our biological past when threats to human survival were constant. Do we really need these "skills" anymore? We're different from the other animals in that we can decide if we want to hurt someone or not. Even if we're facing a physical life and death moment we can still decide if we choose to defend ourselves or not.
The ability to destroy our enemies is what brought us as a species to this point, but we need to tame that instinctive behaviour and reeducate ourselves to learn to be otherwise.
If we don't we will continue to name anger as the excuse to destroy.

What would we do without anger?

2008-07-17T19:41:00.000-07:00

I've changed the template of this blog as a change. Sometimes a change is as good as rest.
In the title I've posed the question: What would we do without anger? Or, could I survive without becoming angry? If you've been reading my earlier blogs on the subject the answer would be "no, we could not survive without anger". Anger is an important signal that lets us know that we're in a situation where we believe we won't survive if we don't do something about it. However, you may also recall that we may believe that the situation we're in is life-threatening when it really is not.
For instance, if my friend teases me and doesn't stop when I'm clearly unhappy with it, I may consider this as threatening my relationship with him or her. If this person were really my friend, he or she would see that I'm not okay with the teasing and would stop and maybe even apologize. Should that not happen to my liking, I may notice that I'm angry. Letting myself know that I'm angry helps me to identify my fear about not getting what I want from my friend in order to keep the relationship as I would like it to be. With this information I can decide whether it indeed is a "life-threatening" situation and decide what to do. If I decide it's not life or death, I can address my feelings with my friend or simply acknowledge my friend's behaviours as non-threatening and accept it as is. I have many choices that will not include attempting to change my friend's behaviours if I allow myself to recognize that I am angry, but then check to see whether it's going to "destroy" me, if not physically, then emotionally.
However, if I decide that I cannot allow my friend to act this way towards me I will attempt to control him or her as an attempt to get the person to end the teasing and act according to my definition of a friend.

Slowing our angry thoughts promotes healing

2008-06-14T17:17:00.000-07:00

I came across this article in the Consumer Reports Health letter.
Tests show that healing is faster if we don't hold onto our anger. Click on the heading and read it, if you're interested.

Add "Plaza Rage" to the list

2008-04-22T07:24:00.000-07:00

This is getting out of hand. By putting a label of "rage" on every decision to use violence we're continuing to trivialize the decision to be aggressive and violent and to offer a quick way of understanding it that detracts from the real issues. I guess we don't want to give up the use of violence to solve our differences quite yet.
Here's the latest:

Tuesday » April 22 » 2008

Honking horn leads to violent case of plaza rage

Canwest News Service

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

MILTON, Ont. - Halton, Ont., regional police have arrested a man in connection with a violent road rage incident more than two weeks ago that was triggered by the honking of a horn.

Police say the altercation began on April 11 when a male driver tried to pull out of a shopping plaza in Milton, about 56 kilometres west of Toronto.

The Milton man was unable to do so, however, because a Ford Explorer was blocking the entrance so he honked his horn at the driver, according to a police news release. The Ford, however, did not move.

Instead, the driver of the Ford got out of the car and confronted the man.

The two had a verbal exchange and got back into their vehicles, the news release said. They then drove to another location in the parking lot and continued arguing with each other outside their cars. During the argument, a passenger in the Ford allegedly brought out a metal bar from inside the car.

The Milton man was stuck several times with the bar, police say.

After the attack, the driver and the passenger fled the scene in the Ford Explorer.

Martinez Bugveno, 22, of Toronto, has been charged with one count of assault with a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

He is set to appear in court in Milton on May 13.

© Canwest News Service 2008

Road Rage, Snow Rage...

2008-03-14T09:10:00.000-07:00

I've been away from this blog for awhile mainly because it seems that little progress is being made in changing our understanding of aggression. Now, it seems, violence only happens in the name of "rage". Three headlines in the last two days have left me flabbergasted. Two more cases of road rage, and one of snow rage. How convenient of the press to allow aggressive males a "legitimate" outlet for their decisions to hurt and even kill someone. We don't even need excuses, anymore. We simple have a case of road rage, snow rage, heat rage, love rage, or whatever kind of rage suits the occasion.
If we continue to accept these definitions of violence we no longer need to own our decisions and can simply claim our helplessness under the influence of Rage.
Hmmm.... Sound familiar?
"Hi, my name is Tom, and I'm a rageaholic".

It's time to reflect

2007-12-21T22:09:00.000-08:00

It's that time of the year when families and friends make a special effort to get together to celebrate their relationships in order to keep the connection going for at least another year.
It can also be a very stressful time for families where violence is a common event, whether it's verbal abuse, emotional neglect or physical violence. Many women in abusive relationships wait till after the holidays to end the relationship so that the children will have a semblance of unity during Christmas. Before you judge, it's important to realize that children are happier if their parents are apart and happy than together and miserable.
When I used to talk to audiences, especially men, about women being afraid of men, some men would complain that they were lumped in with "those men", meaning "wife beaters" as they preferred to label them.
Today when I was out for a walk in the forest I noticed a bird feeding on the path ahead. When it saw me it flew away, even though I had no intentions of hurting it. I would have walked carefully around it had it stayed on the path. So, why did the bird fly away? Because it has had enough experiences of being chased or preyed upon to know that it's better to be safe than sorry.
It then dawned on me that for many women it may be much the same. Too many men have preyed upon them over their life-time making it appropriate for them to be cautious before trusting each and every man that gets close. We've all heard about church leaders preying on women, etc., etc. It's endemic, I'm afraid.
So, before men rest on their claim that they are nothing to be scared of they might want to consider how men treat women generally and not be surprised if they're not trusted.
I encourage everyone to reflect on not just our relationships with our intimate others but with all we meet. This is a good time to do it, not so?

To all A Happy and Reflective New Year!

Remembrance

2007-11-11T07:04:00.000-08:00

Is Anger a Non-topic?

2007-11-05T17:08:00.000-08:00

It seems that my anger blogs are being read by a few persons, but I've yet to receive comments through the blog directly. Does that mean that what I've written about anger is so self-evident that it's readily accepted, or so far out that it's easily dismissed?
Perhaps it's just not an interesting topic or it's too personal to talk about and to actually begin some sort of discourse over.
Any one willing to venture a guess?

Anger cannot be "managed"

2007-09-30T16:05:00.000-07:00

Anger management classes are common. They are touted as a way to manage one's anger to prevent outbursts and explosive behaviours. The underlying belief is that anger can get out of control and become a dangerous experience for all involved.
What I've been writing about till now is not popular or easily accepted information because we want to believe that anger can get us in trouble and make us do things we regret later. It's akin to blaming alcohol for our behaviours. A perfect excuse!
If anger is an emotion that lets us know what we're experiencing at the moment we can look at what's causing us concern at the time and make a plan to change the beliefs.
If we believe that anger is outside of our control, then it's very tempting to want to learn how to manage it so that we will not get in trouble. This way of perceiving anger, unfortunately, separates us from a part of ourselves that is crucial to our very survival. If we put a lid on this emotion, we're denying part of our life that can help us to get through each moment without being controlling and abusive. Putting a lid on something means we're covering the problem but not taking care of it.
Have you seen a class to manage happiness being offered? A class to manage excitement? A class to manage hurt? Or, a class to manage fear? There may be classes or support groups for those who act on their emotions in hurtful ways, but not to manage the emotion itself. Except for the emotion of anger. Interesting.
Let's accept that anger is a helpful signal that allows us to discover what we fear might destroy us emotionally if we don't stop it somehow. Then, and only then, can we begin to take full responsibility for our behaviours and attitudes.
I believe it was Martin Buber who said that the only control we have in life is how we respond to what happens to us and around us.
Imagine how different we'd be with each other if we all acted that way.

