ANST - Re: Rudeness by any other name.....

gunnora at realtime.net gunnora at realtime.net
Tue Jun 6 10:17:14 PDT 2000


Anya/Jennene Stanley said:
>What I do wish to address is rudeness and pettiness in general.
>When I first scanned through the posts that started this 
>dialog, I immediately recalled an incident that happened to me 
>just last December. As I was kneeling before the Crown to 
>receive an award, there was a person sitting in the first row 
>who was grumbling in obvious disgust loud enough that my 
>husband (who had escorted me) heard it.  This person was 
>sitting with two Peers. While I do not know if anyone said 
>anything to this person later, no one in the group seemed 
>bothered by this person's grumblings   

OK.  First, your husband heard something at a distance.  He thought it was rude.
 But if he didn't go speak to the person about it later and clarify, for all
*either* of you know he may have misheard, the comment may have been about something
entirely different, etc.  You guys have *decided* that probably it was rude
and about you, but you cannot *know* unless you speak to the commenter yourselves.


You also don't know if the people sitting with the commenter said or did anything
to him.  You'll find that a great deal of disciplinary actions are taken by
the Peerage Circles to police their own, and by the Crown to rectify situations
that are not publicly announced. By taking care of the problem and not re-broadcasting
the particulars or the punishment, it helps avoid pouring gasoline on fires.


>My husband did not tell me about the grumblings until much 
>later because he did not wish to ruin the moment for me. 

In my opinion, your husband is a flaming idiot for telling you later, either.
 All he did was make you feel bad, and what did that accomplish?  (YMMV, but
I stand by my opinion -- repeating ugly slanders just makes for more bad feelings
and is a d*mn stupid thing to do!)

He should have gone and spoken to the fellow after court if he felt the comment
rude or inappropriate.  As I said before, he may have been mistaken about the
intent of the comment, or for that matter they may have said something completely
different that he misheard.  Or, given the dumb action of making you feel bad
by telling you about it, the two of you could have gone together, later, and
talked to the guy about it.

So, what if he was being deliberately loud and rude and insulting or whatever?
 You need to tell people, "What you said really hurt my feelings.  I would appreciate
an apology."  Most people will not stand there and say to your face, "Yes, I
called you a fat cow, and no, I am not going to apologize for it!"  They may
not be terribly sincere about the apology, but there are few people who will
brazenly stand there with you asking, politely, for an apology.

As a note, it is critical that you be extremely calm, polite, and businesslike
when having this type of discussion.  Imagine that you are working in a "serious
business" such as a bank or a Fortune 500 company -- your behavior during these
discussions should be appropriate for the boardroom.  Imagine that if you scream
or start foaming at the mouth that you will be fired.  Keep your cool, keep
an open mind, and accept any apologies or explanations at face value for the
most part.

OK, so they are not sincere when they offer you an apology -- and you both know
it.  What is the benefit of doing this, you ask?  Well, after the apology, you
should be sure to say something along the lines of, "I'm glad we worked this
out.  Please be assured that if we have further conflicts in the future I will
come directly to you and discuss it with you."  As I keep saying, most people
would rather have their toenails pulled out with hot pliers than to have to
be confronted again, so if nothing else at least they will be more circumspect
about the rude comments in the future.  This is a situation of the "poised big
stick" -- you have called them on their bad behavior, and you furthermore have
given notice that you intend to call them on any future bad behavior as well.


And what to do if the person does stand ther and refuse to apologize, the "Yes,
I called you a fat cow and I'm proud of it!" type?  Number one, almost no one
will actually do this.  Number two, you should at least respect the jerk for
having the courage of his convictions.  I personally much prefer to have people
who stand by what they said -- I respect their courage in the face of the confrontation.
 How I deal with it is, "It is all right for us to have differences, and you
are entitled to your opinions of me.  However, in order for us to not disrupt
the SCA people around us, and to allow us to work productively together within
the SCA, I'd like for you to avoid any more public declarations like this one.
 If you want to tell me that you think I'm a jerk, that's fine -- but come to
me privately and I will listen.  I don't promise to agree, but I will hear you
out." 

>I did not seek any sort of redress or resolution because the 
>character-assassination I would have to undergo simply did not 
>make it worth the trouble. 

Here you are making *BIG* assumptions.  First off, you really *don't* know for
certain that anything bad was really said about you -- you have a comment that
may have been imperfectly heard (after all, your husband's attention was presumably
on you!) and for all you both know they could have been making a comment about
somebody walking by on the otherside of court and not talking about you at all.


Why do you assume that people will retaliate for you discussing the matter with
them with "character assassinations" (let's abbreviate as "CA")?  If you have
the initial discussion with them in a calm, businesslike manner, most people
will not feel the need to retaliate.

Even if they do start a CA, it's pretty simple to stop that as well.  Using
the same businesslike, calm, polite approach, you go to the people who have
been doing the CA and say, "It has come to my attention that you have been saying
X, Y, and Z about me behind my back.  If you have a problem with me, I will
be happy to discuss it with you, but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't speak
to everyone else except me about the problem.  So, why are you saying X, Y,
and Z?  Let us work out our differences, here."  Again, you are calling them
on their bad behavior.  You will also find that most people will turtle when
you call them on it -- "Oh, no, *I* never said such a thing!  I think you are
wonderful!"  

Before you go into this type of discussion, it's important that you know your
facts.  Who, exactly, reported the CA to you?  How did they find out about it?
 If it wasn't a first-hand account, ie. the assassin didn't say it directly
in your hearing or say it directly to your informant, then it's hearsay and
you really don't have a leg to stand on.  So now you can riposte with, "Well,
I personally heard you running me down to Lady Jane Doe. You apparently *do*
have a problem with me, and I'd like to work it out now. Why exactly do you
feel that way?  What made you say X, Y, and Z to Lady Jane?  What have I done
to you that makes you say these things?  What would you like me to differently?"
 Listen calmly, and honestly, with an open mind.  Maybe you *have* stepped on
some toes unwittingly -- it doesn't excuse the CA, but if you have misstepped,
you in turn should apologize and promise to do better.

