Emotional strongarm tactics used by women

Remove all ads!

Chev,

I think that's why they use the term "anger management". Everyone confronts things in their lives that make them angry. Anger is an emotion that all of us feel from time to time, but for most people, it does not translate into actual physical violence. To put it another way, most people are capable of managing their anger. The ones who can't are the ones who need anger management.

 

The ones who can't are also statistically more likely to be men.

 

...as long as there's something to burn, or smash, my anger remains perfectly under control.

 

Yes.

Yes. I don't have enough data or experience to tell which sex is more likely to mismanage some other things, but I would still associate some kinds of making feel bad tactics with women rather than men. Don't know if the male ones wouldn't perhaps come in an equal number, though. I think women are more at ease with emotions, feel more home in that world than men do. In some article I read yesterday, it was stated that men hated the sex part of cheating more, while women didn't mind that as much as men, but in turn hated the emotional aspects. Themselves when cheating, they would also be much, much harder to detect for the average guy because of better management of it, so to say.

But, there's more to it than just management, I believe. I generally don't like all the modern "challenge" and "management" speak. Apparently, good old-fashioned self-control doesn't cover everything, but still... Well, it's not like I don't call it anger management in conversations. I just tend to think people nowadays lack firm morals, an idea why they should restrain themselves and deny any urges. That's the fault of all the many "revolutions" and modern upbringing.

 

Firm morals do not lead to better Anger Management. When you have an anger management problem, it means that, while you are aware what you are doing is wrong (you may have the firmest of morals), you do it anyway because your anger gets the best of you. Anger management strives to teach you to stop your anger from overriding you sensibilities.

 

By morals, you could mean just knowledge what's right or wrong. But if we're talking about firm morals, we're basically talking about some kind of strength to resist temptation to do what you know to be wrong. With that kind of strength, as well as additional motivation, it's hard for anger to take over and make the person hit non-hostile people, let alone seriously hurt someone. It would probably take some intentional, malicious provocation to make such a person strike without thinking.

 

In my opinion having 'firm morals' would make managing anger that much harder. By having a firm stance on a moral issue you are more likely to be angered when somebody does something against said moral. Increasing the amount of situations where one can be angry would simply have to, statistically speaking, increase the number of times you can not 'manage' or control your anger.

The ability to control one's anger - although control probably isn't the best term, maybe mitigate the effects of anger would be a better way to describe it - is based on their basic self control. Can they let insults slide? Can they live without being the center of attention? Can they get caught up more on the solution than the problem? and such...

 

Moral stances are a part of a system of values and those often denounce anger as a wrong track to follow, as well as unmerited violence, which striking in anger tends to be. I think people following rules, laws, moral systems, are less likely to react with anger and act on it than people who can't be bothered to think about any rules, but believe the world exists to grant their wishes.

 

Nope. Devout christians have just as many domestic violence problems as everyone else.

 

True, but isn't that a bit of stating the obvious?