#10: One Good Turn Deserves Another

2007-09-18T13:49:00.000-07:00

Back in March I listed ten common beliefs that I've come across over the years. There are many more and I may just make a new list as this is the last of that bunch.
This particular belief has a moral ring to it. If I do something good for you you will do something good for me. At least that's how I understand this saying. I think it's based on the notion that good deeds bring good deeds in return because the recipient feels so good about receiving something that he/she wants to pass it on to that person, or to someone else.
If we operate with this moral imperative as our guide what happens when we do something we think is nice for someone and we get nothing back? For instance, if my friend says he's running short of cash and asks for 20 dollars to tide him over till pay day, and I give it to him, I will expect the money back around pay day. Even though he didn't say specifically that he'd pay me back, I'm expecting payment in full at that time. If he doesn't pay me back as expected I have my usual two choices: I can make a plan to get past my fears about not getting my money back that will not hurt anyone, or I can plan to go with my fears and demand my money back.
If I go with my fears, I tell myself that I was doing him a favour and should be "rewarded" for doing so, by not only getting my money back but with lots of thanks and gratitude.
Or, I panic when the money's not forthcoming because my view of the world is at stake here. I depend on my ability to predict the outcome of other's behaviors. If someone changes the "rules" I am in a quandary as I won't know whether my expectations will be met every time.
Or, I fail to notice my anger when I don't get repaid and attempt to control my friend by being abusive towards him in one or more ways. I may yell at him, call him names, threaten never to lend money to him again, tell him he's no longer my friend, or if all else fails, refuse to talk to him again.
On the other hand, if I decide to make a plan to get through this situation without being controlling and abusive I may tell myself that I didn't have an open agreement with my friend to get the money back, and that it was my assumption.
Or, I can tell myself that people aren't going to always act like I expect and that that's okay because it's not going to destroy me.
Or, I can tell myself that not getting my 20 dollars back isn't going to break me, and that I've learned a lesson about lending money. If I can't do without the money I lend, I won't give any out in the future.
Now that I've made these plans I can ask my friend whether he'll be paying me back, recognizing that if he doesn't I'll be okay.
Sometimes it's helpful to simply ask ourselves whether this particular event is a life and death situation. If it isn't it will take on a different perspective. Mind you, if I make everything appear catastrophic this won't work.
To summarize, anger is the moment that we separate ourselves from a fear of being destroyed somehow. Our anger is a helpful signal to alert us to this moment. If we're willing to stop long enough to notice that we're angry we can quickly make a plan to get through that moment without being hurtful. Once we've made such a plan we can ask for what we'd like knowing that we'll be okay if we don't get it.
There's a nice double-check at this point: If we notice that we're pushing the issue when we get a "no" for an answer when we wanted a "yes", then we're still expecting the other party to comply with our wishes before we'll be okay. If that happens, it provides the opportunity to make another plan to get through the moment without being hurtful.
It's as simple as that! :>)

A new book by Riane Eisler

2007-09-04T13:43:00.000-07:00

I feel compelled to put in a plug for Riane Eisler's latest book, The Real Wealth of Nations, in which she shows that by placing priority on people's needs at work and at home, our economy will not suffer, but we will have a happier, more contented society that cares deeply for their children and each other at work and at home. She cites examples of how some businesses are operating on that basis and are not only posting profits, but worker turnover is extremely low, and productivity is well above the ones of businesses that operate on a basis of little support for their workers.
Please pick up the book at the library or bookstore and spread the word.
What does this have to do with our anger? If it's not obvious to my readers, here's a quick response: Anger is our experience of believing that something hurtful is about to happen that we fear may destroy us emotionally. If for example, our boss demands that we work overtime when our partner or child is sick at home and needs our help; when our employer refuses to allow time off to take care of an ailing parent; when our employer deducts wages when we report in sick; when our employer gives little positive feedback and only notices mistakes.... Sound familiar? These are but a few examples of situations wherein we experience anger. Much of these feelings is the agonizing recognition of an inner dying of self, of pride, of hope and, of caring.
It's hard to be giving when one is being robbed daily.
Anyway, I'll leave the rest of your discoveries to you as you read this book. If you haven't already read her first book, The Chalice and the Blade, I'd highly recommend that one, as well. It changed my world view.

#9: You Can't Beat City Hall

2007-08-18T09:50:00.000-07:00

This next belief speaks to our relationship to authority, in my opinion. When we come up against a bureaucracy that is cold and seemingly uncaring we soon realize that there's no fighting it. We might as well save our breath. At least, that's the common experience, isn't it?
So, why do we become angry when we don't get our way with the powers-that-be? Is it because we need their approval to be seen as important? Is it because we're feeling helpless unless we get something from our superiors? Or, is it because we've been wronged and we haven't been acknowledged? Perhaps it's all these things and more.
Since we were children we were taught to respect our elders (at least, in my day). Our elders would look after us, like good parents, and see to our best interests. Sometimes this actually happens and well it should. However, not everyone operates that way, and when we run into those persons in power positions who neglect to follow this premise our world is put at risk, so to speak.
That's when we become confused and frightened and work hard to get things back to fit with our beliefs. As long as we believe our superiors should act appropriately and with the best interests of all in mind we will become hurt and angry when that doesn't seem to be happening.
Again, we have at least two choices. We can decide to try to control the situation or the persons, or we can make a plan to get through the situation without being controlling and abusive.
I'm not saying we roll over and play dead. We can ask for what we want knowing that we'll survive if we don't get the response we're looking for. It may be disappointing and we may suffer financial loss, but we may decide that our lives are not dependent on getting our superior's approval before we'll be okay. We may be able to use the law to get the answers we're looking for without becoming abusive and hurtful in return.
A word of caution here. If we simply ask nicely for what we want, believing that we have to get it, we are simply changing tactics. We haven't decided firstly that we could survive not getting what we're asking for. Otherwise, it's not unlike an iron fist in a velvet glove, as the saying goes.
So, if you notice you're angry when someone with decision-making powers greater than you tells you that you can't have this or that, ask yourself whether it's life and death before you try to force the person(s) to give you what you want. And, even if it is a possible death issue, it's still a decision whether to use violence to get what we want.
As I've said earlier: Beliefs = Actions.
Questions?

