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.

Wow, great analysis. I was once the poor communicator attacked by a hypersensitive coworker who was jealous and believed I had slighted her. I reacted by literally never speaking to her our about her again for the next two years - this was only possible because I rarely worked with peers (small law firm where associates worked 1:1 with partners). That insulated me. She later flamed out spectacularly, which was satisfying.

You responded to someone being offended by your bad communication skills by totally withdrawing and pretending this person didn't exist for two years even though you worked in a small firm together?

I'm sorry, but that sounds insanely immature. Also, why is she hyper sensitive if you can admit that you were the poor communicator? Why not just say "I'm sorry, I could have communicated that better"? Instead of just ignoring her.

This all sounds so dysfunctional to me. If you have poor communication skills, improve them. If you say something hurtful to someone (even unintentionally) apologize.

It just sounds like a lot of people with no conflict resolution skills, who are unable to apologize or be accountable for their own behavior, blaming everything on people who are allegedly "hyper-sensitive" and "jealous."

I guess you had to be there. Her response to an innocent comment I made (that she thought was a criticism but was not) was SO disproportionate and unhinged that I literally backed out of the room. This was very early in my career and years later, I might have responded differently. At the same time, I don’t think my reaction was bad. I didn’t have to talk to her so I did not. It was probably better than trying to repair the situation which could have just made things worse. I had a strong instinct not to poke the bear. And a few years later I got confirmation she was an unstable/underhanded person when she got rather spectacularly fired for misconduct.

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.

Wow, great analysis. I was once the poor communicator attacked by a hypersensitive coworker who was jealous and believed I had slighted her. I reacted by literally never speaking to her our about her again for the next two years - this was only possible because I rarely worked with peers (small law firm where associates worked 1:1 with partners). That insulated me. She later flamed out spectacularly, which was satisfying.

You responded to someone being offended by your bad communication skills by totally withdrawing and pretending this person didn't exist for two years even though you worked in a small firm together?

I'm sorry, but that sounds insanely immature. Also, why is she hyper sensitive if you can admit that you were the poor communicator? Why not just say "I'm sorry, I could have communicated that better"? Instead of just ignoring her.

This all sounds so dysfunctional to me. If you have poor communication skills, improve them. If you say something hurtful to someone (even unintentionally) apologize.

It just sounds like a lot of people with no conflict resolution skills, who are unable to apologize or be accountable for their own behavior, blaming everything on people who are allegedly "hyper-sensitive" and "jealous."

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?

Anonymous wrote:Your question is infuriating. You already know the answer. It’s clear as day. You actually are describing the fact that the group is toxic to some but not all but then asking can it be true? It happened! So yes, it can be true! By the way, isn’t this life? Isn’t this what most people of color are ALWAYS trying to describe?

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.

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.

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.

We're talking about people who are friends here, not vague acquaintances.

If I say something unintentionally rude or hurtful to a friend, OF COURSE I should apologize. I need her to know that I don't want to hurt her and that even if I didn't know it was a faux pas before, I do now. That's nothing about narcissism, that's just tending a relationship.

Also if you are prone to saying a lot of hurtful or rude things accidentally, I would get accustomed to apologizing. This is what apologies are for.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a toxic group, and you're just lucky you're not on their bad side...yet.

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.

Wow, great analysis. I was once the poor communicator attacked by a hypersensitive coworker who was jealous and believed I had slighted her. I reacted by literally never speaking to her our about her again for the next two years - this was only possible because I rarely worked with peers (small law firm where associates worked 1:1 with partners). That insulated me. She later flamed out spectacularly, which was satisfying.