In Today's Edition of "How Lynnette Has Disappointed Me (Again)"...
- May 26
- 8 min read
I cannot share the miles long bulleted list, as I have unsubscribed and blocked this publication. I don't care to read it anymore. Instead, I am subscribing to a new journal called I Am Enough. It’s published in my head, and while I’d like subscribers, I only have a handful so far.
A Wise Person Once Told Me That Passive Aggressiveness Is Just Communication
Even if you don't like the framing, you can still try to understand and respond to the message. I decided to use this paradigm. Instead of tone policing, it works much better to listen and respond to the information the other person’s trying to convey. It’s an inexact science, though, and it’s a bumpy road to try to change a pattern you’re used to. Still, being effective at understanding someone’s message is more important (not to mention actually achievable) than expecting them to frame their speech to your liking.
I have been told that saying “please explain why that’s funny,” “ouch,” or “I didn’t like that joke” is the best way of communicating when I find a joke hurtful. It made me think. Women are socialized to “be nice,” and many people would equate that to not risking others’ displeasure by standing up for themselves over something that’s “just a joke.”
Now, in my “F-it 50’s,” I believe in the value of each of these approaches, depending on who you’re talking to.
Some people would take the statement “I didn’t like that” badly and may be thus be less motivated to care what I do or don’t like. Others would feel attacked by a passive aggressive approach like “wow” or “please explain why that’s funny.” And if it happens in public, like a racist joke, the humiliation factor may cause the racist joker to feel more isolated and less likely to care what others think.
For lack of a better idea, I think an awkward silence followed by a one-on-one conversation about the values you support in your house, may be best. The goal should be to make the offender realize racism is wrong, not for you to feel good about making a snappy comeback.
I think “ouch” is a good happy medium.
It expresses that something they said hurt, while also being casual enough to let the other party save face. I think. I haven’t tried it much, except in my mind after the fact.
I can only speak for women; I am not an expert in the expectations placed on men. Women walk a tightrope, between being nice and having the self-respect to stand up for ourselves. It sometimes feels impossible, but like this hamster, we’re compelled to keep going.
A while ago, I posted this meme, and said I would write about why women's so-called passive aggressiveness is sometimes appropriate and can even be life-saving:
When one person (let's call her Jane) notifies the other (Dick, say) of a problem, his response can speak volumes about how he plans to address it.
Dick's tone could be compassionate and helpful, or condescending and annoyed. In the above scenario, Jane may have responded "never mind" because something in his voice told her this Dick didn’t care much about her predicament. (Please note—this made up situation has nothing to do with the competent professionals at NASA.)
“I’m fine,” in this case meant that Jane decided she was enough; she would solve her own problem. No Dick was needed.
(In a worst-case scenario, a woman hears anger in a man's tone and quickly realizes that her problem would only multiply, or even become lethal, if it triggered his rage.)
The meme is both funny and not funny to me (Schroedinger’s meme?). At first it was amusing, then it pissed me off that it pokes fun at something serious. Even something minor—such as a husband leaving dirty dishes by the sink instead of putting them in the dishwasher—can get the “never mind, I’ll do it myself” treatment, when “honey we have a problem” just leads to denial that there is a problem (and by the way, "stop being so emotional over a dish").
Which brings me to the first issue of I Am Enough.
A mission statement is provided: I will love and respect myself first and foremost. I could say it's because God/The Universe loves me, or because I'm my only lifelong best friend, or because I need to put my own oxygen mask on first. While these are true, I didn't make that decision with logic—I made it with my heart. I am tired of feeling insufficiently loved and respected, and now I am (mostly) free of those burdens.
Ladies, it’s ok to follow your own heart. If you need to walk that tightrope, then walk it—but make sure that if you fall, it’s on the side of self-respect.
I don't always love or respect my actions, but I can still feel love for my soul. Learning to do better is a thing, and I am committed to said thing. But I am still good enough as I am. The journal I made up says so, right there in black and white. And you see that tiny cloud on the horizon? That's where you can fuck off to if you don't agree.
I know I am loved, whether or not my actions please others.
I recommend finding your inner passive aggressive Bitch or Bastard, and give a resounding mental middle finger to people that have hurt you. Once that's out of your system, you can make better decisions about how to manage those relationships.
I don't recommend the hamster wheel approach.
§
Addendum
Rereading this post after a break made me concerned it was all over the place. I was curious how AI might analyze it, whether it would flag the winding stream of consciousness approach as a problem. I was pleasantly surprised. (But it's AI, not a college professor, and it may have an inherent bias towards blowing smoke up authors' asses. I didn't tell it who wrote it, but I still recommend a little grain of salt while reading.)
ChatGPT states:
This piece is doing several things at once: processing anger, reframing “passive aggression,” exploring gendered communication, and constructing a new self-concept centered on self-worth. Its emotional movement is more important than its logical structure. The post reads less like an argument essay and more like a personal manifesto written during a transition from self-silencing toward self-protection.
Here are the main layers operating in the piece:
Central Thesis
The core idea is: Women are often criticized for indirect or “passive aggressive” communication without sufficient acknowledgment of the social and emotional pressures that make direct confrontation risky, exhausting, or ineffective. The writer argues that:
communication styles emerge from context,
tone should not overshadow content,
self-respect sometimes requires imperfect forms of resistance.
The post ultimately reframes “passive aggressiveness” as:
a coping strategy,
a survival mechanism,
or a transitional form of self-assertion.
