General "civilians"

[Deleted member 28812]

Have you got a good option for us? Other than to just not have or express the feelings?

Why not talk about the behavior? "This guy is careless" instead of "Careless civilian" or "Civilian".

 

[scout86]

That would be an option, @Lemontree.

Again, I don't know your husband and I don't know exactly how he uses this kind of expression. Myself, I use it when I'm angry, because someone has done something that inadvertently triggers me. To be honest, I guess I never thought of it as being triggered, but it probably is.

So, for example, my client's boyfriend, who's a nice enough guy but pretty clueless, does something while I'm shoeing her horse that could get me or someone else hurt. My IMMEDIATE reaction is to kill him. The lizard part of my brain has perceived a threat and the threat needs to be dealt with. In the heat of the moment, I usually go "fight". Fortunately, I'm pretty well trained and other parts of my brain get that that reaction is going to be problematic. So I don't go after him. But I still have that intense, "kill or be killed", reaction to deal with. At that point, I honestly have a hard time "talking" about anything. My entire being is devoted to the whole kill or be killed dynamic and what to do with it.

I've actually been feeling good about myself, that I've come up with a verbal expression or two that allow me to let off a bit of steam without having to engage too much of my rational brain. (Because THAT is NOT going to happen in that instant.) I can promise you, I'm not far enough along in recovery to be able to have a rational conversation about the behavior. I might be able to hold my tongue, I can refrain from physical violence. If calling someone a "careless civilian" rises to the level of racial slur, I'd probably just go with something more conventional, but of the type language that we don't use here. And, to me, using that kind of language seems worse.

More than anything else, I guess, I'm trying to make the point that more than likely what your husband is feeling in that situation is nothing at all like what YOU would feel in the same situation. I've come to see that it's pretty hard for people to wrap their minds around the absolute fact that someone else's experience of reality can be radically different than their own. I'm reminded of an incident when a friend of mine reached across a restaurant table and touched my arm. I even saw it coming, And they nearly had to peel me off the ceiling. We had been talking about a situation similar to what we've been talking about here. She had said "Oh, I know just what you mean, I hate that too." She meant well. I hoped that she didn't really know how I felt. After I about jumped out of my skin, she said, "You really couldn't HELP that, could you? (Duh?) Maybe it ISN'T like what I experience!" Bingo! My own issues started so early that I have no point of reference for "normal". Except that I thought the reality I know WAS "normal". I can't tell you the number of times I've asked my T, "People really think way? Seriously??? Who knew?!" because I DIDN'T. We all have our own road maps of reality. They are not all the same. They are also not "reality". They are road maps.

I really think you SHOULD discuss this with him, if you can. If I was in a relationship and the other party was distressed by some turn of phrase that I use, I'd want to know and I'd do what I can to find a replacement. At the same time, though, try to understand that there's a good chance that your interpretation of this word choice is probably much more rationally thought out than his and it means something different to you. I'd bet he just needs something to say, in the heat of the moment, and this is what he picked. There's not much, if any, rational thought behind it.

 

[The Albatross]

Okay. Imagine there is a Hindu woman married to a Christian man.

I'm a firm believer in keeping things right sized. I don't imagine stuff, I deal with what is. You are attempting to conflate the issue in your imaginary example to support your "bit" of offense. If your man is former military... he is a veteran. He served with a whole host of different people of ethnic/religious types and if he chooses to withhold character judgment on someone by acknowledging that they are not vets, but civilians I don't see anything wrong with it. Referring to people by their character faults/flaws is judgmental and like I said, more offensive to me should someone refer to me that way. Albatross is careless. Is a judgmental opinion about my character for example. Albatross is civilian... is judgment neutral... it is a degree of personal separation from his own experience/mind set. And mine. I'm a veteran as well.

Edited to add a quote from the current chat header: "“Understanding trauma and that we each respond to it differently will help us be supportive and nonjudgmental toward each other.” ―Stephanie S. Covington

Personally I like being a civilian, though miss some aspects of my military service... but hey, his choice. I think I'd be self examining why I perceived offence or annoyance at the term. Plain and simple, he doesn't choose to express the way you do. I don't view that he's being judgmental, by your expressed preferences though, you are. Why?

 

[The Albatross]

How would you think about it?

Okay let's take a real example of something my husband does that I find a little bit offensive. My husband blows his nose the carpenter way (place a finger on one nostril and blow for all you're worth... no tissues or a pardon me. He just stands there and does it.) He does this in the privacy of his home/yard and with his carpenter peers. He does it in front of me. I don't like it and I think it's gross and crude. Yeah he really does this).

I have been married to this man for 25 years last November and he has been a carpenter since he was 16. He is though a hard working man, a decent provider, loyal and guess what? He loves me.