If discussing the matter with the assassin doesn't put a stop to the CA, then
escalate the matter by appealing up a level.  Ask someone who the assassin respects
to go with you to talk to the assassin as a mediator.  Having a witness present,
especially one whose good opinion the assassin desires, will tend to create
better results.

If that doesn't do it, appeal to someone who has authority over the person.
 For example, if the person is a peer's student (squire, apprentice, protege)
speak to their peer and ask for help in resolving teh problem.  Look for the
person's SCA communities and appeal to the authorities there -- a rapier fighter
might be swayed by the White Scarves or the Queen.  A chivalric fighter might
listen to the knights or the marshallate.  Or ask the person's baron or baroness
for help, or the seneschal of their local group.  Or if the person is in one
of the larger households, appeal to the head of household or a household elder.
 -- Very few people indeed want their own friends and community to see them
as a big jerk, so if you get one of these people to help mediate the dispute,
you may get better results.

>I have also learned long ago not to allow the opinion of 
>others dictate the opinion of one's self. What upset me is 
>that my husband had to hear it.

I think you do let it bother you.  If you truly didn't care you'd just blow
it off.  And so would your husband.

>Which brings me to another matter. It is very well and good to 
>say that one should have a one-on-one talk with a person with 
>whom one has an issue. But what happens when you encounter a  
>wide-eyed "I didn't mean it to sound that way" 

You take it at face value.  People can unthinkingly blurt out something that
they would never have said to your face, and they will be horrified that they
got caught with their britches down while they did it.  If they continue the
behavior, call them on it again.  Most people *hate* and loathe confrontation,
and if you politely and calmly serve them notice that you intend to confront
them every time they repeat the bad behavior, then you give them an incredible
disincentive to continue actingbadly.

>or "I was just doing it for the good of the 
>Kingdom/Barony/person/etc...."  

You call them on it.  This doesn't excuse the rudeness of blurting it out like
that at court.  What you say in such a case is, "You are welcome to your opinion,
but you should have come and discussed it privately with me.  By making that
comment in public like that, you not only hurt my feelings, think of how bad
that looks to observers -- did you consider that you may have taken some of
the gloss off a newcomer's vision of the SCA by acting this way?  Or upset other
onlookers?"

>Then this person often continues the behavior by going all 
>over Hades and half of Texas labeling *you* as the 
>troublemaker, or, in some cases, drudging up old issues that 
>had been resolved years ago in order to incite people against 
>each other.  

Call them on it, just as with CA above.  Really double-check that you have your
facts straight -- make sure that you're not relying on second- or third-hand
information.  Then try to talk to them about it, if that fails escalate.  

>What does one do, when one does go to the people 
>who are in a position to resolve a situation, these same 
>people condemn the intitial action, then after finding out who 
>is involved decides that *same* action is justified?  It seems 
>that a double standard is in place.

I really can't figure out what it is that you are asking here.  When someone
hands a "he said / she said" situation to me, I try to ask every person who
is in any way involved what they saw and heard.  Then I look at all of the evidence
and see what is obvious falsehood, what seems likely, and what I know beyond
doubt is true.

There *are* cases when one person can say something but another may not.  For
example, family -- "I can call my momma a b*tch, but don't you dare say anything
bad about my momma!"

Without you explaining more about what you meant here, I can't be more specific
in my answer.

>I will probably catch all kinds of hell of even bringing this 
>up, but I really feel that this is a problem that we on the 
>whole really need to address and continue to monitor.  In my 
>opinion, much of the problem is that people who are not in a 
>position of Peerage and have aspirations in that department do 
>not dare to "rock the boat" when rude and petty situations
>involve a Peer. 

I think this *is* a common perception -- but I also think it's an incorrect
perception.  I cannot speak for the Pelicans nor the Knights, but when the Laurels
find out that one of our members has been abusive or acted badly, the Circle
will address the issue.  If the complaintant has tried in a polite and business-like
manner to resolve the situation, and/or presents the issue to the Laurels in
a polite and businesslike manner, looking for a positive resolution and not
just a vindictive counterstrike, then no, nothing bad happens to the complaintant's
peerage prospects as a Laurel.

Let me emphasize, however, that problem solving, and *especially* solving your
*own* problems, is a peerage skill.  I would have to say that someone who won't
make an honest attempt to rationally and calmly work out a problem situation
on their own is not yet ready for a peerage. If you've tried and failed, there
is no shame in asking for help, and it wouldn't hurt your peerage chances in
my eyes.

>They feel by publicly discussing a situation 
>involving a Peer, they sink any hope to be a Peer themselves 
>because of the possible (dare I say *probable*) repercussions.

I think this is just an incredibly wrong misconception.  Being made a peer doesn't
certify that you are now "b*tthead-proof".  All of us are human, and can at
times step on our own tongues.  If people have problems with me, I'd hope that
they would come to me directly and discuss it with me.  I don't promise to agree,
but I do promise to listen.  And if I'm being a big jerk, I assure you that
the other Laurels will be glad to kick my backside if I need it -- check with
Mistress Mari, Mistress Jehanne, Mistress Meadhbh or any of the other Laurels.


I think people make this assumption all the time, and it gets spread around
as though it were Gospel.  But show me some real examples when a person who
had a problem with a peer and tried politely and honestly to work it out suffered
for it.  I can't think of too many examples.

::GUNNORA::
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list