Opinions can sometimes land people in trouble if they start out with a point and end up ruffling feathers the next. Sometimes writers need to push boundaries to challenge our thinking and social norms and this is their  great contribution to society. I completely understand that. Still it reminds me of a very valuable and crunchy wisdom earned years ago in group counselling which I’d like to share, that opened my eyes to the power of choices in communication. Forgive me Stephanie Dowrick…

Naturally everyone’s entitled to their opinion and if you’re a writer/blogger, relative or friend (or anyone with an opinion!) you may be tempted to give it. However there’s an enormous difference between sharing how you, yourself feel affected by something and telling people what you think about THEM and THEIR self-conduct. Can your words be chosen in a more on-point, topic-centred way?

Applying the Rule Of “I” helps your main message cut through. Conveying blamelessly how YOU feel about your subject and KEEP IT ABOUT YOU, you’re more likely to be heard and understood.

Just as counsellors might say: “each time your finger points at others (three fingers point back at you, *eyeroll*)” you are likely to be seen as insensitive or pontificating. Conversely, each time you apply the Rule of  I it means you own what you say, you have your feelings and they are valid. Theoretically no one can truly tell you how to feel. The Rule of I abolishes unhelpful generalisations and therefore most potential for offence taken (intended or otherwise).

Not wishing to trudge back there AT ALL, but unfortunately the “Mummy wars” offer us a prime example with which to look at choices in communication:

#1: A journalist with the initials JT was supposedly genuinely shocked when she invoked an almighty furore after claiming mothers should stop whining because parenthood is ‘not hard’.
#2: This weekend Bibi Lynch’s piece on her childlessness was published on Mother’s Day branding grizzling mothers selfish because having *no* children is tougher.

I LIKE hearing different views and both writers had my attention- then lost me where they started with the imperatives and insults. I don’t care how clever the rest of it is, because I don’t give a shit any more.

I wonder WHAT would’ve happened if JT had said:
“I love the blessing of new parenthood and despite the fatigue I don’t find it difficult.”?
I’m guessing the article would’ve gained a whole lot of nodding heads AND A LOT LESS PITCH FORKING (and attention, mind.)
Ditto Bibi Lynch. Yes she did say:
“If you think these are the bitter rantings of a woman who f…ed up her own life and is just jealous, you’d be 100% right. It kills me that you have the baby and I don’t.”
Peak moment, great ownership and self-reflection. Why not leave it there?! Too boring?

NB Bibi: I have opinions too- here’s one: ALL yearned-for and sleeping babies are 1000% perfect. Actually that’s a fact.
PS Ladies who know all: Dads NEVER complain about their magnificent offspring, EVER, right?
PPS If children are (heartbreakingly) starving in Africa does that mean I don’t deserve my Tim Tam any more? If you are lovelorn and my husband shits me today I have to keep it to myself? I reserve the right to love my children AND sometimes vent about them too- because if I don’t vent and laugh, I cry.

I LOVE debate. Insult is not debate. Play the BALL, not the (WO)MAN, or perhaps…just STFU. Don’t presume the right to patronise, accuse or be telling me how to act, think or feel thankyouverymuch.

Occasionally I see posts and articles by people I like that don’t resonate or even sit well with me. On a good day I think to myself, yes that pushes my buttons but no harm is meant. My own circumstances are not accounted for here- therefore it does not apply to me. On a different day, I might feel hurt and say so. No harm is meant on either side but it might still feel personal.

Eden Riley’s clever behind has sat it’s time in many a group circle and I see the powerful flow-on effect in her personal writing. She writes earnestly and openly about herself.  We readers have the glorious freedom to assign our own connections to it.

If you make sweeping decrees on behalf of a group or criticise their life choices (even inadvertently poke the hornet’s nest) then disinterest, dissent or even conflict may result.

Unless you are a bitching gossip columnist, writer, editor, publication or blog deliberately clutching at controversy for figures. In which case my offensive, tree-hugging words are clearly not meant for you, so go wield that poking stick for dear life and poke, POKE away, FFS. As you were.

{ 8 comments }