Aggressiveness vs. assertiveness
Every moment of every day, we are given the opportunity to voice our opinions and our concerns about issues that are sometimes of a sensitive nature. We have likely all, at some point, been confronted by someone who has differing views. It is completely okay for people to think differently, to have differing opinions, and to raise their concerns if they feel that they have been wronged in any way. What is most important to remember is to understand how to productively deal with situations and communicate our thoughts effectively in an assertive, rather than aggressive, tone.
Being assertive is very different – and much more professional – than dealing with matters aggressively. It’s natural for people to disagree and to read into matters differently. If that happens, it is most productive and positive to deal with these matters in an assertive way. Being assertive means to communicate one’s thoughts in a way that is not accusatory in nature – getting a point across without slandering any person’s position.
Acting in an aggressive manner does not do any good – all this accomplishes is further spreading negative messages, only giving them new light. It is not professional, nor is it effective.
Recently, members of the editorial staff were approached regarding an article that some members of the University of Guelph community did not agree with. These concerned students believed this article to be supporting the problematic notion of victim shaming. This, of course, was not in any way the purpose behind the article, nor would the editorial staff support any such injustice. However, these concerned students were more than right to bring such a contentious issue to our attention, and as per our editorial policies, the students were invited to compose a letter to the editor or opinion piece on the conflict. Despite these suggestions, the aggressive manner in which the issue was raised was particularly disruptive.
The article in question was written as coverage of the recent sexual assault cases in the city of Guelph, both of which occurred in a taxi-cab. The last half of the article, which admittedly diverged from traditional news format, was meant to inform students, or any member of society, of helpful safety tips in terms of cabbing – in Guelph or the world at large – at any time of the day and in any state of mind. The tips included the importance of making sure the car you enter is a real cab, to try to always sit in the backseat, to keep conversations with drivers on a professional level, to have your house keys ready (a common tip shared in self-defence classes), to keep someone informed of your whereabouts (a friend, a family member, a partner), to try not to be alone (while explicitly noting that this is often difficult), and to always listen to your gut. The author of the article was simply trying to express to students and community members things to keep in mind when trying to get home safely.
It is the opinion of these members of the editorial staff that none of these tips are attempts at victim shaming; irrefutably, beyond any misconstruance of the author’s words, this was definitely not the aim of the article. However, just as these editorial staff members have the right to express this opinion in a respectful manner, the concerned party was more than welcome to bring this conflict to our attention. We welcome the use of The Ontarion as a forum for student and community opinions and concerns.
The way in which the editorial staff members were approached regarding this issue, however, was quite aggressive, and when the upset voices were told that they were more than welcome to write a letter to the editor or an opinion piece on victim shaming, they did not respond. Later in the day, however, a copy of the article in question was returned, having been taken out of the recent issue of the paper and edited to reflect what a concerned party deemed wrong with the article.
When the Editor-in-Chief asked for the article to be handed to her directly, the article was instead left on the desk of the author, openly shaming their work. The inappropriateness of the way this situation was dealt with, on behalf of those who took issue with the article, was problematic.
What we really want people to be aware of is that there is a way to deal with differences in opinion, contentious issues, and personal offence in an appropriate and professional manner. Communication should always be clear, open, and two-sided, and the affected editorial staff members wholeheartedly welcome community members to bring forward to us their passion for their beliefs. However, we also wonder: when does passion go too far? Does anything productive come from negatively dealing with a situation in an aggressive manner, rather than being assertive and speaking up in a positive way?
We think there is a big difference in the amount of impact someone can have if their thoughts are expressed in an effective manner, rather than aggressively. Does it make sense to fight for something you believe in if you are, in turn, hurting another? We don’t think that it does. We simply find no benefit in being aggressive towards someone with whom you disagree.
We understand that there are several sensitivities as a part of society which we need to be aware of, and that we have the right – and, perhaps, duty – to stand up for that in which we believe. We also think, however, that there are times during which we look too deeply into an issue, to the point where people interpret meaning from something when hidden meaning is not actually there.
This article in question was merely trying to present helpful tips in regards to cab safety after a very unfortunate event – there was no intention towards victim blaming in any way. The intent of this article was solely meant to help the citizens of the university and the community at large – to give them tools they may not have had before.
However, as with any contentious use of the freedom of speech, words are not always read in their intended manner. Text leaves room for interpretation, and the written word cannot always fully embody the intentions of its creator. While this article was not intended to insult anyone, nor was it meant to place blame on any victim of sexual assault in any way, it has been read that way. This reading, just as any other reading, is more than valid. Herein lies the all-important issue.
What we are trying to say is that it is important to remember the role of assertiveness in expressing these valid readings, opinions, and arguments – and, we feel, this importance is only amplified in responding to the words of someone else. You will often not know who sits on the other side of those words. You often cannot know whom you are attacking when you bring aggression to the table. You often do not know the intention of the words you have read. Though you can interpret them in any manner you so choose, you must also treat the person, their words, and their intent with the respect you would expect to receive in return. Assertive discourse can affect change. Assertiveness, not aggressiveness, can move mountains.
This is a poor attempt at fixing the issue.