Hopefully we can have a civil discussion
From what I'm reading, Dr Harley is not against being angry, but is against Angry Outbursts
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3401_angry.htmlEven the Bible tells us to "Be angry, but do not sin." The EE paraphrase, but I believe it to be accurate. Which tends to lead me to believe that anger itself is not the problem. The problem is out of control anger. If your anger is out of control, you can be abusive, you can engage in hurtful and sinful behavior.
So what makes for appropriate anger?
If I step in gum and yell at my kids, that's probably not appropriate. But if I step in gum and say, "Nuts!" (Which is the strongest work I use) am I engaged in an AO?
Besides some of the topics I've seen tonight a friend has on his facebook page a picture that says if you are not angry when you are driving, then you probably are not paying attention.
While it elicited a chuckle, it got me to thinking about all the anger out there. Folks getting worked up over being cut off in traffic, or stepping in gum, or what have you.
What is appropriate, MB approved anger and how is it communicated vs when does it become an LB, abusive and destructive?
Because nothing I read says that anger is the problem or even that anger is sinful. After all, even Jesus was angry at the money changers in the temple, and Christianity conveys that Jesus was without sin.
Not trying to make a case for anger. Nor am I trying to justify it. Just trying to establish some ground rules. Folks do get angry about things. When is it good, when is it bad, where are the limits to healthy vs unhealthy anger?
I think you might be confusing anger with expressions of anger. Anger is a feeling, and there's no getting away from feelings. But there are inappropriate expressions of feelings and appropriate expressions of feelings. Being angry does not entitle someone to act out. (Although there are probably occasions where it would be helpful for you to examine where your anger is coming from. Sometimes it's not a straightforward thing.)
EE, I have never heard of "MB approved anger" but if you want to know Harley's thoughts on it, I would check out the radio archives. He talks about it all the time, probably more than any other subject.
I'll admit to confusion with a dichotomy; "it's easier to change your behavior than it is to change your feelings" vs "if you have a problem with anger, just stop it."
These two pieces of advice are oppositional at one point, yet the first is the solution to the second.
HHH, the difference is that anger is such a destructive emotion that it should be changed. Sure, it is not easy, but it can be done. Feeling anger leads to destructive behavior. It is a form of temporary insanity so it can't be said that it ok to FEEL anger as long as one doesn't act on it. An angry person can make no such guarantee because they are temporarily insane.
Harley, and other anger management specialists, teach people to retrain their brain to go to a different place when faced with frustration. If you do this often enough you will retrain the neural pathways in your brain. I know it has worked for me to a great extent.
I agree with Curious53. I think it's ok to feel anger, just not act on it. When I was in therapy following my divorce, I went through a period of anger directed at my xW. My therapist said that was a normal part of divorce recovery, and it was ok to feel the angry emotions, but that I had to understand the difference between feeling anger and acting on it. That advice helped me because before hearing it, I wanted to act on my feelings. I think suppressing feelings of any type is not good. Feelings provide information about what's going on in your subconscious. As Enlightened said, even Jesus got angry.
I have a question. 1st let me say AOs have been a problem for me and I am overcoming them and I will eliminate them...but my question isn't about me and in no way am I trying to say AOs are ok or am I trying to make a comparison here; I fall WAY short.
My question; For believers, Jesus is the Prince of Peace, He walked perfectly and the Father was well pleased with Him and told the disciples to listen to Him! Just exactly what would a person call that Temple episode with Jesus when He turned over the tables, took a whip and forrcefully removed the merchants all the while yelling at them and calling them a den of thieves?
I would call it an Angry Outburst.
I think you're comparing something EE that is easier to see as apples and oranges. If I step in gum, I feel frustrated. My family knows me, that when I'm frustrated with something, I may thoughtfully request for help "Aw really?! I can't move, would one of you please get me a napkin from the car?" But that I'm not going to turn it into a tirade against them. I would be a lot more likely to say "Don't you hate it when that happens?!" than "Kids, don't you ever spit your gum out like this, look what happens!" It sounds like your reaction would be similar, that your family doesn't run and hide when something bad happens to you.
But in a family in State of Conflict, that's not getting outside help learning thoughtfulness, that's not what the family can reasonably expect. From experience they know there will be anger and blame, that the person won't settle down until they've gotten their "pound of flesh" from the family trapped in the car with them. It's great that folks come here to learn the Basic Concepts, and create a new experience for their family, but trust isn't re-earned in a day.
