| The first link, that is a big stretch and misses half the response. They almost capture it and then flub to spread wrong information. They got this far: "I notice that when your partner talks to other men, you express feeling hurt and ask her not to. It sounds like you feel hurt and maybe even betrayed when she has those conversations. I hear that respect is really important to you, and you want to feel valued in the relationship." What they totally missed: Suggesting alternative strategies that meet both parties' needs without harm. "Can we explore ways for both of you to feel respected, while also honoring her autonomy and connections with others?" This is NOT emotionally abusive to the woman or lower-powered individual in the exchange. This is acknowledging the emotions of the abuser and still coming back to honoring the woman's unmet needs. These techniques have been used between waring tribes with family that has been murdered. The book has a particularly harrowing passage about NVC saving a near-rape-and-murder victim. The second link is marginally better but I disagree on nearly every point. Instead of writing a counter post for each, but to say that overall I think they missed the message of the book. They seem set on the word choice and power dynamics. Word choice is mostly unrelated: it is conveying unmet needs and acknowledging the unmet needs of others. Simple as that. And then to go on about body language as a point against NVC is strange as the NVC is about spoken communication. They are digging for reasons to talk against the book. I assume there is some agenda. |
You have an agenda as well.
The problem is that you need BOTH parties to engage in NVC for it to work. and what happens is the person who does not want to use NVC is blamed. This is denying the person their agency.