stemelbow wrote:just me wrote:When you said that she "overreacted" you were invalidating her emotionally. If you don't actually mean to say that she overreacted then take the opportunity to use different words to tell us your opinion on the matter.
But, we emotionally invalidate people every time we judge their emotional reaction to a situation.
It would be very meaningful to me if you would try to understand where I am coming from and what your words actually mean to me and others. I don't know why that is asking so much.
That is weird, just me.
What is weird?
Its my words and my intents that you have questioned, confused, twisted, and all that.
Not sure what you mean by "and all that." You have repeatedly told me that I have misunderstood. That is why I have questioned you. That is good communication. Do you think I should have ignored you? I certainly could give that a go if you would prefer.
not the other way around.
So you believe that you have a full understanding of my message on this topic? Your comments to me beg to differ.
I say she over-reacted
Right. And we have been over the dictionary definition of the word "overreact." You are placing a negative judgement on her emotional reaction to the PR campaign.
because the story, the topic, had nothing to do with women with kids staying home raising kids.
Actually, it was about the church PR campaign and a story within it that highlights a woman working outside the home. It was very much about the attitudes and teachings of the church in regards to women, whether they stay home or have a career.
I do not say that her feelings on the matter are not valid.
You are right. You did not use those words. What you did was invalidate her feelings and reaction by saying that she "overreacted," a word you continue to use.
I simply think context demands that her reaction had nothing to do with the context, on that it appeared to be an overreaction. You seem to suggest that if I call it an overreaction that means I actually think she should not feel angry about something. I have clearly, many times, explained that is not my position in the least.
She was reacting to the context....the broader context is what she found particularly upsetting.
When the average person uses the word "overreact" they intend to imply that the person should not have reacted as they did. They are saying that the reaction was not warranted. Again, that is using the dictionary and average usage of the population.
If you do not mean to say that her reaction was unwarranted then you have to choose a different word.
When you tell someone they are overreacting that is emotional invalidation.
I understand that you don't
mean to imply that her emotional response was unwarranted, but that is what you did with your word choice. All I did was point that out.
You seem to misunderstand that situation and context ought to be in consideration, and that means if one overreacts in a certain situation that does not mean the emotions and feelings that the one has are invalid. It means the emotions and feelings that the one has have nothing to do with the topic.
No, I haven't misunderstood that at all. The situation and context support her reaction, expecially when we take into consideration the broader implications on her personal life.
What you seem to be saying here, by the way, is that her reaction was not an overreaction but that she was reacting off-topic.