Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I personnaly dislike the idea of "assertiveness training" for women
    because of the old idea that women should be assertive but men are
    allowed to be aggressive.  How about "aggressiveness training" for
    everyone?  
    
    Sally
    

>    I personnaly dislike the idea of "assertiveness training" for women
>    because of the old idea that women should be assertive but men are
>    allowed to be aggressive.  How about "aggressiveness training" for
>    everyone?  
    
Are you kidding?  Train people to be assertive instead of aggressive!
Assertiveness lets you stand up for your rights, agressiveness impinges on
others rights.

    		I'm going to start being more assertive starting
    	*RIGHT NOW*.....
    
    
    				.....if that's OK with you....
    
    
    
    						Suzanne... :-)  :-)

    		I'm going to *STOP* procrastinating...
    
    
    
    			....starting tomorrow.....
    
    
    
    				...next week at the latest....
    
    
    		I *HATE* it when people generalize....
    
    
    				...and they *ALWAYS* do.....
    
    					
    						Suzanne... :-) :-)

        And of course,  All generalizations are false...
        
        
        	... including this one.
        
        But getting back to the topic... I can see we're falling
        into some semantic issues, with "assertive" vs. "aggressive".
        Maybe this will help get us on the same track...
        
        From the good 'ol' American Heritage Dictionary...
        
        aggressive (adj): 1. Quick to attack or act in a hostile fashion.
        2. Assertive; bold: "an aggressive salesman".
        
        assert (v): 1. To state positively; affirm.  2. To defend
        or maintain.  ...  ---assertive (adj).
        
        The important point with respect to the incursion of
        "aggressive" into the discussion... do you mean definition
        1, or definition 2 (in which case you're agreeing)?
        
        I don't think it's a good idea to encourage hostile attacks
        by anyone, and the second definition of "aggressive" merely
        points to "assertive", making it redundant.
        
        *Everyone* should be encouraged to be assertive; *nobody*
        should be encouraged to be aggressive as a general behavior
        (though there are probably circumstances where aggression
        is appropriate, too).
        
        	/dave

    re .1:
    
    Agressiveness training for women = teaching women to be like men.
    Wrong.  I'm more in favor of teaching men to be more like women
    (and make them better people :-) ).
    
    	-Ellen

        .7: It's attitudes like that which cause problems in this world,
        Steven.  I'd like to think you were joking, but there's no
        indication of it.
        
        You also can't manage to spell my node or name... that's
        merely incompetent, or a highly juvenile attempt at a joke.
        Either way, you lose any "point" you may have intended. 
        
        	/dave

    OK, so maybe I didn't explain myself very well when I suggested
    aggresiveness training for everyone -
    
    "Assertive" and "aggressive" are words that are used to point out
    the differences in the way women and men are viewed.  The fact that
    the words that are used are different for women and men is the problem.
    Another example is that women are "pushy" while men are "aggresssive",
    women are "sneaky" and men are "political", etc.  
    
    The real differences between "assertive" and "aggressive" are very
    small if you are on the receiving end, and many times rights are
    mutually exclusive.  An example of mutually exclusive rights would
    be the rights of smokers to smoke vs. the rights of non-smokers
    not to be forced to breath smoke.  I would guess that the person
    being asked not to smoke views it as aggression while the person
    making the request views is as being assertive.
    
    The bottom line is why do we have this filter that views a strong
    woman as assertive and a strong man as aggressive?  The only difference
    I see in the words is that one is used for women and the other for
    men!
    
    Sally
    

    RE .8	This double generalisation:  "All women are OK and all
    		men need to learn from them" ...
    		Perhaps you would state the exclusive qualities
    		of women that no man has,  and which every man should
    		have?
    
    Re .11	"Agressiveness=assertiveness" and "it depends whose
    		on the receiving end" ...
    		I feel that some examples are necessary...
    
		Firstly:  Scene 1:
    
    		Man is negotiating salary increase with female
    		boss.  Suppose he threatens to resign.  This is
    		essentially fight/flight behaviour irrespective of
    		sex you can substitute the sexes of either person
    		in any combination.
    
    		Likewise employee listens to bosses arguments against
    		his/her salary increase and maintains his point that
    		he WANTS a salary increase irrespective of the points
    		raised by his/her boss.  This is essentially assertive,
    		again irrespecitive of sex.