And there should be a huge difference between the yuck feeling someone has when they realize they have stepped in gum in a parking lot, after they just had their car detailed, and the total revulsion one would feel seeing in person a sacred place being used to cheat people.
One thing I've heard said is that it depends on the source of your anger.
Is your anger selfish, I.E. you feel you have experienced an injustice, or is your anger due to the plight of others? I.E. do you feel anger when you hear/read about some child being abused.
That said, if not kept in check, I do believe even the latter anger can turn destructive and abusive.
After all, there are enough "reality" TV shows were Dance Moms or whomever get angry when they think their child has experienced an injustice, LOL.
Dr. Harley says when you are angry, say or do nothing. So I would guess that he would say your anger is only appropriate if you say or do nothing.
That might go along with making a distinction between the feeling of anger, and the behavior of having an angry outburst. But he does say that by developing the habit of doing nothing, and relaxing in response to frustration instead of having an angry outburst, will change your brain, literally rewiring the neurons so that you will develop new mental habits of problem solving instead of frustration.
Dr. Harley says that an angry outburst is insanity and asks "So, do you think it's a good idea to go insane once in a while?"
I have never heard Dr. Harley address the issue of Jesus in the temple. I'm curious to know what he would say. My take on it is that I am not Jesus.
Jesus may have had the ability to decide what to do when upset, but I presume that I am fallible and He was infallible. If I say or do nothing when angry, then I can be certain that I am following the command "Be angry, and do not sin."
"Be angry and do not sin" was in the reading I read to our children the other night. By the way, if you take a survey of the whole New Testament on anger, you'll find more to it than that. For example, the very next verse tells you to get rid of your anger, quick! Apparently it's too much of a temptation to keep it around long.
Is your anger selfish, I.E. you feel you have experienced an injustice, or is your anger due to the plight of others? I.E. do you feel anger when you hear/read about some child being abused.
That said, if not kept in check, I do believe even the latter anger can turn destructive and abusive.
My anger management therapist said to practice compassion instead of this kind of anger. This kind of anger is on his list of things to avoid.
And there should be a huge difference between the yuck feeling someone has when they realize they have stepped in gum in a parking lot, after they just had their car detailed, and the total revulsion one would feel seeing in person a sacred place being used to cheat people.
Oh,I agree there should be a huge difference. But it seems to me the philosophy here is that there are no excuses for an AO. Infidelity would seem to fall somewhere between gum on your shoes and seeing hypocrits defiling the Holy place yet an AO is verboten under any circumstance here.
I was asking the earlier question because the OP was asking for civil discussion on the subject and I truly have wandered how folks reconcile the no AO whatsoever philosophy and the manner in which Jesus responded to the Temple defilement and then use Scripture to make various points.
To be clear; I'm not trolling or arguing, just interested/wandering...
What is appropriate, MB approved anger and how is it communicated vs when does it become an LB, abusive and destructive?
When you are feeling anger, don't communicate anything.
Anger is a response to a triggering situation. Instead of letting things get to the point that you are angry, Marriage Builders says you should communicate about the original problem.
Example: it bothers me for you to stay out late at night.
Dr. Harley says that you basically can't resolve your marital conflicts if anger is an issue.
What is appropriate, MB approved anger and how is it communicated vs when does it become an LB, abusive and destructive?
When you are feeling anger, don't communicate anything.
Anger is a response to a triggering situation. Instead of letting things get to the point that you are angry, Marriage Builders says you should communicate about the original problem.
Example: it bothers me for you to stay out late at night.
Dr. Harley says that you basically can't resolve your marital conflicts if anger is an issue.
Again, I get more and more on the side of separation for solving the issue of AO's - you aren't going to be able to resolve your marital issues if you continue angry outbursts, and you aren't going to be able to solve your anger issues until the marital issues are not constant triggers.
Just a dribble from the APA:
Changing Your Environment
Sometimes it's our immediate surroundings that give us cause for irritation and fury. Problems and responsibilities can weigh on you and make you feel angry at the "trap" you seem to have fallen into and all the people and things that form that trap.
Give yourself a break. Make sure you have some "personal time" scheduled for times of the day that you know are particularly stressful. One example is the working mother who has a standing rule that when she comes home from work, for the first 15 minutes "nobody talks to Mom unless the house is on fire." After this brief quiet time, she feels better prepared to handle demands from her kids without blowing up at them.
