Differences

[Guest guest]

I want to look at the mistake I made when I answered and the

ripple of discomfort it caused. I apologise again for my part of it.

I admire greatly 's restraint and dignity in responding to me,

which can't have been easy in her position. I found it striking that

she clearly understood that I lacked necessary info about her family

situation (that they are military people) so she explained that

straightforwardly. Salute! and yet again, my apologies to another

mother.

But I think this incident has a valuable issue in it in terms of how

groups work. I think I can best repair my part of the fault by not

only apologising but offering my experience from coordinating groups

to try to stop this kind of thing hurting anyone again.

I don't want to look at it in terms of " the war " or " prayer " because

those are passionate areas that kick up dust. So I will (hopefully

without giving offence) translate the original request into:

Someone asked

" Please give support about this difficult thing my child is doing. "

Now I can try to look at it in terms of group mechanics.

Several members answered unproblematically offering support without

saying anything specific.

XXX answered showing shock about the difficult thing and hoping the

child would move out of it into a safer situation (much as if child

was drug addicted, or had chosen a civilian high risk job like racing

driving or boxing).

Now I do understand that this response was not liked as it did not

fit with some members' way of thinking.

Several posts emphasised that we must all support everyone doing what

this child is doing - as if no other attitude is possible.

Some posts expressed disapproval of XXX's worldview that saw the

child as making a dangerous life choice because it is " divisive. "

One member made several strong attempts to express support for

everyone's point of view and asked that we all try to be generous

like that too.

Now what I find a bit worrying is that this all began to look very

much like what is sometimes called a " party line. " It appeared that

one point of view was OK but another wasn't. Certainly no one

expressed respect for XXX's view, or expressed respect for their

right to have it! Calls for openmindedness still stressed that there

could only possibly be one point of view!!!

To put it another way, one side of the divide was OK and the other

side of it was divisive. But to my logic, if there is a divide, then

it's made up of two parts and both share in making up the division.

That doesn't mean to me that either are wrong, or that either should

not be said in a group like this. I will get to that later.

There's a decision point here that all groups need to navigate.

Is this a group where certain powerful values are the right way to

think? Because at this point it could look like that. There could

already be one topic on which only one point of view is allowed.

PLEASE NOTE I am NOT opening a discussion about the topic itself.

What I am saying is that there are decent kind good people

differently about abortion, using drugs creatively, eating meat,

relating to God/s, children's discipline etc etc as well as making

war.

Since THIS GROUP is not about any of those issues for myself I do not

find it OK to have it made compulsory to accept one point of view on

any of those issues or on a million other things. Actually aws an

obse person I have found myself far too often swallowing who I am,

stifling and censoring myself in order to be acceptable and accepted.

Often that is exactly what had me eating the wrong things very soon

after the silencing.

Nor in my experience is it practical to say we will just never

mention strongly held ideas. Just because they are so powerful they

somehow wriggle into our communications even if we try to keep 'em

out!

Some groups lay down the law and say 'We will have no argument, no

disagreement here.' That doesn't work either as it means whoever

states one point of view has in effect, instantly cut off everyone

who doesn't share it from ever saying what THEY think, however

carefully. A kind of first arrival censorship. Eventually over time

conversation becomes a minefield of things not to mention.

What I see as much more workable is to accept that decent kind good

people can have strikingly different loyalties and principles. This

is a mystery to me! but I accept it. and I are a demonstration

of this on this one point though I feel we like and share many other

areas between us.

What we then need to do is learn how to express that respect and how

to allow different ideas to have space.

------------------

The main method for doing this is to keep negative comments to

statements using I.

e.g. I don't agree with that./ I don't share that view./

I am a long way from that idea./ I'm uncomfortable with this./

Respecting each others' views cannot include tagging one side of a

division as wrong, divisive, the cause of trouble. It is also risky

to say " We all agree that ... " because someone independent mionded

is likely to be an exception.

However I do see it as important that this group accepts SOME things

as central, perhaps compulsory -

-- that all obese people are worthy of respect as obese people (that

is they may not be saints! as they may fail on winning respect in

other ways but in this zone their life struggle with obesity is

totally respected)

-- that it is understood that obese people make huge efforts to

remedy their obesity and deserve respect for it;

-- that at times the struggle stops and only the obese person

themselves can decide when to stop and when to go on;

-- that obese people need better treatment by authorities and

society;

-- that obese people need support networks - like this one;

-- that in a support network no one speaks harshly about another

member, or speaks of them or their views with contempt.

Would a kind of guidance statement something a bit like this be a

good idea?

It is the last one that I put at the top of all emails in my own

discussion lists.

" Speak freely here of what you will but no member may speak harshly

of another member's thoughts, or of their loved ones. "

Respectfully

Shan