Connie Mishali’s Weblog

Last Thursday I talked to you about getting in the habit of being negative or in a bad mood and I described how I got in the habit of being angry and annoyed with my husband recently.  Although I thought I would write this post on Friday, I decided to post the recipes for French food with the names of our book giveaway winners.  So I’m back to last week’s train of thought — thanks for sticking with me through the detour!

Today I’m going to share with you a piece of counter-intuitive advice that may help you with your romantic relationships or even, possibly, your other close relationships as well.

A few years ago, I had a friend who was not getting along well with her husband. They were fighting all the time, about everything. They fought about money, the kids, their jobs, the house, the chores, everything. I interrupted and asked her when the last time was they were intimate. She looked at me like I was crazy. She said, “Haven’t you been listening? I hate him. I hate everything about him. I’m so mad I could kill him. Why on earth would I want to be intimate with him? I don’t even want to be in the same room with him.”

I told her I thought she should forget the “issues” for awhile and work on being intimate with her husband. While I’m nowhere near a marriage counselor, my reasoning was that since they had no closeness, no friendship, no reason to even like one another, how did they ever think they could solve their problems? Most solutions require compromise. Why would I want to compromise if I don’t even like you? So I thought if they could regain their closeness, their intimacy, if they could care for one another, maybe it would be easier to find common ground when they eventually tried to re-open their negotiations on the issues. My friend decided to give my advice a try. (It wasn’t because my logic made sense, rather it was because she’d tried everything else and had nothing to lose!)

Guess what? Several months later my friend called. She and her husband had worked out most of their problems and were closer than ever. At first, she practically had to force herself to be physical with this man she had come to despise. But soon they started to develop a closeness. Then a playfulness. Slowly they remembered that they liked – loved – one another. Not everything was a battle. Now they had something to fight for, not just fight about. When they started caring about the other person, they started making compromises and looking for common ground. Bingo!

I’m not saying that will work for everyone, but I think sometimes we get in the bad habit of fighting, battling, disliking one another. And the solution doesn’t always have to be physical intimacy. For example, my mom lives with my husband and me. Both my mom and I have to fight the tendency to work ALL THE TIME, 24/7. All work and no play definitely makes us cranky women! Now although Mom and I rarely fight, sometimes we have to remember what it’s like to have fun together. When we get out of the habit of working all the time and go out to eat or go to a movie, we remember why we love each other so much and we remember that although we work well together, we also have a lot of fun together! It’s sad that we have to “remember” to have fun, but working is the habit (or rut) we fall into all the time.

John Gottman’s pioneering research found that marriages (and I would assume any close interpersonal relationships) are much more likely to succeed when the couple experiences a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions; whereas, when the ratio approaches 1:1, marriages are more likely to end in divorce.  Of course, research has also shown that when the positive to negative ratio is overly inflated, say 13:1, divorce is also more likely because real issues and problems are not being addressed.  This is the same principle as making deposits into the love tank talked about in Gary Chapman’s book, The Heart of the Five Love Languages.  If we want to withdraw from our love bank (for example, by offering criticism), we need to deposit into the love tank (compliments, enjoyable activities) or we will have an “overdraft” in the love tank.  Further, in a 1:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions, we have a “zero” balance — marriage isn’t bad, but it’s not good either.  That’s why it makes sense to deposit five positive experiences for every one negative — your marriage will still be a positive in yours and your spouse’s lives.

Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” So when you’re faced with a relational problem, especially if you’ve fallen into a bad habit in that relationship, and you’ve tried all the “logical” solutions, try an approach that seems counter-intuitive and see what the result might be. You never know what will work and sometimes you have nothing left to lose by trying.

Perhaps you’ve noticed I’ve been quiet about the political campaign for president.  Well, you still won’t get my political views here, but I DO want to talk about a related issue.

My mother taught me that you don’t discuss certain topics in mixed company:  religion, politics, controversial issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc.  Aside from the fact that some would argue it’s just not polite, I think it’s pointless:  most people’s views are so deeply entrenched that they’re just not going to change because of a “rousing” discussion about the issues.  

With the anonymous worldwide web, people feel even more comfortable forcing their views on others as they send e-mails and other online materials trying to convince you of their opinions.  Often, people assume they are “preaching to the choir” when they send such e-mails.  I find it funny (strange, not ha-ha) that people assume they’re preaching to ME, when I am diligently silent on the topic of politics in all public forums.

When someone sends me an e-mail regarding political or other topics I don’t wish to discuss, I delete them without reading anything but the subject line (or first few lines until I learn what the topic is).  When someone comments to me in person, I pause without responding and then change the subject.  You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m entitled to not BE FORCED to pollute my mind with your views.  I see this the same way as I do having the right to turn off the TV when I see something I don’t want to watch [or like you have the right to stop reading this blog!    ]  I certainly don’t mind discussions about the issues, but I would like to be involved in deciding who I talk to, about what, where the conversation takes place and when.  Most of the people about whom I’m complaining are practically strangers to me.

Which brings me to my question:  at what point do my responses stop being polite avoidance and start being tacit agreement of the person’s agenda? There is one woman who regularly sends me political e-mails.   Her latest specifically said, “I’m sorry to be preaching to the choir so much, but you can add this to your quiver of arrows when you encounter someone who doesn’t agree with you.”  I deleted the e-mail, but what I really wanted to do is send her an e-mail saying something along the lines of, “What makes you assume I’m in your choir?!” 

A few years ago, I had a very dear friend who was, unfortunately, a racist.   He was entitled to his opinion, but he took every opportunity to tell me his opinion — in graphic and offensive terms.  Out of politeness, I did not respond and simply changed the subject.  One day I became convicted with the need to say something to stop the verbal onslaught I had to endure — I saw it as my responsibility to not tacitly agree with him by refusing to disagree with him.  The next time he made a racist statement, I politely said, “You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t agree with what, in my opinion, are racist comments.  I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t share such opinions with me again.”  No anger, no ire, no end of the friendship or even the slightest discourtesy.  He thought about it a second, promptly changed the subject and never revisted it again.  Ever.  I know I was blessed that my friend responded in such a manner (showing he was polite as well).  Many people would go ballistic in response.

So, I’m back to my quandry:  at what point, if any, do I have the right to politely ask others to stop bludgeoning me with their opinions via e-mail and in person about politics and other controversial issues?  Any ideas would be welcome.  Absent wise counsel from my readers, I will continue on with my personal struggle over this one.

Incidentally, apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way.  Mark Batterson, pastor of National Community Church, a megachurch in Washington, D.C., has often talked about this issue.  His congregation is split pretty equally between the two major political parties and most of the members of his church work on the Hill.  He believes his job is to point people to Christ and, if he does that, his congregants will pray and do their best to make godly decisions regardless of whether they are “red” or “blue”.   That’s one statement I don’t mind saying, “I couldn’t possibly agree more!” 

So, at what point does being polite become tacit agreement?  I’d appreciate your help in determining the difference.

__________

BOOK GIVEAWAY:

Don’t forget to send your name and mailing address to seewhykinsman@yahoo.com to register for Sandra Byrd’s wonderful book Bon Appetit. TWO winners will be drawn at random this Friday, October 24^th. If you send me a recipe for French food, I’ll DOUBLE your chances of winning by entering your name twice in the drawing and I’ll post all the recipes at the end of the week. Good luck!