Some Other Tips for Easing Up on Yourself
Timing: If you and your spouse tend to fight when you discuss things at night�perhaps you're tired, or distracted, or maybe it's just habit�try changing the times when you talk about important matters so these talks don't turn into arguments.
Avoidance: If your child's chaotic room makes you furious every time you walk by it, shut the door. Don't make yourself look at what infuriates you. Don't say, "well, my child should clean up the room so I won't have to be angry!" That's not the point. The point is to keep yourself calm.
Finding alternatives: If your daily commute through traffic leaves you in a state of rage and frustration, give yourself a project�learn or map out a different route, one that's less congested or more scenic. Or find another alternative, such as a bus or commuter train.
What is appropriate, MB approved anger and how is it communicated vs when does it become an LB, abusive and destructive?
When you are feeling anger, don't communicate anything.
Anger is a response to a triggering situation. Instead of letting things get to the point that you are angry, Marriage Builders says you should communicate about the original problem.
Example: it bothers me for you to stay out late at night.
Dr. Harley says that you basically can't resolve your marital conflicts if anger is an issue.
Again, I get more and more on the side of separation for solving the issue of AO's - you aren't going to be able to resolve your marital issues if you continue angry outbursts, and you aren't going to be able to solve your anger issues until the marital issues are not constant triggers.
What Dr. Harley says to men is to learn to not have angry outbursts even if you continue to have marital issues and constant triggers. Learn to not lose your temper even if things go wrong and even if your wife does not follow the rules.
The Bible also talks about righteous indignation. I think that's what Jesus was expressing in the temple. We know He was sinless so that was not a sinful episode. I had a preacher friend point out to me that Jesus never showed anger when defending Himself. Only when defending His Father or others.
I think if for ex. your child is about to be abducted, which makes you scared and angry and you act on it and beat up the perp and rescue your child, that's righteous indignation. However if your spouse doesn't get home on time and it peeves you off, and you yell, that's an AO.
I think the difference has to do with the heart and motives.
This topic
was explored quite extensively a few months ago:
http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2587490#Post2587490The exchanges became so divisive between the "Don't give in" supporters and the "Use it as a tool" contingent that EVERYBODY got angry!
Ironic, no?
This is the approach I take, say nothing.
I was recounting a situation from a few years back when my step children did not come home by their curfew, nor did they call, didn't answer their phones, etc.
Finally, two hours after curfew, I get a call saying they didn't have a ride as they thought. So I get them, I don't say a word and tell them to go to bed, I'm too angry to think rationally about this, but after I confer with their mother (who was out of town with her mom) I would impose consequences for their actions.
Got up the next morning, spoke with their mother explaining the situation and asking how she felt about grounding until she gets home and taking their cell phones since they didn't feel the need to call, allowing her to introduce the final punishment once she returned from her weekend with mom.
She agreed and I did that.
One of the kids ultimately lost the phone for another three weeks due to sending 21 text messages after being instructed to surrender the phone. So an extra day for each text message sent while the phone was off limits.
I have learned not to even consider punishment, consequences, etc while I am upset, angry, or whatever words one might use to describe such feelings.
What is appropriate, MB approved anger and how is it communicated vs when does it become an LB, abusive and destructive?
When you are feeling anger, don't communicate anything.
Anger is a response to a triggering situation. Instead of letting things get to the point that you are angry, Marriage Builders says you should communicate about the original problem.
Example: it bothers me for you to stay out late at night.
Dr. Harley says that you basically can't resolve your marital conflicts if anger is an issue.
The Bible also talks about righteous indignation. I think that's what Jesus was expressing in the temple. We know He was sinless so that was not a sinful episode. I had a preacher friend point out to me that Jesus never showed anger when defending Himself. Only when defending His Father or others.
I think if for ex. your child is about to be abducted, which makes you scared and angry and you act on it and beat up the perp and rescue your child, that's righteous indignation. However if your spouse doesn't get home on time and it peeves you off, and you yell, that's an AO.
I think the difference has to do with the heart and motives.
I googled a bit and this is also a sin? This would be that resentment thing. Type A or B, no?
"Anger also becomes sin when the angry one refuses to be pacified, holds a grudge, or keeps it all inside" (Ephesians 4:26-27).
But back to the original question; it seems then that an AO is Appropriate behaviour if it's rightous? Also if I'm understanding MB correctly the person having the AO doesn't get to define it as an AO or not. In MB the definition is left to the one that is offended or disaproving of the behaviour, yes?