#8: A Spanking Never Hurt Me When I Was a Child

2007-08-03T13:18:00.000-07:00

Let me state my position right from the start: Hitting a child is never okay. That's my belief. If I find myself wanting to hit a child it's likely out of frustration of not knowing what to do next to make the child do what I want. I may also believe that a parent must mold the child to become a model citizen. I may believe that the child's behaviors reflect on me. If I look like a poor parent to others when my child (or grandchild, for that matter) acts out, I may act out of fear of losing my self-image--i.e., a competent parent.
Put all these beliefs together and I soon realize that I've set myself up for failure. My child will not always act the way I would like. Every time this happens I have decisions to make. If I insist on my child keeping MY beliefs in place I will certainly revert to controlling and abusive behaviors to enforce those beliefs. I will not pay attention to my signals that let me know that I'm angry or afraid. Instead I likely will threaten, yell at, grab or hit my child in order to enforce my expectations.
Do children act out to test us? I've heard this too many times to count. My answer is a qualified "yes". Children are testing the limits of THEIR behaviors. They are in the informative stages of life and need a stable adult to guide them. So, when a child acts out, it is essentially telling others that he or she isn't sure what to do with the information they have. They don't have the years of life-experience that we as adults have and so are "testing the limits" to see what's acceptable and what isn't.
Our job as a parent, then, becomes that of a guide, or teacher. Some see their role as that of a disciplinarian, fearing that their children will become wayward delinquents if they don't discipline their children. With this belief we constantly are correcting our children, pointing out their faults and telling them what to do. We become their conscience and director leaving nothing for the child to do but to wait for the orders. This is good training for our children if we want them to become good soldiers, but it doesn't teach them how to learn to make decisions that are best for them and their intimate others.
As teachers and guides we can quietly, but directly, ask leading questions, state what we've learned about similar situations and tell them our fears, hopes, dreams, etc. about what they're facing. We're giving our children options, not determining them. We must believe that our children love us and want to live in harmony with us and with others. While we set limits we do so in a kind, but firm manner. We don't abdicate our responsibility as our children's "mentors", so to speak. Doing that leaves the child without guidance and opens up the possibility of him or her turning to their peers for guidance.
Children need to know where we stand, but not where they "should" stand. I believe that we will seldom experience anger with our children when we operate from this position. And, when we do notice our anger, it's likely because we're experiencing a crisis of sorts. We don't know what to say or do to prevent our child from getting hurt. That's the time to simply take a deep breath and tell ourselves and then our child that we're at a loss right at the moment, and that maybe together we can come up with a way of getting through the dilemma without harm.
If you're trying this for the first time and your child gets panicky, don't be surprised. Let your child know that you're trying something new and try to explain what and how you're attempting to do things differently. That way your child knows you're not abandoning him or her and that you're trying to show you care in a more nurturing manner than you have till now.
If you have other parents to talk to about this, so much the better. Parents need support, too.
Remember: Happy parents = happy children.
Comments or questions are welcome.

#7: Life Should be Fair

2007-07-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

This is the next on the list of common beliefs I want to comment on. You've probably said it many times: "It's just not fair". Or, we tell our children to play fair with each other when we see conflict.
We've been taught early in life to give and take and expect that to be part of life. Some expect the decision-making between husband and wife to be 50-50, which they say is only fair.
One problem with expectations like these is that the definition of "fair" is subjective. It depends on who's defining it as to whether the situation is fair or not. For instance, if I believe that someone is short-changing me in the store I immediately fall back on my training to expect others to be fair, as I've been taught to be. When I believe it's not happening I experience the fear of being hurt in some way--in this case,losing some money that I believe belongs to me. But, it's not just the money shortfall that becomes the issue here. I'm applying my beliefs to the cashier without their knowledge. I'm assuming that he or she operates by the same principles. If I'm honest with myself I will realize that I prefer the predictability of knowing that everyone in my world will operate according to my definition of fairness. When someone's actions appear to be opposed to my beliefs around fair behaviours, my world becomes threatened and I experience anger. Instead of recognizing what's going on and realizing that I'm afraid of losing my comfort level regarding my belief system, I turn on the cashier, in this case, and scold him or her in some way. I may even threaten to report the person to his or her boss, or I may stomp out vowing never to shop there again.
As long as I hang on to my beliefs for dear life, I will enforce them in the mistaken belief that my world will remain intact as I expect it to be. When I notice my anger I have a helpful signal to alert me to this need to hold on to my beliefs. Since it is helpful information I can now make a plan to get through the moment without being controlling and abusive.
In this case I may simply ask the cashier if he or she has given me the correct change, and wait for the answer. In all likelihood it was an honest mistake, or even if it was an attempt to short-change me, it will have been stopped. Doing anything more than this is simply my attempt to force the cashier, in this case, to change his or her behaviours for my benefit.

#6. Every man for himself

2007-07-12T14:31:00.000-07:00

Pardon the sexist title, but the saying goes that way, as far as I know.
How does this saying bring anger into play?
The rugged, North American, who is self-sufficient and self-reliant must compete with others in order come out ahead. Cooperation to such men means "if you cooperate with me everything will be okay". It certainly doesn't mean working together for the common good.
The end result of this competitive, dog-eat-dog kind of existence leads to loneliness. It becomes dangerous to speak to others about what you're working on if you're afraid they'll steal your knowledge to produce something that will compete directly with you. And so, the conversation between men, especially, becomes that of bravado and stories that support the notion that everything's going well and those that indicate that he's done quite well on his own, thank you very much.
Everyone for himself means not having someone to confide in, someone to brainstorm with, someone to share in the experience of trial and error. At the same time the expectation of people driven by this mantra is that they'll succeed or at least look like they do. When they doubt themselves and spend countless hours covering up mistakes and creating a good impression, it seems inevitable that there will be moments (perhaps, many) where frustration sets in due to shortcomings, whether perceived or real.
Frustration, as I understand it, is the fear that I am not accomplishing what I've set out to do in the time and manner that I wish to. And, to go back to the definition of anger: "My experience of separating from a hurt I've decided won't go away". The "hurt" that I'm experiencing is the realization that I may not achieve my goals to my own or other's satisfaction. If I don't reach my goals I'll be in the uncomfortable position of having to explain it to my peers, who by the way, are also fooling themselves into believing that they, too, are expected to fare well on their own. So, we speak with each other as though everything is fine and avoid any talk of failure or struggle, unless it's in a bravado kind of way. Saying things to each other like, "I know you can do it", or "You'll get over it" are sure to let the other man know that he's on his own and there'll be no coddling coming his way.
It's a vicious circle with no way out. No wonder we're a bunch of angry men. We're never happy with ourselves because we could always do better. We try to motivate ourselves by scolding ourselves when we see our shortcomings. Any goals we do achieve are seen as lucky or undeserved, and so the relentless pursuit of success continues to elude us. And, is it a surprise that men, so driven, turn to alcohol and other mind-numbing chemicals and activities in order to drown out the inner voices of self-doubt and the resulting loneliness?
I hope it is becoming clearer to my readers that anger is not something to be controlled and managed as is so popular a remedy these days. That's like trying to steer a runaway train. We need to look at what's underlying the anger and examine and change the beliefs that lead to self-destruction and denial.