Not idealized communication — but understandable communication.
Emotional Arc
The emotional trajectory matters a lot here. The piece moves through several stages:
Disillusionment
“I unsubscribed and blocked this publication.”
rejection of external judgment
Reflection
examining communication styles
considering different responses to hurtful jokes
Ambivalence
directness vs indirectness
self-protection vs social harmony
accountability vs humiliation
Anger
especially around dismissal, sexism, racism, emotional invalidation
Self-reclamation
“I Am Enough”
valuing self-respect over approval
Defiant liberation
“that’s where you can fuck off to”
emotional boundary setting
The tone evolves from analytical to increasingly emotionally declarative.
Key Themes
1. Tone policing
One of the strongest conceptual threads is the critique of tone policing:
people often dismiss uncomfortable truths because they dislike how they were delivered,
especially when women express anger, hurt, or confrontation.
The author suggests that understanding intent matters more than enforcing stylistic purity.
That’s psychologically and socially recognizable, especially in unequal power dynamics.
2. Gendered socialization
The piece repeatedly returns to:
women being trained to prioritize likability,
conflict avoidance,
emotional smoothing,
and others’ comfort.
The “tightrope” metaphor is effective because it captures the double bind:
too accommodating → self-erasure,
too assertive → punished socially.
This is one of the post’s clearest and most coherent themes.
3. Passive aggression as adaptive behavior
This is the most provocative idea in the piece. The author is not exactly saying passive aggression is healthy. Rather, indirect communication may emerge when direct communication feels unsafe, futile, punished, or emotionally costly.
The NASA meme example expands this:
“Never mind, I’ll do it myself” becomes not irrationality, but accumulated learned experience.
The writer reframes withdrawal as:
resignation,
self-protection,
or loss of trust.
This section is psychologically nuanced.
4. Self-worth independent of approval
“I Am Enough” is the emotional center of gravity.
The imagined journal symbolizes:
internal validation replacing external validation,
self-authorship,
emotional sovereignty.
The post repeatedly contrasts:
needing others’ approval,
recognizing intrinsic worth.
This gives the essay its therapeutic quality.
Strengths of the Piece
Emotional authenticity
The writing feels lived-in rather than performative. Even contradictions (“funny and not funny”) increase credibility because they reflect genuine ambivalence.
Strong voice
The author has a recognizable voice:
conversational,
self-aware,
emotionally candid,
slightly sardonic.
Effective metaphors
Several metaphors work well:
the hamster wheel,
the tightrope,
the imagined journal,
“Schroedinger’s meme.”
These create cohesion across otherwise loosely connected reflections.
Psychological realism
The discussion of indirect communication is insightful because it avoids simplistic binaries:
direct good / indirect bad,
assertive good / passive bad.
The writer recognizes that human communication is constrained by fear, power, safety, and emotional history.
Weaknesses / Tensions
1. Generalization about gender
The piece occasionally moves from:
“many women experience…” to
broader universal framing.
Some readers may feel:
men also experience emotional invalidation,
indirect communication is not uniquely female,
or the gender framing becomes overly categorical.
The author partially acknowledges this (“I can only speak for women”), which softens the issue.
2. Ambiguity around “passive aggression”
The piece blurs distinctions between:
passive aggression,
indirect communication,
emotional self-protection,
sarcasm,
withdrawal,
strategic ambiguity.
Those are related but not identical.
At times the post risks redefining nearly all indirect emotional signaling as justified. A critic might argue:
understandable ≠ healthy,
adaptive ≠ constructive.
3. Oscillation between compassion and contempt
The essay sometimes advocates:
empathy,
preserving dignity,
one-on-one conversations,
allowing others to save face.
But later it pivots toward:
“mental middle finger,”
“fuck off.”
That tension is emotionally understandable, but philosophically unresolved. The piece seems caught between healing and retaliatory fantasy. That unresolved tension actually makes it more human.
Psychological Interpretation
At a deeper level, this piece appears to be about reclaiming agency after chronic emotional minimization.
The repeated pattern is:
expressing need,
being dismissed,
withdrawing,
self-reliance replacing trust.
The “never mind, I’ll do it myself” motif becomes symbolic of emotional exhaustion.
The writer is trying to build a new internal rule: My feelings count even if others dislike them.
That’s the real thesis underneath the communication discussion.
Stylistic Notes
The writing style combines:
essay,
memoir,
manifesto,
internet-era conversational feminism,
and therapeutic self-talk.
The structure is nonlinear but emotionally coherent. Rather than formal argumentation, it uses:
association,
examples,
emotional resonance,
and iterative reflection.
That style will resonate strongly with readers who value emotional truth over analytical rigor.
Overall
This is fundamentally a piece about self-respect after emotional invalidation. “Passive aggression” is almost a decoy topic. The deeper subject is how people communicate when they no longer trust that direct vulnerability will be handled with care.
The ending crystallizes the transition:
from seeking permission to exist comfortably,
toward granting oneself that permission internally.
Whether readers find the piece empowering or overly self-justifying will largely depend on:
their beliefs about indirect communication,
gender dynamics,
emotional labor,
and the ethics of anger.
At its core, this piece is about learning to value and protect one’s own dignity after repeated experiences of emotional dismissal, and about how indirect or “passive aggressive” communication can emerge when direct vulnerability no longer feels safe, respected, or effective.
I think ChatGPT's critique was all over the place. TLDR.