While it's true, the one experiencing the behavior CAN and does get to define it, it doesn't mean they correctly define it.
For example, how many waywards have we seen define their spouses boundaries surrounding what they will and will not tolerate as controlling or mean-spirited, etc?
Sure, they get to define it. I won't argue with that. However, there is no assurance they will correctly define it. They may simply try to use "feelings" to manipulate the situation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take how others interpret our behavior into consideration. We should. But I'm saying we need to be rational about it. If the person interpreting the behavior has demonstrated she is not honest, then how much weight do we put on the expressed interpretation?
Actually, I would suggest communicating one thing, please give me some space right now.
If someone says, "I'm angry and I don't want to talk about it while I feel this way, can we do this later?" and the other keeps at it, I think they are doing a disservice to the one trying to keep his/her anger in check.
While I know we all own our responses, I think we also owe the honesty of telling our spouse where we are right now. If I'm angry and it's not a good time to talk because I'm trying to work through the anger to a safe state, we owe it to our spouse to be honest about where we are.
Like I told my teen step children, I'm angry, so now would not be a good time for you to make your case, let alone for me to consider any punishments.
Perhaps that's counter-intuitive, but I think it's a good idea to calmly suggest it's not a good time to have a discussion.
Does anyone see anything wrong with communicating that it's a bad time to engage in a dialog?
Of course, I see the other example. The story of Nabal in scripture. Nabal's wife was wise that she knew not to approach him when he was in his drunken rage. She approached David instead who was prepared to kill Nabal for his unwillingness to pay David and his men for their protection.
FWIW, Nabal means fool
and his wife was wise to allow God to deal with her fool.
What is appropriate, MB approved anger and how is it communicated vs when does it become an LB, abusive and destructive?
When you are feeling anger, don't communicate anything.
Anger is a response to a triggering situation. Instead of letting things get to the point that you are angry, Marriage Builders says you should communicate about the original problem.
Example: it bothers me for you to stay out late at night.
Dr. Harley says that you basically can't resolve your marital conflicts if anger is an issue.
EE,
I would say if one spouse looks for some space because they are becoming emotional (AO or otherwise), and the other spouse doesn't back off...
Both are not in the emotional state to be having a conversation. If your spouse requests that you back off, and you keep at it... I'd be willing to bet you are having an AO.
One vow I've kept to myself since my wife and I have been together, is I will not argue. Arguments are almost always emotionally charged, and once emotion kicks in, no good conclusion can be reached.
Once things take a turn, I remove myself from the room. If she follows me into the other room, I leave the house.
I cannot control my wife, but I can refuse to be goaded.
(To be fair, this behavior hasn't happened in years)
Usually, I'm the one requesting the break. Sometimes because I perceive that I may have an AO, sometimes because I feel as if I'm being attacked.
Usually, saying let's go at this later is sufficient. Sometimes one of us needs to walk away.
I can see both sides. In my first marriage, I was a "keep at it guy." Why? Because from past experience, if it didn't get worked out then, my ex-wife would just ignore the topic. Based on prior experiences with her, I did not believe she would honor her agreements to have the discussion later. Too many failures to keep her word. So I was not enthusiastic about her requests to have the discussion later because it would seldom happen.
Not that it does any good to continue to force the issue. But if you don't follow up and have the discussion, future requests to postpone the discussion are less likely to be enthusiastically embraced.
So it's good to postpone until later, as long as you keep your word and actually have that conversation. One can make that a much more difficult prospect when they fail to keep their word with respect to the postponed conversation.
While it's true, the one experiencing the behavior CAN and does get to define it, it doesn't mean they correctly define it.
For example, how many waywards have we seen define their spouses boundaries surrounding what they will and will not tolerate as controlling or mean-spirited, etc?
Sure, they get to define it. I won't argue with that. However, there is no assurance they will correctly define it. They may simply try to use "feelings" to manipulate the situation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take how others interpret our behavior into consideration. We should. But I'm saying we need to be rational about it. If the person interpreting the behavior has demonstrated she is not honest, then how much weight do we put on the expressed interpretation?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the offended half get's to define all of the offending behaviour. DJs, AOs, SDs etc.
One of my major stumbling blocks is trying to reassure my offended half that the motive she is applying to my behaviour is not accurate; what I mean is the motive I'm being branded with is far from my mind and I try to articulate that to her.