#5: Life is a Struggle

2007-07-09T16:14:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I've expounded on my list of beliefs that can lead to abusive behaviours.
The next one is a common expression that's stated in many different ways. "Life's not easy", "You've got to learn to take the hard with the easy", "If you don't suffer for it, it's not as precious", "The world's a dangerous place", "He who hesitates, loses", "Nice guys finish last", "If you don't work hard, you won't get ahead", and on and on.
These sayings are a form of cultural teachings that set the framework in which we operate on a day to day basis. We're taught to see the world as a hostile environment in which we must constantly be on the look-out for attack.
Unfortunately, this attitude towards life becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we see others as potential predators, or enemies, the more likely it is that others become just that. I'm not saying that acting like everything is fine will suddenly change the world into a peaceful, non-violent place, but I am proposing that as long as we see the world as dangerous we will spend much time and energy defending ourselves against attack, whether real or imagined.
When someone says that they're angry all the time, it's likely because he or she is in a constant state of fear--fear of being destroyed somehow--not destroyed physically, but emotionally.
We can wear ourselves out worrying about whether we will be able to get ahead in the world and get what we deserve so that we can have the good life. When circumstances prevent our dream from happening we become angry and begin to lash out at everyone and everything around us, all the while believing that we can somehow control life's circumstances, when, in reality, we are only capable of influencing the world around us, but unable to determine its outcome. As I've said earlier, we can only control how we respond to what's happening to us. Believing that we can do otherwise leaves us vulnerable to the prevailing cultural dictates that only lead to self-loathing and contempt for others.
No wonder we're "angry" all the time. We're in a constant state of fear as long as we believe that we can only get through life if we struggle and suffer and finally, if we're lucky, get our reward, if not on earth then in the after-life.
Hmm... believing that life is a struggle sounds to me like an excellent formula for control tactics by the dominant members of our kind. We can easily be persuaded that if we can't overcome the struggle ourselves, someone with greater abilities than we have will step in and offer to save us. We become dependent on others then, to help us overcome our struggles when, in fact, we have been set up to believe that we're struggling in the first place.
Perhaps that's why the helping professions are flourishing these days. We're no longer confiding in our friends and neighbours, because on top of this belief is the notion that we can't be failures, either. Not only must I overcome my suffering, but I must do so in a manner which will be met by the approval of my peers.
"I'm never good enough", becomes the mantra of the modern age. Now I'm angry at myself as well for being a failure at overcoming my struggles in a socially acceptable way.
Until we are willing to risk living in the world as though it were a safe, supportive place in which we fully belong, we will continue to violate ourselves and others as we push it to conform to our distorted beliefs.

Men's violence against their partners

2007-07-07T09:03:00.000-07:00

Finally, an article in a major newspaper (Toronto Star) that names men's violence against women for what it is: a gender-based, culturally-supported, decisive act.
I ask you to read it for yourself by clicking on the header.
Anger is not an excuse for violence against anyone.

The cure for violence

2007-05-23T19:43:00.000-07:00

Okay, the title is a bit grandiose and promising, BUT there may be a simple "cure"--to use a common catch-all statement. In his book, "The Death of Religion and the Rebirth of the Spirit", Joseph Chilton Pearce writes: "Without nurturing, our males grow up aggressive and angry, do not make stable families, and are prone to violence against spouses, offspring, and each other." And, he writes further ..."our survival depends on producing males who are nurturing, benevolent, compassionate, and caring, which, in turn, requires just such treatment of males from birth and particularly at the toddler and adolescent periods."
Why is this such a novel concept? We raise our sons to be tough, unfeeling, hard and ultimately uncaring. While this training may turn out great soldiers, it fails to produce a caring society capable of being truly compassionate.
Instead of being afraid of turning out sissies we should be more concerned about the results of our training when we simply produce more uncaring males.
Our future depends on it.

Next Belief: A Woman's Place is in the Home

2007-05-19T15:29:00.000-07:00

I've been slowly going through the "common beliefs" I listed a while back. This one is the fourth one on the list. I've been emphasizing in each blog how our beliefs determine our actions.
The notion that women are to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen is still with us in spite of the large number of working wives these days.
I want to examine some of the origins of this belief as I've come to understand them. When the Industrial Age began, families moved to the cities in droves to get jobs. Living off the land was subsistence survival for the majority of families. What changed when families moved to the cities was profound in a number of ways. Firstly, couples no longer worked together to earn a living. On the farm they pitched in and did everything together. The more children they had the more "cheap" labour they had to get the work done. Or, they could "farm out" their children and make extra money that way (e.g., apprenticeships occurred this way).
When the families moved to the cities to take factory jobs all that changed. Only the men were hired to work, forcing the women to stay at home to care for the children and for their husbands who had to work long hours in terrible conditions. The family dynamics changed and having a woman at home nurturing him and the children made it possible for the man to keep working under such "slave-like" conditions.
Some of you may have watched the TV series, "Desperate Housewives". It's a bit of a stretch, but while the men were slaving away 6 or 7 days a week their wives were stuck at home getting lonely. This presented a problem for the men as they wanted to be assured that their offspring were theirs and not some handsome stranger's.
One way to make her unattractive to potential lovers was to keep her unattractive and thereby unavailable. A woman who was busy in the kitchen, poorly dressed and pregnant with kids underfoot would hardly be available for a rendezvous. What better way for the husband to control his wife's behaviours!
With that background in mind it's small wonder that men are nervous when they see their partners out and about mixing with other men at work or at play. Since men are trained to believe that they are to be in control of their family, a potential dilemma exists for men.
Until and unless men are willing to be with their partners because they enjoy their company and are not "mandated" by historic beliefs about their need to dominate and control, violence against women will not end, since the only way to enforce beliefs is through direct attempts to control via emotional, verbal or physical violence.
My challenge to men, and to women, is to revisit this belief and honestly examine whether we still need or want it. Only then can we be truly free of our beliefs.

Attachment to our beliefs

2007-05-05T14:34:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been working on some new way of thinking in your life when you suddenly come across books, articles, and even people who speak to what you’re searching for? That happened to me again recently. I was in the waiting room of a repair shop and noticed a basket of magazines. I reached in to see what was available to read and noticed some books at the bottom of the pile. Finding books in a customer waiting room is quite unusual, so I looked at the titles. The second book I glanced at jumped out at me. It seemed to be inviting me to look inside. I sat down and began to look through it. I was amazed.
Here was a book speaking to the topic of beliefs and how they drive our lives. I soon realized that the author was presenting another way of how to understand beliefs and how they determine our behaviours. I asked the woman who took my payment whether I’d be able to take the book home with me. She graciously allowed me to borrow it for two weeks.
I’d like to quote a bit of it, as a way of adding to what I’ve been writing about beliefs and anger.
The book, by the way, is At Home in the Muddy Water: A Guide to Finding Peace within Everyday Chaos by Ezra Bayda, 2003.
The author writes about “attachments”, which he defines as “simple beliefs—fantasies, in fact—that have become solidified as “truth” in our mind.” He goes on to write that these attachments “also partake of the energy of desire, which is based on the underlying belief that without some particular person or thing, we can never be free from suffering. Attachment also takes the form of avoidance; we believe we can’t be happy as long as a particular person, condition, or object is in our lives.” He adds that “often we’re more attached to our belief that we are to the actual person or thing. The belief fuels our anxious efforts to attain or keep this someone or something.” He explains further that we’re more afraid of losing our attachments than we are of being truly happy.
This is where the theme of this blog comes into play. If I understand this author correctly, we hang on to our beliefs for dear life thinking and hoping that the fulfillment of our beliefs will bring us happiness. When others or things don’t turn out according to our beliefs we become anxious, and then angry. Rather than facing the realization that we’re afraid our beliefs may have to be explored and released, we attempt to control the person or thing so as to retain our beliefs with the expectation that we will become happy. This becomes a never-ending cycle with predictable results. We justify our behaviours by citing some well-rehearsed beliefs that seem so credible that it’s hard to entertain the notion that beliefs are fantasy—the result of our life’s experiences and what sense we’ve made of them.
Think about the times you’ve been angry. What beliefs were you holding on to at the time? Were they facts? Or, wishful thinking? Since “facts” are truth as I know them, is there such a thing as “ the truth”? I may have my truths, but they are simply that—my truths. When I try to enforce them, I become controlling of others and myself.
I may have muddied your waters more than ever. If you’re confused--good. It means you’re considering something other than your usual beliefs.
I’m enjoying the exercise of examining my beliefs and seeing them for what they are. This is a lifetime journey, not one to be solved overnight.
More later....

