Trying to force others to be like us is arrogant and destroys relationships

By David McElroy · September 13, 2015

It was about eight years ago. I was dating a woman who lived in North Carolina at the time. One day, I got a sweet and loving card from her in my mailbox, which I appreciated.

The next day, I got another one. For many days, the post office delivered another card from her. I don’t remember how many there were, but it was something like eight or nine. Great, right? It was a sweet and loving gesture from a thoughtful woman.

But I didn’t see it that way. I was a fool, because I chose to interpret something through the lens of my own thoughts and practices. I was an idiot.

Let me explain.

At some point early in the procession of daily cards, I noticed that each envelope had a tiny number written in a corner of the back. They were in order, so I quickly surmised that she had bought all the cards at once and written them all at once. She had done the whole project and numbered each envelope so she would know which to send when.

Great, right?

Now this is where I have to ask you not to judge me too harshly, because I’m embarrassed — humiliated, actually — to admit the way I reacted.

Instead of being appreciative for a woman who had gone to all the trouble to buy a bunch of cards and carefully write and address them all — so I could have a daily reminder of her sincere love for me for a couple of weeks — I was irritated and judgmental. Why? Simply because she had done something in a way very different from how I would have done it.

Seriously.

You see, I’m spontaneous. If I love someone and want to let her know, I’m going to write (or say) what I have to say immediately and deliver the message spontaneously. I’m not the type who would plan a series of messages over a couple of weeks, because it seems too pre-planned and doesn’t deliver the sentiment of the moment that the card was written.

As I try to explain this, I’m having trouble coming up with a way to say it that can even vaguely make sense. From the vantage point of eight years later, I’m angry with myself. You see, as I realized how she had done this project — preparing them all ahead of time instead of writing each as it was time to mail that one — I was indignant. Believe it or not, I ended up criticizing her for it.

I have no idea why she continued to love me in spite of that.

As recently as eight years ago, I was still locked in the need to try to force those in my life to be like me. I don’t think I can come up with a more stupid and petty example than this one.

It’s important for me to point out that there were other factors here, too. I was unconsciously afraid of losing a woman who I didn’t think I deserved, so there were elements of me trying to push her away before she could figure out that I wasn’t as great as she thought I was. But even with that factor, I still chose this way to push.

I was so unconsciously certain that my way was the right way to do everything that I criticized the way this woman chose to show me that she loved me. (I eventually had a lot to apologize to her about concerning the ways in which I handled some things in our relationship. She likewise apologized for other things, but that’s another story.)

I’ve had this story on my mind over the weekend because I’ve been thinking a lot — again — about the ways that many of us try to force others to be like us.

I started thinking about the subject again because of an online political discussion. Two very bright and well-meaning friends had very different interpretations of something in the news — and it occurred to me yet again that many of our problems in finding common ground come from our unconscious belief that others should think in the ways that we do. We’re rarely honest enough to word it that way, but I believe that’s the bottom line in many cases.

I started thinking again about something I wrote last year about our belief that others should be like us, but I think I’ve gotten to the point that the examples which really sicken me — about myself, anyway — are times when I’ve done that to people who love me. Political examples might make people angry, but they don’t hurt others and damage relationships as much as doing it with someone we love.

It wasn’t until about seven years ago that I really understood some key things about myself and my own “programming” that had caused this. I’ve spent much of the time since then trying to reprogram myself — trying to make sure I give other people the freedom to be themselves instead of insisting that they be me. Sometimes I’m pretty good at it. Sometimes I still have work to do.

(I don’t mean to say we have to accept any behavior from others who love us. There are many people who have attitudes, personalities, interests and so forth that are simply too different from what we are. If you’re going to choose to stay in a relationship with someone, you have to decide what’s acceptable and what’s not — and you sometimes have to decide that a relationship just isn’t right when a person is too different from what you are and what you want.)

I’ve apologized to that girlfriend of eight years ago. I hurt her with my idiotic and arrogant criticism. I would give anything to go back and change what I did. I would give anything to have been able to appreciate her actions through the lens of her intent and her personality, which is geared toward planning and efficiency.

But since I can’t change the past — and she’s now only someone who I used to know — the best I can do is to keep remembering that other people aren’t me. They’re not going to be like me. They’re going to do things that line up with their own personalities and preferences.

And that’s OK.

I finally understand that there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m going to keep being myself — and I’ll continue to be spontaneous in how I approach expressions of love — but I can now accept and appreciate someone else’s way of handling it, too.

I’m not perfect about letting those I love be different from me, but I think I’m a better person than I was then. I’m still growing, even though I’m embarrassed about how far I’ve had to come.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts