Five Things That Aren’t Unkind (Part II)
Even Though They Sometimes Feel That Way
Today is the day. Spectrum, an anthology of queer, neurodiverse short horror fiction, edited by Aquino Loayza, Freydís Moon, and Lor Gisalson, launches today! This anthology contains twenty short stories, including mine—“These Thirteen Simple Tricks Will End Your Sleep Hallucinations For Good.” You can preorder Spectrum at Third Estate Books or snag the Kindle edition from Amazon. What are you waiting for? You could be reading it right now!
If you have purchased Spectrum and you would like to receive a bookplate signed by yours truly, you can reply to this newsletter (or click here to email me) with your name and mailing address and I’ll get one out to you.
Welcome to the office of the Shelf Life publishing department, where we are excited to the point of distraction over the Spectrum publication today. The Shelf Life publishing department is me and two dogs and a dying houseplant. The dogs are mostly excited about breakfast. The houseplant and I, at least, are excited about Spectrum.
In last Thursday’s companion to today’s article, I talked about setting and communicating healthy boundaries and delivering constructive criticism, both of which can feel unkind in the moment to the recipient of these types of communications but which are, ultimately, very kind. They are kind things to do because they help the receiver grow: Constructive criticism helps the recipient grow whatever it is they are receiving criticism for, and boundary expression helps grow and nurture the relationship between two people.
Today I have three more acts coming at you that can feel unkind in the moment—whether you’re the one acting or the one being acted upon—but which are, in the end, kind and generous things to do.
Being Direct
Being direct can feel really aggressive. Men and masc-presenting people tend to be socialized to speak directly whereas women and femme-presenting people are more often socialized to seek consensus and express agreement. If you’ve been socialized to express agreement and seek consensus or collaboration when you speak, it can be uncomfortable to express something directly—it can feel like you’re being rude. That said, in many situations, it can be kind to be direct and express something unequivocally, to avoid confusion.
This is not to say that we should all take on a direct communication style all the time. After a lot of thought I’ve come to believe there’s an underlying societal problem with the gender divide in communication styles. Rather than dividing communication style by gender identity—or socializing children toward different communication styles based on their assigned gender identity at birth—communication styles should be used situationally.
There are a lot of instances where seeking consensus and communicating collaboratively are the best approach. For instance, from my personal experience, when a group is in a meeting together reviewing cover comps. (A cover comp is a mockup of the front cover of a book; publishing staff usually review several before choosing a book’s cover.) One person has the final say on the cover. It’s the acquisitions editor, or possibly their boss (the editorial director or similar) in the event of an unsolvable conflict. But this is a situation where no one is served well by a unilateral decision. Collaboration from editorial, design, marketing, and sales will arrive at the best decision.
On the other hand, let’s say you are as passenger on a plane. The instrument panel goes out and an engine blows up. Would you rather the pilot seek a collaborative problem-solving approach with the rest of the flight crew to determine the best course of action? Or would you prefer the plane be landed by means of the pilot's own unilateral authority?*
So anyway this is not to say that direct communication is the be-all, end-all best form of communication and that’s the type of communication we should be using all the time. Untrue. However, those who have been socialized to avoid direct communication may experience it as rude when directed at them, or aggressive when they are in a situation where they must use direct communication.
It’s not rude or unkind. It’s just direct. And in fact it can be very kind to be direct: It is respectful of another person’s autonomy, for one thing, when you give them the exact information they need and don’t bog them down with information they don’t need. It can also be very respectful of others’ time when you give a decisive answer rather than seeking collaboration for collaboration’s sake.
Different communication styles have their appropriate times and places, but direct communication is not inherently aggressive or unkind—even if it sometimes can feel that way.
Saying No
What’s more direct than saying no? Listen, I love saying no. I recently wrote an article on saying no for another publication (I’ll link you when it’s live) and I wrote a Shelf Life a while ago on techniques for saying no if you are someone for whom declining feels uncomfortable. Sometimes my friends or colleagues will ask me to say no to something on their behalf, which frankly I love to do. I love saying no.
Like speaking directly, saying no can feel unkind. Yes feels kind and no feels unkind. This is just a fact. Unless it’s a weird reverse question like “am I being unreasonable?” in which case you definitely want to say no, even if the other person is being totally unreasonable.
When someone makes a request of you, your real answer may be yes or no. And then the answer you say to them may be yes or no. And these things do not necessarily match.