Are Men Superior to Women?

2007-04-24T18:00:00.000-07:00

This is the belief that causes much grief to both men and women. There are many theories as to when it became fashionable for men to believe that they are better than women. I believe it may have started when humans first began farming and owning land with men having women as part of their property in order to ensure that the heirs to the property were of their own blood. There are many books that theorize on this. I’d recommend Riane Eisler’s book, The Chalice and the Blade.
No matter what the reason men have been trained to believe they are superior to women, I think it’s important that we acknowledge that assumption and go from there. If you believe it’s not the case, then explain to me how it is that so many men believe that it’s their prerogative to treat women as inferior beings who are there to serve men?
I could go on forever citing case after case where men treat women poorly and get supported for it. However, I’m not wanting to convert anyone. I would however like to expose some of our thinking so as to at least create the opportunity for alternative beliefs and behaviours.
Since the topic of my blogs is anger, I’ll try to limit my comments to this emotion. Have you heard a man say this to his partner? “If you hadn’t of made me so angry, I wouldn’t have yelled at you?” Or, “You really know how to push my buttons.” And, “I’ve told you before that you could get hurt if you stood in my way, so quit your complaining.”
Do you hear the common theme in each of these statements? There’s no accountability on the man’s part. His behaviour is blamed on his partner. He’s not in control of his anger. Since anger equals behaviour, according to many, he’s off the hook.
The question is, where did he get the idea that he could get away with not accepting full responsibility for his choices? It’s got to be because he believes that he’s the authority in this relationship and gets to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. He gives himself the authority to act as he pleases. If he doesn’t end up looking like the one in charge, he believes he has the right to “punish” her until she complies.
That’s how strong the male training is. Men are not allowed to act like or look like they’re weak. To be weak is to act like a woman. Men consider women to be the weaker sex. These are all additional beliefs that support men to act like they’re superior and get away with it. As I was told once: “When a man hits his partner he has a community of support, but when a woman hits a man, she’s on her own”.
I’ll use a mock scenario to expand on this quote. Joe and Angie are at a party with a bunch of friends and office colleagues. It’s getting late and Angie has to get up early the next morning for work. Joe is joking with his buddies when Angie comes up to him and tells him it’s late and she’d like to go home. Joe’s in the midst of telling one of his stories. He turns to her briefly and says he’ll be there in a minute. Angie walks away and gets something to eat. A half hour goes by and Joe is still talking and laughing with his buddies. Angie decides that it’s time to go and since Joe has the keys to the car she goes up to him and asks him for the keys.
“What for?” Joe asks sternly.
“So that I can get home”, Angie replies.
All eyes are on Joe. Joe turns on Angie and in a loud, stern voice tells her that he’ll go home when he’s ready and she can walk home if she doesn’t like it.
Joe’s buddies all remain quiet and quickly get back into their story-telling. Not one of the men tells Joe that he’s out of line, or that he should think about her needs, too. Joe has his quiet support and has shown the men that he’s in charge, just like he should be. He’s “passed the test”, so to speak.
Now, let’s say the scenario goes this way. Angie, upon hearing Joe say that she can walk home if she’s in such a hurry, reaches in his pocket to get the car keys. Joe grabs her wrist and squeezes hard, telling her to quit it. Angie yells at him, calls him a jerk, and gives him a shove. Joe pushes her away and tells her to grow up. The other men again stay quiet and don’t say anything. Angie goes to the other room and begins to cry. Some of her female friends come up to her and try to cheer her up. One even tells her to suck it up and wait for Joe to decide to go home. Some agree with her that Joe’s being inconsiderate but quickly add that that’s the way it is. One even suggests that she learn how to live with the guy, as he’s really a nice man. (No support there for standing up for herself.)
Has Joe been angry with Angie? If we agree that anger is our experience of fearing an outcome that we can’t control, then the answer would be yes. Joe tried to control Angie so that his beliefs about him being superior to her stayed intact. He accomplished that in front of his friends by using abusive behaviours.
Later that night, Joe told Angie that he was sorry for what happened, but that she better not ever embarrass him like that in front of his friends again.
Remember: Beliefs=behaviours.

Response to Dr Phil's take on anger

2007-04-10T11:19:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine sent me information about one of Dr. Phil’s recent episodes on TV. She sent it to me knowing that I was writing these blogs about how else we can understand anger.
Before I respond, here’s the information I received (in quotes):
“Dr. Phil says that there are over 16 million sufferers of a condition labeled as Intermittent Explosive Disorder.
Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) or Militant episode disorder (MED) is an uncommon disorder of the brain characterized by explosive outbursts of behavior (throwing, breaking things, inflicting physical harm on others) that is disproportional to the provocation. It is an impulse control disorder. It is sometimes linked to temporal lobe epilepsy. It has also been suggested by studies as the underlying cause of road rage.
Those who do have unprovoked violence associated with the disorder show loss of cells and abnormalities in the left hemisphere of the brain.
It is listed in the DSM IV as a psychiatric diagnosis, but some medical professionals question the legitimacy of this disorder. It has been used as a legal defense successfully.
The ICD-10 classifies it under ‘Other habit and impulse disorders’, but offers no guidelines for its diagnosis.
Look for warning signs. We don’t blow up out of the blue. Our bodies first exhibit signs, such as a tight chest, butterflies in your stomach, a racing mind, sweaty palms, or getting flush. Recognize the signs so you can intervene before you blow up.
Why do angry people lash out? Because they don’t have the words, concepts or abilities to express their frustration in an appropriate way. Consider alternative ways of venting your anger, such as taking a deep breath, aromatherapy or meditation.

He did however acknowledge the decisions that are made in choosing to be violent--how there are steps that come between a baseball bat and it hitting someone. First you have to buy the bat, find the person and then hit them. Depending on circumstances this means a difference of minutes or even hours. When you finally hit someone you have given yourself permission to do so. These statements were built carefully in so you had to really listen carefully to hear them amongst the rest.”

So, there you have it folks, Doctor Phil has spoken. I’m disappointed that he would give credence to unscientific statements, unless of course, he is supportive of the notion that violence is a mental problem that can ultimately only be solved by therapy, including drugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if the pharmaceutical companies are spending big bucks looking for the magic elixir that will stop IED. (Aren’t those the same initials as the homemade bombs being used by the “insurgents” in Afghanistan?) Talk about business creating more business for themselves!
There, that’s my rant. Now to address some of the statements made on Dr. Phil’s show. He says that Intermittent Explosive Disorders could affect up to 16 million people. That’s about 5% of the USA. If 16,000,000 people were running around with an infectious disease the whole population would be down and out in no time. A national disaster would be in effect and the leaders would be hiding in their bunkers hoping to escape the onslaught. The military would be on the streets trying to keep order.
So, my question is: Why are we willing to tolerate this kind of crisis without such strong measures? I think it’s because we don’t want to give up our excuses for our abusive behaviours. If the courts can use this as a legitimate defense, why would we want to abandon an excuse when we most need it?
When we get cut off in traffic and we swear at and gesture at the offending driver we are merely caught up in “road rage”, according to these experts. Perhaps we need to examine our training from day one. We believe we are entitled to our space and that others are to respect it. We are also instinctively programmed to defend ourselves when threatened. We’ve done such a good job of practicing our specie’s survival that we’re now turning on each other. I suggest we acknowledge that and individually and collectively decide that we’re not okay with the abuse that we’re heaping on each other and find ways to support ending these abusive behaviours.
He says further that angry people lash out because they don’t have the words to express themselves properly. So, let me get this straight. If I can just find the right words I’ll get what I want or I’ll be understood and everyone will be happy? I think not! I can ask very nicely for someone to move out of my way and why it’s hurting me when they ignore my feelings, but if the other person tells me to talk to his hand, or whatever, I’m still in the same dilemma. What do I do when I don’t get my way?
Anger is not something that needs to be vented. We’re not steam engines that reach an explosive point if we don’t let off pressure. That’s a common belief that supports the notion that we’re really not in charge of our emotions and that we act without pre-thought. Granted, it does seem to happen that way when we ignore our “warning signs”: Body tensed up, teeth gritting, destructive thoughts, to name a few. If we actually stopped long enough to give ourselves this information we’d realize that we often “shoot past” this information and decide to do some damage in order to control the person or the situation we’re in. I can meditate all I want but it won’t help me to let go of my destructive thoughts as long as I believe I should get my way.
I do agree with the statements about giving permission to ourselves to hurt someone. That’s exactly what it is. Everything we do is a decision we make.
End of statement.
End of excuses.
Now, let’s begin the hard work of owning all of our own thoughts and behaviours.

He, Who Hesitates, Is Lost

2007-03-30T14:53:00.000-07:00

The second of the common beliefs I listed in the previous blog, is all about our training to be bold and ambitious and confident. I'm sure you have many more examples of how this belief is played out. Here is one that comes to mind. You're stuck in heavy traffic and know your supper is getting cold. You worked later than usual hoping to get the edge on your colleagues, but now you're facing a traffic jam on the way home. You notice the left lane is beginning to edge forward. You check your rear view mirror, signal and squeeze in. The driver you just cut in front of is honking the horn and giving you hand signals. Your thoughts are that he shouldn't have left so much space if he didn't want this to happen. You smile as you tail-gate for the next while to make sure no one does that to you. Your beliefs remain intact, as you've shown yourself, at least, that you didn't hesitate to take advantage of the opening.
Let's stay with this example for a while. You're still in the slow traffic and you're starting to feel tired. You turn up the music, make some calls on the cell phone, when you look up to see a truck nudging into your lane, cutting you off. If you choose to keep your beliefs intact, and you stop long enough to notice what's happening to you, you'll notice that your heart's beating faster, your hands are gripping the steering wheel, and your teeth are clenched. The feeling you notice is anger. Again, anger is one's perception that what's about to happen will be a threat to one's sense of self. In this case, it's a threat to the belief that you're the one who gets ahead of the competition and doesn't hesitate to do whatever it takes to accomplish that.
You're at the decision point. You can decide to enforce these beliefs OR you could decide at that very moment that your beliefs are not such that you need to enforce them. You could decide that everyone wants to get home as soon as possible and that screaming at drivers or driving dangerously to teach them a lesson is too high a price to pay. You may decide that sharing the road is fine with you and that you'll continue to drive defensively without risking yourself or others.
Now, what's your body doing? You notice that your hands are relaxing on the steering wheel, your heart is slowing down to a normal traffic hour rate, and you're feeling some excitement. You're excited about knowing that you can get through this traffic without the usual risk to your's and other's safety. You call your wife and let her know that you're about 15 minutes from the dinner table. Your wife will probably be relieved to see you arrive home in good spirits.
This is an example of what I'm trying to teach here. It's not meant to be a formula, a how-to, but a guide. Every person is different and comes to these realizations in their own way.
I would encourage you, however, to notice what your thoughts are, what your body's doing, and what you might be feeling every time you run into a situation where you notice you're getting agitated, annoyed, impatient or just plain frightened.
These are signals that let us know what's happening each and every moment. Knowing these signals can help us to get through tough spots without falling back on the training to use anger as the excuse for aggressive behaviours.
Ignoring these signals is not unlike ignoring the gauges in your car. If you weren't watching the gas gauge, for instance, you may run out of gas in the heavy traffic, as one example of how watching for signs of what's going on can be helpful.
(I'll explore belief #3 next time)

Common Beliefs

2007-03-25T11:15:00.000-07:00

I think it’s important to examine some of our common beliefs; that is, beliefs that we hold in common with one another. Now, I must admit that I’m speaking from a male, white, middle-class perspective, so your beliefs may differ according to your own background. I’m not saying that I agree with or hold these beliefs. I am listing them as one’s I’ve heard in my career as a social worker and in my personal life as well.
Here’s a list of some common beliefs:
1. A child should be seen and not heard.
2. He, who hesitates, is lost.
3. Men are superior to women.
4. A woman’s place is in the home.
5. Life is a struggle.
6. Every man for himself.
7. Life should be fair.
8. A spanking never hurt me when I was a kid.
9. You can’t beat City Hall.
10. One good turn deserves another.
These are but ten beliefs that come to mind just off the top of my head. As you can see, some of them seem quite positive (see #10).
Each of these beliefs by themselves is quite harmless. But, each of these beliefs can be enforced in such a way, or ways, as to become hurtful to others. That may seem to be obvious for most of the beliefs listed. The belief, “A child should be seen and not heard”, can be enforced in a number of ways. You’re visiting friends along with your children and enjoying adult-to-adult conversation when one of your children runs into the room and interrupts you to tell you something. What do you do? If you want to keep your belief intact, you’ll decide to stop your child’s behaviour somehow. You may tell your child in a firm but kind voice that interrupting is not polite and to go outside and play quietly. A dirty look will cement the message.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that children should be allowed to do what they want and that parents are helpless. Unfortunately, that’s the common response I get when I try to teach this concept. What I’m trying to say is that what we decide to do with the beliefs we hold will determine how we act. Okay, you may be asking, “How else could I respond in this situation?” Well, firstly, you need to decide how important this belief is to you and then decide if it’s worth enforcing. If you decide that it is important, you can decide to teach your child about your belief without being abusive. Here’s my example. There are dozens of other possibilities.
Your child has just run in and interrupted you. You could hold your child’s hands gently and turn to your adult friend, and ask to speak with your child for a moment. Then you turn to your child and say that you were busy talking with your friend and would like to visit some more. You might ask what’s so important that it can’t wait. Your child may tell you or may say that it wasn’t that important and can wait till you go home. Or, your child may tell you. It’s up to your child. You’re simply setting up the opportunity to respectfully set limits with your child and teach common etiquette without being hurtful. If you’ve been doing this since your child was a baby it will likely work well. If you’re trying this for the first time, don’t be surprised if your child is confused and doesn’t know what to do for a while.
This is one example of how we can decide consciously what to do once we’re clear about what our beliefs are. It means being honest with oneself and stopping long enough to examine what thoughts are going through your head.
Have you ever heard the expression, “It’s not a matter of life or death”? Sometimes asking yourself whether it’s really such a crucial situation that extreme measures are called for, may be helpful in putting into perspective the situation at hand.
In conclusion, it’s not what we believe but what we do with our beliefs that will determine whether we’re being abusive.
(I will continue to explore how beliefs determine our actions in later blogs.)