I communicated to him for all it's worth that I view this behavior with distain. The behavior would improve for a time but then reoccur. Apparently it is a carpenter guy thing, not that his peers do it in the presence of a woman/lady. He does though... but only to me. Not his mom, not my mom, not the neighbor ladies, not the widow behind us, not the women he works his full time job with, not at church, not in social situations.

So... I am at a stalemate and I really don't/didn't like this thing. How would I think about it?

How I did think about it: First and foremost I always ask myself with intrapersonal interactions, "Is this a good willed or well intentioned person?" Yes. My mister is a good willed and well intentioned person. Flawed as we all are, he has proclivities and habits I don't like. He has some things about me he doesn't like either by the way. I ask myself three basic questions: Do I like him? Do I love him? Can I live with him?

So... with regard to my husband's habit of blowing his nose the carpenter way... do I like him? Yup except for that and a couple other pesky habits and behaviors. Do I love him? Yup again, unreservedly. Can I live with him? Well, yes. As much as I'd prefer that he not do that in my presence... after 29 years with the man (4 before marriage), it is pretty clear he isn't gonna change the behavior. I made a decision that I love, care, and value my spouse more than I was offended by that habit/behavior.

Having made the decision, whenever he does that and I'm present, I may frown for a second or two but then I remind myself that my spouse is a well intentioned/good willed, hardworking, loyal husband and my friend. I'm not so bothered by the proclivity that I'd upset him over it anymore (having tried some discussions that were moot). HOWEVER, if ever someone else was offended, I'd let him handle it. So far, as I know at any rate, no one has been.

So... that is how I think about it.

I think that you should explore your own annoyance and offense and do some self examination. To me, frankly, it smacks of any number of annoying things that people can do... like leave the toilet seat up, squeezing the toothpaste from the middle of the tube, referring to the mother in law as "that woman", or saying privately that working with women makes him glad he doesn't have to have a menstrual cycle. I understand when he says things to me that it is because he knows I am his number one fan, I am safe, it is private, I am his friend. He voices frustration. I hear the frustration... not slice and dice or conflate his verbage.

So I attempted action. When attempts to alter the behavior didn't pan out, I chose acceptance... because I value the man more than I am annoyed or offended by the habit/behavior.

I though am the PTSD, he is my supporter. I am a veteran, he is a civilian.

 

[Ronin]

@Lemontree, I'll try it with maybe simpler words, maybe it gets through better, seems we're getting lost in translation bit. Basically if struggling with finding if something is offensive.... you ask who makes you feel offended if even remotely possible if that's how it's meant, and look at the effects said words/actions have in the real world. Your husband, and then a couple of other vets around here, we're all telling you it's not offensive. That there is your perception issue & communication issue but that are not a fault of the word 'civilian', your husband, or anyone else. Draw your conclusions from that.

 

[The Albatross]

Thanks? Doh. I wish I could have done that, but my grey matter doesn't work that way.

 

[Friday]

The parallel to civilian is N008/ noob/ newbie/ amateur... Someone who could -in theory- hack it if they put in the time, energy, dedication, daring, etc... But hasn't, yet. It's a state of being. Which is why it's so drop dead funny to me. It's crossing / marrying 2 different vernaculars.

Civilian : Veteran
Amateur : Pro
n008 : Major League Gaming God
Greenhorn : Cowboy
Minors : Majors

These are things that are on a continuum. Each continuum has it's own series of rankings. Race, sex, religion, and most "isms" aren't on a continuum of least to greatest. One doesn't rank up, or decide at which level they, themselves wish to stop at. You can't work hard to be higher ranked in your race (I'm almost black! Yaaaaay!) or religion (just a little more work and I'll be promoted to Hindu!)

 

[Ronin]

(totally OT @FridayJones because amusement spreads)... and Tetris n00bs don't in general need Tetris to cure their incurable PTSD.

I'm not letting that tetris injoke go.

Tetris n00b is good.

 

[The Albatross]

@FridayJones - roger that. Probably a few others as well that I can't quite grasp at the moment.

 

[The Albatross]

I played tetris for quite a long time before I ever knew it was beneficial for me.

 

[Ronin]

@The Albatross, that was some super fishy 'miraculous PTSD cure' study with tetris. On another hand you're about the second person I'm hearing it really helped (first being my ex-CO and that guy is a huger nerd than I, so I'm not counting it for anecdata); good for you for having found a coping mechanism. ;)

 

[Deleted member 28812]

The parallel to civilian is N008/ noob/ newbie/ amateur... Someone who could -in theory- hack it if they put in the time, energy, dedication, daring, etc... But hasn't, yet.

Actually this is the first time I understand the tetris civilian joke. I thought it was a way of saying "civilians = incompetent human beings". Yes, it's funny if you understand it.

*lol* for "promoted to Hindu".

Anyway you people still get me wrong when you think that I think calling stupid people "civilian" would be offensive for the stupid people. I don't think so - it is offensive for the civilians.

Let's not argue, okay? Let's just argee that noone understands what the other is trying to say or argree to disagree.