Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Hit in the back + "don't bother those who work" public power moves
Hi guys,
I was in line at a local election. Got in front of the polling clerk and was handing out documents. Probably six-seven people were present around me, maybe more.
The power move(s)
Suddenly I felt a hit in the back.
I turned around, and it was an acquaintance of mine who never misses an occasion to publicly power-move.
He then immediately said to me:
Him: Don't bother those who work, Bel.
My response
I touched him back on the back (but didn't hit him), and then I said:
Me: "And don't you bother those who are speaking with those who work".
He went away.
My feeling is that my answer was not ideal, and that I still lost some status and respect among those present.
In fact another polling clerk, who was at my left, then "bumped" into my shoulder deliberately to give me pen and ballot paper, thus "mirroring" the power-mover in a way and assuming he could do the same.
The whole thing was really annoying, I was unprepared for such a thing, and I wonder what I could have done better.
I think this guy is escalating because lately I have been trying to check all his public power moves.
My take
First, I should have left the polling clerk out of my answer.
Second, I should probably have addressed the "hit in the back" first.
In fact, I think his words were somewhat of a distraction, and he deliberately spoke them to pack a double punch, as he probably suspected I would have concentrated on them and "missed" responding to the hit.
Something like "physical power move" + "verbal distraction power move".
Like this:
Him: (hits me in the back) Don't bother those who work Bel.
Me: Hey, do you think hitting people in the back is a good way to say hi? And don't you bother me, by the way.
While walking back for a while with him and other people (he was with his wife), I did pay less attention to him and at one point exhaled loudly while he went on a long ramble about election systems and procedures.
Now it occurs to me that I could also have addressed the hit in the back later, after getting out of the polling station, in front of his wife (she wasn't there when he did the whole power-move thing, so she doesn't know why I got distant afterwards).
Something like:
Me: Hey, my back still hurts from the punch you gave me inside there. Next time when you want to say hi just say hi, ok?
Don't know if this would have been good though, as he's clearly trying to upset me.
Hello Bel,
Me: "And don't you bother those who are speaking with those who work".
I think it was ok. The problem is that you did include the other guy, as you said somewhere else, there's a repetition: "those who work". So it seems like you are both being served by this guy so it might look as if you both are social climbing on him. He's the worker, you are getting served. I think it's not too bad though. The ballot guy might also have been irritated by the tone of your interaction. He's just chilling and 2 guys come and have an unpleasant social interaction in front of him. Who knows? I don't think it's that important in this scenario.
Me: Hey, my back still hurts from the punch you gave me inside there. Next time when you want to say hi just say hi, ok?
I would not say that. You acknowledge he can hurt you and you ask him to change his behaviour. If he's just an acquaintance, I would not do that. I would get the lesson from this one and readjust for the next one.
Don't know if this would have been good though, as he's clearly trying to upset me.
Yes he is. So don't let him otherwise you are empowering him and disempowering yourself. Once again, these are the kinds of people who get a kick out of seeing that they can get an emotional reaction out of you.
Here is what I would react:
Him: Don't bother those who work, Bel.
You: Hahahaha (genuine laugh, his remark is intended as a joke and it's stupid so you're laughing at the joke and he cannot defend this, then you can say anything)
Variations:
You: Hahahaha (genuine laugh), hey man I'm voting, I'll be right back. (I'm busy power move)
You: Hahahaha (genuine laugh), turns towards the clerk: "excuse my friend, sir, he's always like this. Anyway..." (throw him under the bus, deservedly so)
You: Hahahaha (genuine laugh), good one! I'll be right with you in a minute (goes back to the ballot person). Well Sir, I am here to... (laughs at the joke while he gets to save face as you seem to laugh because of the joke, and you keep rapport as he thinks you're his friend : decreases the risk of future PM. Also invalidates the joke as you show him that you and the person are actually doing something while he's the one bothering both of you)
You: Hahaha, hey man, long time. Give me a minute and I'll get back to you (ignore the frame, take it as a joke and move on, eagle-like, rapport keeping, nobody will take the "bothering frame" seriously, so it's a blank)
Thank you John,
I understand from your answer that my first mistake was letting him distract me from my interaction with the clerk.