Anger is okay, it seems

2007-03-21T15:01:00.002-07:00

In case you haven't noticed, it seems that being aggressive and demanding what you want is becoming a spectator sport. If there isn't a fight during a hockey game the fans are disappointed. In the TV show, House, the doctor gets away with being openly cruel towards medical staff and patients alike. TV talk shows encourage open confrontation to drive up the ratings. So called reality shows build in conflict, so as to keep the audience intrigued. The list goes on.
I've linked the book that's out now, "A bee in the mouth: anger in America now", by Peter Wood. It unfortunately accuses the Left of being "angry", and misses the point that it's become fashionable to kick and scream whenever one is dissatisfied. (I'm going by the reviews I read.)
So, I guess I'm somewhat discouraged and frightened by the prospect of being in a society that thrives on open violence. It seems to be an easier path to take than the ones I'm proposing in these blog entries.
John Stoltenberg has written many books about how men need to let go of their training if violence is to end. He admits that humans are animals (the species, that is), but the difference between human animals and other animals is that human animals have the mental capacity to decide not to follow their training to be abusive and controlling.
My challenge is for us to use that ability to that end.

I act according to what I believe

2007-03-14T18:33:00.000-07:00

So far, I’ve mostly been writing about how we respond to situations that we somehow consider to be a threat to our well being. What we may not realize is that no matter what the real or perceived threat is that we’re experiencing we always try to make sense of it by attaching a belief (or, thought) to the experience. Everything we experience we make sense out of by deciding what we believe about it and then, and only then, what to do about it.
The sequence of events goes like this: 1) Stimulus 2) Response (body and feelings) 3) Beliefs (Thoughts) 4) Decision to act. Imagine this as a continuous circle that repeats with each new stimulus.
I’ll try to explain the sequence by a scenario (i.e., possible event). You’re driving home from work along your usual route when suddenly a car pulls in front of you and slows down quickly (Stimulus). Your body tenses up, your hands tighten on the steering wheel, and your heart skips a beat (Body Responses). The feeling would likely be fear (Feelings).
Let me digress for a moment. Fear is a feeling that men, in particular, are not allowed to acknowledge openly. Women are trained, too, to be tough and compete with men at work and at play. Fear can’t be acknowledged because it implies weakness (consider the training we receive as children: “Don’t be such a wimp”, “Suck it up!” “Get back on the saddle”, to name a few examples). But, there is an alternate feeling that is acceptable to admit. Did you guess it? It’s anger. It’s okay to be angry (under certain circumstances) but never afraid (unless it’s some kind of physical catastrophe happening). Women, on the other hand, are not allowed anger as a legitimate feeling as easily as men are, although that seems to be changing. So, why is anger okay to admit? Because we’ve granted immunity to our selves when we act out of anger. It’s a built-in excuse for taking control; for getting even; for setting things straight, and on and on. (That’s enough for now. Let’s get back to the example).
You decide that the driver who just cut in front of you is a moron and shouldn’t be on the road. You believe everyone should obey the rules of the road and should respect other drivers. Your other thoughts are that he could’ve killed you or he could’ve caused a serious accident. You notice that he looks like a teenager and decide that he needs to be taught a lesson. And, so on. You get the picture.
With those kinds of thoughts racing through your mind at this point in time, what do you think you’d decide to do? My guess would be to flash your lights, honk your horn, drive right up to the rear bumper, give him the finger and yell obscenities, to name a few possibilities. What we believe determines how we’ll act.
Now, take the same moment where we’ve just been cut off by another driver. What if we believed differently about the situation? What if we noticed our fear, accepted it as appropriate under the circumstances (belief), and told ourselves how fortunate we were to have remained unscathed (more thoughts). We may also imagine that the young person may be in a hurry and may not be too experienced at driving in heavy traffic (even more thoughts).
With those thoughts (beliefs) happening what do you think the actions would be? We’d probable decide to back off a bit and give the driver some space, take some time to allow your heart to slow down and offer thanks to the powers that be for surviving this near accident. What other decisions can you think of?
The conclusion? What we believe determines how we’ll act.
(To be continued.)

We get angry when we feel threatened

2007-03-11T14:46:00.000-07:00

In my previous blogs I’ve been referring to a “hurt” that I’ve decided would be too painful or too horrible to experience. There may be a more helpful way of looking at this concept.
Let me start with some background information. As a species that’s survived to become the dominant one, we’ve developed some advantages over the other species that are still in existence. Besides a larger brain, we have the ability to detect danger and respond quickly and decisively, just like the other animal species. Our larger brains have also allowed us to develop more effective weapons to add to our ability to defend ourselves against dangers to our existence. If we follow that thinking, then it only makes sense that instinctively we’re prepared to protect ourselves against all threats, whether real or perceived.
Let’s go to some everyday examples. When you’re introduced to a stranger what do you do? First, you look him in the eye. Why? To determine how safe he is. If he smiles and thrusts out his open hand inviting you to grab it and shake it, you can rest easy and assume he’s not a threat. If however, he’s gritting his teeth, his eyes are narrowed and he’s making a fist, you likely will not step towards him to greet him. He now presents a potential threat to your person.
To cite another example: When you walk down a dark alley at night, you’ll likely be watching for any indications of potential danger, unless of course you know from past experience that you have nothing to worry about. Even so, any changes from the usual experiences in that alley would alert your senses and you’d prepare yourself for the potential threat.
Now let’s go to an example where the threat or danger isn’t so obvious. You’re joking around with your buddy when he changes the subject and remembers the time you fell down the stairs at a party and broke your arm. He laughs about it and looks at you to see if you’re laughing along. You’re not. You’re dead serious. Why’s that? Your recollection of that experience was one of embarrassment and physical pain. Everyone was so drunk that no one believed you when you said you’d broken your arm. The girl you wanted to impress that night was laughing at you along with the others.
So, what’s going on here? How could what your friend is doing right now be a potential threat to your well-being? Remember what I said earlier about one’s self-image? You may still be hanging on to the belief about yourself that you’re a competent, careful and well-behaved individual, who knows how to party but not to excess. The way your friend is laughing about the experience you’re beginning to think he believes otherwise—that you’re no different than the common drunk at parties.
So, what’s the threat here? Well, if he continues to believe this about you, he will not see you as you want him to. You will have to question the image you have of yourself. He is threatening who and what you believe you are. It’s not life-threatening, but it is “image-threatening”.
What to do? Before you even notice that you’re angry you lash out at him and call him names and tell him he’s no better himself. You raise your voice and continue to scold him until he quits and apologizes. You tell him that wasn’t like you and it was an accident. He finally agrees with you and drops the subject. You got what you wanted and your image is intact. Mission accomplished.
What’s the conclusion? Anger lets us know that we’re somehow under threat. What we do about it is a decision. It’s not “anger out of control”. We miss this sequence of inner events because we don’t stop long enough to pay attention to what we’re experiencing. Our training, backed by instincts, is to act quickly—to strike the first blow or risk being destroyed.
It’s interesting, is it not, that we use the same defensive strategies to defend ourselves against a perceived threat as we do against a life-threatening one.
If we want to stop hurting others (and ourselves), we need to distinguish between the two and learn new responses.
(More about that later)

Humour about anger

2007-03-10T14:10:00.000-08:00

I found today's comic strip, Non Sequitor, to demonstrate anger as used by our political elite and others in power positions.
It's an great example of how we can use anger as an excuse for our behaviours.

