Can a friend group be toxic for some people but not for others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. I witnessed this at my workplace. I learned from my experience that poor communicators, those who don't understand subtle cues/hints and social undercurrents, are the most likely to get ostracized by a certain type of hyper-sensitive woman, who perceive their faux-pas and occasional awkwardness as intentional rudeness, and try to push them out.

It's hard to mend once it snowballs, because by then both parties have been offended by the other and are objectively guilty of something. But the "one who started it" is usually one or more women who think they've been insulted and become punitive.

It's very important, if you're part of the onlooking majority, to never believe rumors and never take anyone's subjective opinion as truth, otherwise you tend to get sucked into one side and enable the tribalism.

This comment is weird because you are clearly "taking a side" and assigning roles to people, but then you say they important thing is to stay out of it. But you are obviously much more on the side of the "poor communicators" than the "hyper-sensitive women." Even though both of those descriptions sound incredibly simplistic to me also -- I've seen people hide behind "miscommunication" when they've simply been very rude and refused to be accountable for it, and I'm also very wary of the stereotype of a "hyper-sensitive" woman, since that's often code for "woman with opinion" or "woman who feels she deserves to be treated respectfully by friends and colleagues."

Anyway, maybe you should take some of your own advice here.

PP you replied. I am generalizing because I've noticed the same pattern in different situations. I first witnessed this in my research lab, with all women scientists. Then that pattern repeated when I volunteered on a PTA board (all women as well), and has repeated in other situations. Generalizations don't always apply to specific situations, of course. But over the course of decades of my life, this pattern has held, PP. I have seen WAY, WAY more accidental faux-pas committed by clueless but well-intentioned people, than I have seen purposeful rudeness. Most people understand there is a difference and respond accordingly, which leads to apologies or differences being smoothed over with diplomacy. In military terms it's called "proportional response". But it only takes one stubborn person to take offense and have the clout to do something about it, for the whole group to become embroiled in a fight that could have been prevented. It's never a good idea to go nuclear unless the situation really demands it. In situations where the group is responsible for rumors, it's difficult for the initial perpetrator to accept their responsibility, since others contributed as well.

I think you've stakes out an opinion on this category of friend group issue and choose to see it through that lens because if you can make the facts for your theory, then your theory becomes more correct each time.

What about when the people who commit the unintentional faux pas are called on it, and they are the ones who adamantly refuse to apologize? I've seen this many times, as people who lack social intelligence often also resist apologizing, for obvious reasons.

I also think what you describe as hyper-sensitivity is way more complicated. IME, when people get described as hyper-sensitive, like it's an innate trait, there is usually something else going on that undermines that judgment. But you have to actually know people to understand, you can't just be assessing them from afar.

You aren't describing a functional community or friend group. You are describing a way to survive in a dysfunctional setting where people communicate poorly and there may be some relational aggression. It might work for you but it doesn't improve anything, it just keeps you removed from it.

Demanding that people apologize for something that was evidently a faux pas and unintentional is the mark of a narcissistic person. The normal thing to do is just let it go. If it repeats or really stung, you ask them not to do it again.

People have to apologize when they hurt someone, whether it was intentional or not. That's the grease that makes society work. Do you not apologize if you accidentally step on someone's toes? Spill some coffee or water on their sleave? Do you just say, it was an accident biaotch and leave it at that? No, of course not. Not needing to apologize is the mark of a narcissist IMO, someone who can never admit being wrong. What a pathetic way of living with other people.

+1 it's crazy to me there are adults who think "it was an accident" is an excuse for rudeness or unkindness. Like no one is looking for you to don a hair shirt and do a penance here, but I've put my foot in my mouth plenty and also know how to say "I'm so sorry, I didn't realize" because I'm not 5.

The situation described here was an “accidental faux pas.” By definition, the person may not know what they did. The normal thing to do (assuming that the accidental or awkward nature is obvious) is to either a) ignore it or b) assertively let the person know. In most cases they’ll apologize. The narcissistic/drama llama thing to so is to seize on a faux pas and start demanding apologies out of the gate, making a fuss about how offended your are, etc. We all know these types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re missing a critical detail. Why was Kelly kicked out? I agree the targets social awkwardness can precipitate this, but so can jealousy. Is Kelly very pretty? Wealthy?

Why would this matter?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. I witnessed this at my workplace. I learned from my experience that poor communicators, those who don't understand subtle cues/hints and social undercurrents, are the most likely to get ostracized by a certain type of hyper-sensitive woman, who perceive their faux-pas and occasional awkwardness as intentional rudeness, and try to push them out.