It turns out that my "defense?" of my character/motive and trying to explain that's not what I'm about at all has the negative effect of "invalidating her feelings".
I know the feeling of being attacked. I know when my wife is getting upset by her tone of voice and volume... and once the scale tips, she goes right for the twig-n-berries.
Didn't I say they get to define the behavior?
I'm saying just because they get to define it, there is no guarantee they will honestly or correctly define it.
I.E. the example of the wayward who defines your behavior to suit her purposes. Sure, she can define it, she does define it. But that doesn't mean she will honestly or correctly define it.
I.E. she calls her husband who will not remain in a relationship where she is being unfaithful controlling. He is not controlling, he is saying he will not engage in a three way relationship.
When I told my ex-wife I would not pay her gym membership, car payment, etc as long as she was in her affair, she countered with the accusation that I was controlling.
She can choose to see the behavior that way. I cannot stop her. But it doesn't mean her appraisal was honest or accurate. It certainly is how she chooses to see it. I never argued against that.
We caution BH's all the time to be careful about accepting the characterizations presented by WW's.
Didn't I say they get to define the behavior?
I'm saying just because they get to define it, there is no guarantee they will honestly or correctly define it.
I.E. the example of the wayward who defines your behavior to suit her purposes. Sure, she can define it, she does define it. But that doesn't mean she will honestly or correctly define it.
I.E. she calls her husband who will not remain in a relationship where she is being unfaithful controlling. He is not controlling, he is saying he will not engage in a three way relationship.
When I told my ex-wife I would not pay her gym membership, car payment, etc as long as she was in her affair, she countered with the accusation that I was controlling.
She can choose to see the behavior that way. I cannot stop her. But it doesn't mean her appraisal was honest or accurate. It certainly is how she chooses to see it. I never argued against that.
We caution BH's all the time to be careful about accepting the characterizations presented by WW's.
Yes, you said that
I was more or less reiterating. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on the offended ones appraisals...very interesting.
With that said, you still have to work with what they've expressed.
Of course, the "out" here is that most waywards are angry when they are found out, their supply lines from the BH are cut, etc, and they lash out with their own AOs!
I don't really want to make this about waywards, as the topic is larger than that. But the wayward example does show how we cannot trust those engaged in an AO, including the wayward spouse who throws accusations in the hopes of getting the betrayed spouse to back off.
They probably do believe you are controlling. But then, they are abducted by aliens, they can't see clearly in their self-made fog, etc.
In no way am I saying the BS doesn't need to address things. They just need to rely on OBJECTIVE feedback, not foggy feedback from their spouse. As long as they are engaged in their affair and angry about you catching them, cutting off their supply lines, either to your resources so they don't cake-eat, or keeping them from their OP if you have managed to get that far, then their feedback is suspect at best.
FWIW, one of the reasons for me stating should I be betrayed again by a spouse I would walk away is I would be too angry to consider working with them on a better marriage.
The safest thing I could do for both them and myself is to walk-away.
No need for the anger surrounding betrayal, the unfaithful are not worth it. I tried it once and know better than to try again.
Look at that, I even participated in that thread. A few things I didn't agree with theologically, I.E. only one sinless human and one made sinless by being filled with grace
Others believe differently and we'll all get it sorted out with God if we even care the day we face Him.
But I'm not sure I'm speaking about rage. Just comparing/contrasting anger to one manifestation, angry outbursts.
This is an interesting thread. Through the process of recovery I observed I was immediately dealing w/two types of expressions of anger. I was not trying to deal with FOO AND my marriage situation too--- but in the end that's the cards I happened to be dealt. Its been very painful. My mother has had a verbal AO problem my entire life and lately she is easily triggered. In the mean time dealing w/my husbands withdrawal and defense mechanisms such as excuses, intellectualizing, silence and so on all total both expressions had the effect of sending me into depression. I likely assumed I'd be safe w/my husbands method of dealing with difficult to express feelings.
Anyway, I have noted these expressions of anger were projections onto me. I did not deserve any of it whether my mom used me to momentarily help herself feel better or when my husband chose to not own his own feelings and deal with them in a healthy honest and direct fashion.
Thankfully, today there has been significant growth and change. There is still room to grow-- but its happening positively. Another miracle---at age 80 my mom has begun to attend Alanon! It would have helped to have her support through the years but I am grateful she is learning to take care of herself in a healthier fashion.