    		Scene 2.  (To examine more exclusively female situations)
    
    		Man at woman's apartment after being invited for coffee,
    		bends over to kiss her suddenly and she pulls away.
     		He then comes up with all sorts of garb. about how
    		she led him on etc. and why won't she "deliver what she
    		promised".  If she slapped him round the face already,
    		or worse,  then this is agressive behaviour.  Equally
    		to threaten to shout "rape" is aggressive.  She states
    		simply and WITHOUT PUTTING HIM DOWN that she doesn't want
    		it -  assertive.  Suppose he persists and makes a grab.
    		Then there is no choice but to defend or run.  But suppose
    		instead he persists with his "line of argument" getting
    		onto stuff like:  "but I'm a lonely guy etc.  how could
    		you do this to me."  Now it is "flight" to give in.
    		Persisting with the "no" (still without putting him
    		down which would be aggressive),  perhaps getting up and
    		opening the door and standing outside showing him the way
    		out,  is essentially assertive.  The standing outside is
    		in case of the need for necessary as opposed to habitual flight.

    		I hope this goes some way towards clarifying what I meant in .0.
    
    		Simon.

re: 190.11, Sally:

To me at least, there is no difference in the meaning of the two
words between the genders.  Wondering if many women or men see a
difference in meaning, or possibly a difference in (needed)
behavior.  Or wondering if you are coming off a particular bad
experience.  ???????????

To take a personal shot, from a performance viewpoint:

Assertive: To make another person seriously consider your viewpoint.

Aggressive: To violate the personal rights of another, posssibly in 
		being assertive (as defined above).


Being stepped on is being stepped on.  By anyone.
It hurts, and tends to be destructive, no matter who is doing it.

One takes a big chance in judging that you must be aggressive with 
any particular group, when being assertive should do the trick.

	~Mike

    Another mode that some women (and other people who have been deprived
    of the rights, privileges and power which white males have traditionally
    had access to) resort to is "passive/agressive".  This includes guilt,
    manipulation, scheming and other indirect ways to make people do
    what you want them to regardless of their needs or interests.
    
    One of the reasons assertiveness training was so popular in the
    '70's was that many therapists and leaders of personal growth groups
    were trying to help people (especially women) learn to take their
    power in strong, direct ways instead of resorting to "passive aggression".
    

        .11: That is a good point... "assertiveness" can often be
        viewed as hostile (agressive) by the recipient.  It *is*
        sometimes difficult to draw a boundary line.  Also, assertive
        behavior can easily shade over into aggression if the
        assertiveness does no good... and whether this seems justified
        will often depend on whether you agreed with the assertive
        person to begin with.
        
        I agree with .13 in that I see no difference in the meaning
        of the words based on the sex of the person being referred
        to.  However, it's also obvious that many people *do* see
        such a difference.  After all, in the still common "traditional"
        view, men are powerful and commanding; women are soft and
        submissive.  By this definition, obviously, it is *good*
        for men to be aggressive, slightly less good for them to
        be merely assertive; and it is occasionally acceptible for
        women to be slightly assertive, but *never* OK for them to
        be aggressive.
        
        I continue to maintain that (with adjustments for point of view
        and other such difficult or impossible transformations) it is
        good for anyone to be assertive, and usually bad for anyone to
        be aggressive.  Of course, in the context of the first
        paragraph, it seems fairly clear that this doesn't mean much,
        as the necessary transformations and adjustments simply can't
        be made objectively.
        
        	/dave 

    All the discussion about the meaning of the words aside,  it seems
    clear from the last 15 notes that we aren't all using the same
    definitions - and just knowing that makes the disagreements more
    clear.
    
    However, I'd still rather be known as an "aggressive skiier" than
    as an "assertive skiier" - whatever that is!  (In truth only a beginner
    would call me either!)
    
    Sally
    

    I agree that assertion can possibly seem aggressive in some cases.
    If the assertion is used unnecessarily immoderately then more so.
    In the general case it is question of realism.  If you assert something
    impossible and repeat the assertion when you get no joy then
    it is your fault if you are viewed as aggressive.  If you are
    standing up for your rights then it is the person who views you
    as agressive that is living in the dream-world.  Of course I still
    have to accept that realism is different for different people and
    so clarity in any philosphically absolute sense is impossible.
    As for applying the adjectives to skiing or something else competitive,
    then we are already in a situation where it it is agreed that
    there are rules which might override the basic rights we would
    expect in more general situations.    

    Simon.