It's hard to mend once it snowballs, because by then both parties have been offended by the other and are objectively guilty of something. But the "one who started it" is usually one or more women who think they've been insulted and become punitive.

It's very important, if you're part of the onlooking majority, to never believe rumors and never take anyone's subjective opinion as truth, otherwise you tend to get sucked into one side and enable the tribalism.

This comment is weird because you are clearly "taking a side" and assigning roles to people, but then you say they important thing is to stay out of it. But you are obviously much more on the side of the "poor communicators" than the "hyper-sensitive women." Even though both of those descriptions sound incredibly simplistic to me also -- I've seen people hide behind "miscommunication" when they've simply been very rude and refused to be accountable for it, and I'm also very wary of the stereotype of a "hyper-sensitive" woman, since that's often code for "woman with opinion" or "woman who feels she deserves to be treated respectfully by friends and colleagues."

Anyway, maybe you should take some of your own advice here.

PP you replied. I am generalizing because I've noticed the same pattern in different situations. I first witnessed this in my research lab, with all women scientists. Then that pattern repeated when I volunteered on a PTA board (all women as well), and has repeated in other situations. Generalizations don't always apply to specific situations, of course. But over the course of decades of my life, this pattern has held, PP. I have seen WAY, WAY more accidental faux-pas committed by clueless but well-intentioned people, than I have seen purposeful rudeness. Most people understand there is a difference and respond accordingly, which leads to apologies or differences being smoothed over with diplomacy. In military terms it's called "proportional response". But it only takes one stubborn person to take offense and have the clout to do something about it, for the whole group to become embroiled in a fight that could have been prevented. It's never a good idea to go nuclear unless the situation really demands it. In situations where the group is responsible for rumors, it's difficult for the initial perpetrator to accept their responsibility, since others contributed as well.

I think you've stakes out an opinion on this category of friend group issue and choose to see it through that lens because if you can make the facts for your theory, then your theory becomes more correct each time.

What about when the people who commit the unintentional faux pas are called on it, and they are the ones who adamantly refuse to apologize? I've seen this many times, as people who lack social intelligence often also resist apologizing, for obvious reasons.

I also think what you describe as hyper-sensitivity is way more complicated. IME, when people get described as hyper-sensitive, like it's an innate trait, there is usually something else going on that undermines that judgment. But you have to actually know people to understand, you can't just be assessing them from afar.

You aren't describing a functional community or friend group. You are describing a way to survive in a dysfunctional setting where people communicate poorly and there may be some relational aggression. It might work for you but it doesn't improve anything, it just keeps you removed from it.

Demanding that people apologize for something that was evidently a faux pas and unintentional is the mark of a narcissistic person. The normal thing to do is just let it go. If it repeats or really stung, you ask them not to do it again.

People have to apologize when they hurt someone, whether it was intentional or not. That's the grease that makes society work. Do you not apologize if you accidentally step on someone's toes? Spill some coffee or water on their sleave? Do you just say, it was an accident biaotch and leave it at that? No, of course not. Not needing to apologize is the mark of a narcissist IMO, someone who can never admit being wrong. What a pathetic way of living with other people.

+1 it's crazy to me there are adults who think "it was an accident" is an excuse for rudeness or unkindness. Like no one is looking for you to don a hair shirt and do a penance here, but I've put my foot in my mouth plenty and also know how to say "I'm so sorry, I didn't realize" because I'm not 5.

The situation described here was an “accidental faux pas.” By definition, the person may not know what they did. The normal thing to do (assuming that the accidental or awkward nature is obvious) is to either a) ignore it or b) assertively let the person know. In most cases they’ll apologize. The narcissistic/drama llama thing to so is to seize on a faux pas and start demanding apologies out of the gate, making a fuss about how offended your are, etc. We all know these types.

No situation was described. Just generic "faux pas." If you actually have an example, what you'll find is that some people would be offended and others wouldn't. This is not because some people are awesome and others are "drama llamas." It's because people are different and have different sensitivities. Part of being a friend is respecting the other person enough to be able to say "hey, I get this is a big deal for you. It isn't a big deal for me, but I care enough about you to make an effort on this issue."

If your response is "but they shouldn't be offended, it's unreasonable to be offended," that's fine, but you aren't friends. And now they know that. Because a friend would say something hurtful to you, refuse to apologize once it was clear it hurt you, and then call you a drama llama for being hurt.

[Anonymous]

^ meant to say "a friend would NOT say something hurtful to you, refuse to apologize once it was clear it hurt you, and then call you a drama llama for being hurt."