For instance, someone might ask you to do something and you do not want to do it but you say you will. Then you don’t do it. Maybe you intended to, maybe you really thought you could make yourself, but in the end you didn’t do the thing. Your words said yes but your actions said no.
In any case where the real answer is no, it’s kinder to share that real “no” answer with the requester than to tell them yes and then
Fail to follow through, or
Follow through, but resentfully.
When you say no, you show respect for the other person by giving them the real answer instead of giving them a false yes to shield your own feelings about saying no.
It’s kind to do things for people when you can but kindness is like the oxygen supply on a crashing plane. You have to put on your own oxygen mask first before you can help anyone else. You have to show yourself kindness first before you can demonstrate real kindness to anyone else. If you don’t have any kindness for yourself, then what you’re likely to be offering others is niceness, which as I mentioned in Tuesday’s Part I and in previous articles at length, is not at all the same thing.
Ending a Relationship
This is a really rough one so hang on tight. It’s kind to yourself and to the other person in the relationship to end it when the relationship is no longer healthy for you. The person whose relationship with you is ending may not agree. In fact they almost certainly will not, at least in the moment. But I’ll endeavor to explain why it’s actually kind.
First, I’ll say this: An interpersonal relationship can be successful, run its course, and end—without failing. I find people tend to believe any relationship that has ended is a failure. This is not true. Relationships can end naturally without failing. This is a thing. Thing status confirmed. Have you ever had a colleague you got along with well and then one or both of you moved on to other jobs and you just don’t really talk anymore but you still think well of each other? That relationship ended (or downgraded to “friendly acquaintance”) but didn’t fail. It just ran its course and ended naturally.
Second: When an interpersonal relationship ends before it has run its course for both parties, for instance, when:
a romantic couple breaks up,
someone ends their friendship with another person, or
someone “cuts off” a relationship with a family member,
that relationship is ending for a reason. Both parties may not agree with the reason, but the party ending the relationship had a reason. The relationship was not working for them anymore. Maybe they tried to repair the relationship or maybe they didn’t, but at the end of the day that relationship was not healthy for them so they ended it.
Mutually healthy and fulfilling relationships don’t end this way. They either continue or run their course and die a natural death by mutual agreement, but they don’t end with one party unilaterally ending the relationship and walking away. The relationship was not healthy or fulfilling for that person, whether the other party in the relationship knew it or not.
You ever hear a guy say: “Everything was so great and we were so happy and one day my wife just served me divorce papers out of the blue”? Clearly “we” were not happy. Husband was happy. Wife was not happy.
Anyway. It’s painful when a relationship ends—oftentimes even for the person doing the ending, and almost always for the person who is not initiating the ending. But it is ultimately kind. It’s kind to yourself if you are the person walking away from a relationship that is no longer healthy or fulfilling (obviously) but it’s also, believe it or not, kind to the person you are walking away from.
Ending a relationship when it is beyond repair is actually a form of constructive criticism, an expression of a boundary, a direct communication, and a declaration of “no” all in one. Think about it: The person ending the relationship expresses criticism of the relationship; that it is no longer healthy or fulfilling for them. They may offer information on how or why the relationship became unhealthy but the act of ending the relationship itself delivers criticism of the relationship. The other party may use this information, if they choose to, to grow and develop in other or future relationships.
The person ending the relationship is also expressing a boundary: “I am no longer in this interpersonal relationship with you.” The expression of this boundary gives the other party clear information on how to proceed going forward.
People sometimes believe they should or must remain in an unsatisfactory relationship because of the sunk-cost fallacy or because they believe they owe something to the other party or want to refrain from causing them pain. But when this happens, and one person is staying in a relationship out of obligation, the other party is denied the opportunity to replace that interpersonal relationship with one in which the other party is equally invested in them.
You heard it here first: Go out and end a relationship today. It’s the kindest thing to do.
*Editor’s Note: Thanks to JC for suggesting a clearer sentence here!
If you have questions that you'd like to see answered in Shelf Life, ideas for topics that you'd like to explore, or feedback on the newsletter, please feel free to contact me. I would love to hear from you.
For more information about who I am, what I do, and, most important, what my dog looks like, please visit my website.
After you have read a few posts, if you find that you're enjoying Shelf Life, please recommend it to your word-oriented friends.