Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Diversity

[Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizm]

This is the crux of it

"Knowing Zev even slightly, I have no doubt that he did not intend to
hurt anyone’s feelings and he has said that."

I would like (and believe others have asked) for Zev to apologize for
his *impact* rather than his intent.

If someone apologizes and the person who was hurt responds "I would
rather you address what I have done in this way" that is not a rule,
that is someone expressing what they want.

If you don't want to do that, obviously you don't have to. And the
person who asked for the apology will still feel hurt.

If a person's goal is to improve/repair the relationship, they might
look at what was suggested and see if they can apologize in away that
is heard better. Perhaps Zev has even done that one-on-one with those
who asked.

If that is not the goal, certainly, ignore the suggestion. But posting
a suggestion on how to make apologies that are more meaningful to
others is not creating a rule.

-Liz
(The Rev. Dr.) Elizabeth Mae Magill
Pastor, Ashburnham Community Church
Minister to the Affiliates, Ecclesia Ministries
www.elizabethmaemagill.com
508-450-0431
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:14 PM Sharon Villines
<sharon [at] sharonvillines.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 2023, at 11:49 AM, Elizabeth Magill <pastorlizm [at] gmail.com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > That is not creating a rule, that is people saying "to apologize you
> > have to admit to what you did wrong rather than blame me for
> > misunderstanding you".
>
> No, they cited an article that apparently explains what a good apology is 
> from their point of view and in the words they believe should be used.
>
> > "to apologize you have to admit to what you did wrong rather than blame me 
> > for misunderstanding you".
>
> What is this but a rule?
>
> > If you, Sharon, would like to accept that apology, please feel free to
> > do so. But I would prefer if you would not pretend that the statement
> > "that's not an apology" means that someone is creating a rule. That
> > distracts the conversation to what is a rule and what is not,
> > rather than whether or not the hurt parties have been attended to.
>
> I’m not pretending. I’m pointing out that making judgments is using a rule to 
> state that something is good or bad. Stating requirements is not in the best 
> interests of understanding the person from whom they expect an apology. 
> Diversity goes both ways. Knowing Zev even slightly, I have no doubt that he 
> did not intend to hurt anyone’s feelings and he has said that.
>
> This will also put my head even firmer on the chopping block, but I’m the 
> only one who can hurt my feelings. I can feel rejected or dismissed or put 
> down, but all those are my own reactions over which I have complete control. 
> They tell me what my expectations or desires were or are. They tell me 
> nothing about the other person unless I know the person and understand their 
> context. I don’t think anyone in this conversation understands Zev.
>
> Stating how one feels is certainly important and welcome in a discussion like 
> this. Demanding that other people address my feelings is not something I 
> would expect. Asking for an explanation is perfectly reasonable. Once 
> received, I might ask another question to clarify the response. I might even 
> say that doesn’t make sense to me. But I don’t have the right to demand that 
> the other person do what I think they should do.
>
> Sharon
> ----
> Sharon Villines
> Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
> http://www.takomavillage.org
>
>
>
>