[Anonymous]

...Long story short, several bits of untrue gossip emerged about Kelly and spread like wildfire. They were very unflattering and caused her to stop being invited to things and also many people started treating her very coldly at the hobby....

So, this hobby of yours and the 'friends' who do it with you perpetuate disparaging, hurtful gossip and evaluate people based on it.

Silence is acceptance. You know what these 'friends' have done but you don't want to believe it will happen to you. Kelly is well rid of you all.

[Anonymous]

What IS THE HOBBY? Is it something like dressage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What IS THE HOBBY? Is it something like dressage?

I suspect revealing this could make this scenario too recognizable for involved participants. If it was something kind of generic like yoga or knitting, Kelly could just ditch this group and join another studio/knitting circle and it wouldn't matter

It's got to be something kind of unusual which is why OP won't say.

[Anonymous]

This group can be incredibly warm and supportive of one another. Celebrating birthdays, weddings, babies, and other personal victories. They are very active on social media and you really see all the support for one another all the time and it makes me feel good to be a part of it.

OP’s obtuseness is quite hilarious. The public display on social media is a classic trait of women who never grew up beyond HS, not evidence of a kind supportive person.

[Anonymous]

Team Kelly but this is life. She is likely a better person in several metrics that set off other people's jealousy. They may say Kelly is terrible of course I'm not jealous but I guarantee she is superior in some way. Maybe beauty, natural skill at the hobby, recognition, being kind, loving partner/ family, healthy or wealthy. I am wondering what it was, do you know op?

She likely doesn't realize the mistreatment was from jealousy.

[Anonymous]

Team Kelly. Those women sound toxic as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been on the outer fringes of some groups like this in our neighborhood. Just know that if people are willing to gossip/talk/act like that they are likely talking smack about you too and yeah, that's toxic. I think the lines can get blurred sometimes when you're on the outer edges of the drama but I've realized my life is a whole lot better when I surround myself with positive/kind people. Your sister's right, these don't seem like good people, they seem like bullies.

Amen to this!
This group is so toxic and I think you have low self esteem if you’re even considering staying in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Team Kelly but this is life. She is likely a better person in several metrics that set off other people's jealousy. They may say Kelly is terrible of course I'm not jealous but I guarantee she is superior in some way. Maybe beauty, natural skill at the hobby, recognition, being kind, loving partner/ family, healthy or wealthy. I am wondering what it was, do you know op?

She likely doesn't realize the mistreatment was from jealousy.

It was definitely at least partly skill at the hobby because it's apparent these women took pleasure in gatekeeping her access to it. I bet you they are all mediocre hobbyists but she was actually good and they didn't like being shown up.

I also bet there are others who do the hobby who are good at it, and they are like "what happened to Kelly, she was cool" because they are oblivious to the drama and don't participate in the petty gossip

I've seen this before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This group can be incredibly warm and supportive of one another. Celebrating birthdays, weddings, babies, and other personal victories. They are very active on social media and you really see all the support for one another all the time and it makes me feel good to be a part of it.

OP’s obtuseness is quite hilarious. The public display on social media is a classic trait of women who never grew up beyond HS, not evidence of a kind supportive person.

Yes, this is ridiculous. This is such a tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My understanding is that Kelly became very depressed after these rumors spread, and especially when she started being excluded or treated coldly/rudely by others in the group. She chose to quit the hobby (which was a big deal -- it's an expensive hobby she'd spent years getting good at, but it's a small community and it's pretty much impossible to do without running into people from this friend group) and she ultimately severed her friendships with everyone in the group. While she didn't tell me this directly, one of the people close to her told me that she was in therapy, on anti-depressants, and experiencing suicidal ideation, which was why she chose to make a clean break. It was also when Covid started, so it was an easy excuse to just cut everyone out.

But the people who participated in the gossip/shunning her view it differently -- they think she was being dramatic, that she expected the group to chase after her and apologize, and they think it's kind of funny no one did. The people who think this have mellowed a bit on it, and aren't as nasty when her name comes up. But it's still an attitude "oh yeah, Kelly was weird, she didn't really fit in with us."

I'm struggling because I see both sides of this.

You’re struggling because you want these people’s approval more than you want to pay the price associated with living your values. It’s unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What IS THE HOBBY? Is it something like dressage?

+1 I read the first couple of paragraphs and thought it must be dressage or another competitive equestrian sport. I love training, and being trained on my horses, but I keep to the edges of competition for this reason.