Self-image and the decisions we make

2007-03-09T09:20:00.000-08:00

I’d like to introduce another “given”: Everything we do is based on decisions we make. Okay, there are some exceptions like our autonomic body actions, such as breathing. I’m talking about what we do in response to events that happen to us or around us.
When we insist, after the fact, that we lost control or we didn’t know what we were doing, we’re excusing our behaviours in order to avoid punishment or disapproval, or in some cases, approval (for example, laughing about strange behaviour while drinking at the office party).
If I choose to drink to excess I’ve already made that decision. If I know from past behaviours that I tend to act out when I drink too much, I’m knowingly deciding to risk going there again.
Now, there’s another element to add to the mix. Each of us has an idea of how we’d like to be seen by others. Let’s call this our “public-image”. We also have an idea, however vague, of how we see our selves. Let’s name this our “self-image”. These images of ourselves develop over our life-time and go through some changes over time. But generally, we want predictability in life and spend much of our time and energy feeding and protecting these images of ourselves.
A possible scenario: At a banquet, your best friend leans over and quietly tells you that you have a stain on the front of your shirt. You look down and sure enough, there’s a nasty blotch there visible for everyone to see. What’s my “self-image”? I’m neat, clean and know how to look after myself. And what’s my “public-image”? I’ve often been complimented on how well I dress and how well I take care of myself.
Here's another moment in which I have decisions to make.
However, before I make any decisions I’d be wise to recognize what I’m experiencing at that moment. If I recognize my fear of losing my image in front of others, I can make a conscious decision to accept the situation and excuse myself and go clean or change my shirt. I can do that because my self-image is not at stake. I can tell myself that accidents happen and that I'm no less of a person because of it.
If I’m not practiced at being that self-aware I’ll likely panic and do everything in my power to salvage the moment and maintain my image. I’ll likely be angry at myself for being so sloppy and inattentive, and I may also be angry at the cook for preparing such messy food. At least that’s what I’ll tell myself based on the beliefs that I hold about who I am and what others think of me.
As I said, most of us are not that self-aware as to notice these “internal rumblings”. So, what’s bound to happen in this situation is that I’d swear and then storm out of the room to change my shirt, or I’d leave the banquet if that wasn’t possible. If I were to be asked about it later, I’d say something about how I had an emergency to attend to at home and had to leave quickly. If I got away with it, my self- and public-images would be intact. No one would think less of me for not being able to take care of myself in all situations.
In summary, I experience anger when I’m afraid I won’t be able to maintain my images of myself.
(More, next time.)

What if I'm angry?

2007-03-07T09:01:00.000-08:00

In my example about happiness, I asked you to imagine receiving an unexpected bonus just before Christmas. Now, let’s go back to that same scenario and imagine that you go to work the next day and everyone’s talking excitedly about their bonuses and what they’re going to do with them. You ask a coworker, who’s your friend, what she’s going to do with her bonus. She informs you that the $3,000 is going to go to a down payment on a house she’s been saving up for. You suddenly realize that she’s received $1,000 more than you did. As soon as you realize what she’s just said, you stop breathing for a moment. You notice a tightening in the stomach and jaw. Your thoughts begin to race. If you were to identify the feeling at that moment, it would likely be anger.
Let’s stop for a moment and define anger. Here’s a definition I learned and followed: Anger lets me know that I’m separating myself from a hurt that I believe is about to happen and will not go away. To explain further: After the stimulus, or triggering event, I’m imagining a situation or result where I’ll be hurt somehow, not physically, but emotionally (in this case, at least). The “hurt” that I’m imagining is more than I believe I can bear or certainly more than I want to experience.
Let’s go back to the example cited earlier. My friend and coworker has received a larger bonus than I did. I’ve already noticed that I’m breathing quicker and my heart is racing. I can tell I’m “getting angry”. What are my thoughts? Since she’s my equal at work, I’m wracking my brain trying to find some justification for a difference in pay. I can’t think of any. I begin to question my own performance and compare it with hers. I can’t see the differences and haven’t heard of any otherwise. I start to imagine what she might have said or done to get our boss to favour her over me. I “jump to conclusions” and assume that she must have done something to put me in a bad light.
Notice how my thoughts are racing, looking for a way to avoid the hurt of being out of favour with my boss and looking badly in front of my coworkers. So far, I haven’t acted unkindly or said anything. Here’s the decision point: Do I tell myself that my imagined thoughts are unfounded fears or do I act on my thoughts by trying to change the situation so that I don’t look bad to others AND to myself.
Our training is to take control and alter the situation so that we look in charge, and to avoid the hurt I’m imagining could hurt me. If I go with that training I will likely run up to my boss and ask him why the hell I got less of a bonus than my coworker did. My voice will likely be harsh and I may even yell. My coworkers may overhear our conversation. I can only hope they think well of me for standing up for myself by letting my boss know what I think.
If I get what I want, my boss will apologize and arrange to have my bonus increased. I will have saved my “reputation” and shown everyone that I’m of equal value in the workplace (at least in my mind).
If I don’t get my way, I will have new decisions to make.
(To be continued)

We respond emotionally to everything we experience

2007-03-05T08:51:00.000-08:00

In my last blog I asked you to agree that that anger is an internal response to an event or belief about an event that one has experienced. Perhaps I need to explain this definition further. Ask yourself these questions: What makes you happy? What makes you sad? What makes you excited? What makes you angry?
As you may notice, each of the questions poses as a cause-effect situation where something or someone triggers a response in us. Our feelings let us know what’s going on for us. Just like the temperature gauge in the car that lets us know what temperature the engine is running at, our feelings let us know how we’re responding to the situations we face every moment of the day.
Let’s pose a possible scenario: You’ve been hoping for a raise in pay for the past year. Out of the blue your boss announces a bonus pay for everyone at Christmas. It’s for even more than you had hoped. What do you notice? Your heart beats faster, your breathing increases, and you’re suddenly overcome with a heightened sense of being. What feeling would you attach to that experience? Excitement? Happiness? Probably. What would you be excited about? I would be already planning how I would finally get to go shopping for the special gift for my wife and children, or? I could already imagine being at work for the next year with more satisfaction knowing that I’ll be recognized financially as well.
Briefly, then, happiness is the result of a combination of what has just happened and what I make of it. What I make of each situation I encounter is what I’m calling “beliefs”. What I believe about what just happened or about what I think will happen affects my whole being, and my feelings let me know how I’m being affected. They are my “gauge” that let me know what’s going on for me.
(To be continued.)

Anger is a misunderstood emotion

2007-03-04T13:06:00.000-08:00

If anger were to be outlawed there’d be a national riot. Thousands of people would be arrested and jailed all the while yelling and demanding justice. The results would be aggressive control tactics on the part of the police or military. Many would be bludgeoned and beat senseless, all in the name of keeping the peace and maintaining order. Then the quiet majority would rise up in anger and demand a change of law from the prevailing governing bodies, until the laws were changed or they, too, would be arrested until the majority of this world’s citizens would be imprisoned.
Is this plausible? Not likely, as the first assumption could never be put in effect.
How do you outlaw anger?
If we agree that anger is an internal response to an event or belief about an event that one has experienced, then attempting to control anger would be extremely difficult to identify concretely enough to impose sanctions. What we’re really talking about when we blame anger for our indiscretions is not the anger we experienced but the expression of it through aggressive behaviours.
Why then do we equate anger with aggressiveness? From what I’ve learned it’s because we want to justify our hurtful behaviours by citing anger as the noble contributor. It’s akin to the binge-drinker who blames the alcohol for his uncouth behaviours at the weekend party. We don’t want to give up our vices, do we? If we no longer have easy excuses for our hurtful behaviours, we are suddenly faced with our own fears and desires to control the persons or circumstances that we're taking exception to.
(To be continued).