Did you ever notice, or wonder:
(a) Why society is sympathetic towards a woman who cries in anger, but is highly critical of a man who speaks passionately in anger? Crying-anger is OK. Impassioned anger – spoken, is not OK.
(b) Why society condones overtly ignoring someone out of ill-will, but does not condone harsh criticism in the interest of communicating? Ignoring is OK. Communicating criticism is not.
(c) Why society regards a "heightened awareness of a negative characteristic of human nature" with condemnation, whereas a minimal awareness of a negative characteristic of human nature is regarded with acceptance. In other words, an alleged ignorance of moral issues in general, expressed as in "I don't know," "I'm not sure," "I don't see," is preferred.
A, B, and C above all have something in common. Society embraces non-threats and condemns potential threats, even when there is no threat except to wrongdoing.
Society is critical of potential threats, without making the effort to consider if the potential threat is real at all. For example, a 'smart' person could trick you, therefore they are a threat. A harsh person is uncompassionate therefore they are a threat. But does that person respect the truth, and is their form -- harshness -- counterbalanced by their function -- accurate observation? Does Society bother to look beyond what's popular, or bother to determine what is a threat rather than what could be a threat, or bother even to ask Why, as in "Why would that be a threat?" The answer to this last question is telling: rarely is one person a threat to another without the other being a threat to the one -- an equal and opposing threat.
Just as in Newton's Third Law, (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) frequently when someone feels abhorrence towards another's actions it is because they unconsciously fear they are guilty of this fault, but are unable to admit it. Thus manifests the justice of our consciences, the irony of our accusations, and the merit of the proverbs "walk a mile in another man's shoes" before criticizing him (Philippians 2:2-3 "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."), or Matthew 7:3 "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
For further discussion: What is the difference between "being objective" and "focussing on the object rather than the subject." How does the latter saying relate to Buddhism?
Please post your opinions here, or email them using the Comments Box at the previous blog site. Click the Back arrow or click on this link to the previous blog-page:
http://dealing-with-a-passive-aggressive.blogspot.com
