Should I "just get over it"? How

dragonlady ) writes:
In article ,
"Nikki" wrote:

bizby40 wrote:

I guess the bottom line is that I can't change the way I think about
things, simply because I decide to. I *do* feel like she was out of
line. I *do* think she insulted my daughter, and through her,
insulted me as well. And I *do* think there is a difference between
no longer having playdates, and banning them forever.

The problem with this is that you've sentenced yourself to an eternity of
being exactly where you are now in this situation. You must be open to
finding a way to change how you think about this or you'll never be able to
get over it. This other woman is never going to come up to you and
apologize. It is completely up to you to change your thoughts, feelings,
and perceptions of this situation. I *can* be done. It *must* be done in
order for you to let it go.

Once again, I have to disagree. I think it is entirely possible to
continue to believe that someone else has behaved badly towards you
without continuing to carry anger or hostility towards the person, or
about the situation.

I agree with both Nikki and Dragonlady. Note that Nikki did not
suggest that Bizby has to change her beliefs. She said Bizby
has to be open to changing her thoughts, feelings and perceptions
if she wants to get over it.
I believe it is entirely possible to change one's thoughts,
feelings and perceptions about a situation without ceasing to
believe that one has been insulted or wronged.
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

"bizby40" ) writes:

Trying to accept that she didn't do anything wrong doesn't sit well
with me at all, because I think she did.

Note: if you happen to want to try some of the techniques
I mentioned that involve empathizing with the other woman,
these methods do not require believing that she didn't do
anything wrong. Or at most, they require believing it
in a temporary and fictional way, the way actors play a character.
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
did. I don't see how you get around that. Either the ban was
unreasonable, or behavior egregious enough to warrant a permanent
ban ought to be enough to make even birthday parties undesirable.

Hmm. Here's an analogy: Suppose a young woman admits to
a young man that the reason she's refusing some of his
invitations is that she doesn't feel comfortable being
alone in his house with him. Does she then necessarily
have to stop seeing him in restaurants or at movies or
at his house when his parents are home, because she's
offered him such an insult that it makes no sense to
continue the relationship? (I don't think so.)
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:

It is irrelevant whether they are both receiving
gifts. Gift-giving is not a tit-for-tat situation.
When the mother bans interaction, she offers insult.
She can't in good conscience then accept gifts.

I disagree with this. Besides, it's the daughter
accepting the gifts, not the mother.

It's all in the family. That's why close
relatives are not supposed to throw baby showers.
When you're too closely related to the beneficiary,
it still smells fishy.

By the way, in my system, gifts are not central to
birthday parties the way they are to showers.

They are customary at children's birthday
parties. Even if I, personally, don't think the
gifts are all that important (in fact, etiquette
expects that I see them as a distant second to the
presence of my guests), the fact that they are
customary and expected at children's birthday parties
means that I am obligated to make extra sure that
my behavior is absolutely above reproach--not just
in my intent, but also in the appearance of my
actions.

Sorry, but that logic doesn't work for me,
though perhaps it does for others. I'm better with
simply accepting that something was horrible or that
I'd been violated and simply deciding that what happened
was not my fault, not my responsibility (if those things
are true) and not taking it to heart.

Can you explain how you go about not taking something
to heart? This is difficult for some of us to do.
I do it using Cognitive Therapy -- for example, avoiding
statements using the word "horrible". Instead, a
less emotional, and more accurate, word is used,
such as "costly", "an emotional shock", "a significant
negative event," etc. Albert Ellis called it
"horribilizing" if a person kept on using the word
"horrible" with accompanying ongoing negative emotion.
Apparently you can use the word "horrible" and still not
take something to heart. Can you just decide to not take
something to heart, and then not take it to heart?
What if someone else decides to try not to take something
to heart, but doesn't know how? Can you explain how?

To me, it's about having confidence in one's
self. The horribleness of someone else's actions is a
reflection of them, not of me (unless I've done something
to earn it). It's my job to keep myself from crossing
the line between self-confidence and arrogance, but to
me, I don't see how I can take something negative to heart
unless I somehow believe something negative about myself.
If some part is deserved, then I believe fixing the problem
is better than stewing about how horrible I've been.
Stewing makes me feel worse, and fixing makes me feel
better, so that's a pretty powerful reinforcement.
That's not to say that I don't feel regret
when I screw up or that I don't have my feelings hurt
or that I don't sometimes wonder whether I might have
done something to earn the "bad thing." And, of course,
even if you feel pretty good about yourself, another
person can make your life pretty miserable if they're
in a position to keep pecking at you. But by and large,
I just don't choose to let someone else define me. I
don't really know how to describe that except as a choice
one can make.

Detachment. That's the virtue that's needed in this situation.

Oddly, I've never seen detachment as a particularly
useful tool for me, anymore than I saw distraction techniques
as helpful in labor. I was better off being plugged in
and really experiencing things and moving through them
than trying to pretend they're not there. The same is
usually true for me with interpersonal issues. I'm usually
better off really experiencing the feelings and poking at
them and thinking about them and so on. But it's not
so debilitating to do that if you're not so quick to take
other people's issues to heart. I think it's hard to
detach from one's emotions. It's easier to choose not
to adopt other people's emotions/thoughts/beliefs (though
maybe some would see those as one and the same).
YMMV--maybe I'm just wired weirdly ;-) But
that's how it seems to me for myself.

Ericka Kammerer ) writes:
Even if I, personally, don't think the
gifts are all that important (in fact, etiquette
expects that I see them as a distant second to the
presence of my guests), the fact that they are
customary and expected at children's birthday parties
means that I am obligated to make extra sure that
my behavior is absolutely above reproach--not just
in my intent, but also in the appearance of my
actions.

I happen to believe that it's considerably more
reproachful to (unnecessarily) prevent someone from inviting a
friend to their birthday party, or to prevent
someone from attending a party, than to
accept a gift from someone one has insulted.
It's OK if your values and priorities are different from mine.

Thanks for the explanations about not taking things
to heart etc. Emotions can be rather complex things.
--
Cathy
A *much* better world is possible.