So, as shown in your answers, this was probably a case where I should have addressed the clerk, and not the power-mover, in checking the power move.
You're welcome, Bel.
For me it's all about the emotional states and triggers. When you have this dialed down, then you naturally come out of these situations better. I think it's more helpful to take this from a mindset perspective than from a strategies/technique perspective. This gives you more flexibility.
This is how I see it:
Frame: Asshole makes an asshole move.
Me: I'm not giving any credibility to assholes in these situations -> I laugh and do whatever the fuck I want while not letting him come on top.
Then you can address him or the clerk, I think it's secondary. What matters the most is the frame.
If he succeeds in imposing his frame: "you are a liability", then as soon as you answer him based on his frame, you already accepted it. Anything that comes after is already a losing battle.
So I think it's about not accepting frames that are disempowering to you:
- Notice what is the underlying frame
- Change it if not empowering/helpful.
Example:
Someone: "Hey Bel, late again to the party?" (frames you as not being punctual)
You: "Hey man, nice to see you too!" (emphasise to show that it's sarcastic)
Here you don't enter his frame: you don't answer his question. Then you throw your own frame in: "Not very nice of you to welcome me like that" (light shaming him rightfully) .
So learning-wise: I would focus on frames rather than specific techniques, and then you can refine with techniques.
Edit: spelling.
I understand your point and thank you for the perspective.
At the same time I also feel the strategy you suggest may be something that might come later for me, but right now may not totally be suited to my current situation (meaning, where I am in my path).
I think this is because, on the one hand, I am interested in knowing how to stop these guys by behaving assertively, and not currently wishing to re-frame their power moves by going higher. In other words, my intention here is to communicate to this person: "you have to stop, or there will be negative (social) consequences for you".
I don't want, and maybe I'm not ready, to communicate "you don't affect me". I understand that might come later though, both in my path and with these people.
I think that is why I responded to him directly and by turning it around.
On the other hand, I also feel the "hit in the back" here was something too much to be ignored and reframed. I feel I should have addressed it directly.
I hear you. I see one obstacle to this approach. To me, it's a matter of context. In this context, I would not be assertive personnally.
It's a great tool for social power, I agree with you. However in this situation I would not have been assertive, on purpose. The reason being: it's not a huge social slight in my opinion (there were no insult, etc.). And in my experience if you go assertive for these kind of social slights, you appear thin-skinned and you actually lose power. That is my experience. Also, they will backtrack: "it was a joke". So there is the risk of coming off "too strong" and therefore to be considered the aggressor.
There are different ways of going about this anyway. I'm curious to hear what other forum members think.
Good one. And it does communicate: "I take no shit, I'm not impressed"
Me: Oh it’s you. Friendly as always I see. (smiles, turns back towards the clerk if you want to go strong or say "I'll be back in a minute" if you want to be more friendly).
The "a bit handsy" hints that he's gay so it goes back on the offensive and I would only go the defence way in this case.
Ok, I understand. Independently of whether the “hit in the back” was a punch or not (it was, masked as a pat), you are saying from the outside it likely seemed a microaggression.
Checking the physical move
I wonder if I could also have escalated on the hit though. Something like
Me: Hey, why did you punch me in the back?
And then keep the frame that it was not a pat but a punch. Hypothetical:
Him: It was a pat, to say hi.
Me: It wasn’t a pat but a punch. And if you want to say hi I would suggest not hitting people but opening your mouth and saying hi.
Was not checking the physical move by my acquaintance the reason why the clerk also did one?
I keep insisting on this because my feeling is that the other polling clerk, who bumped into my shoulder to give me the ballot, probably got the feeling he could do it from my lack of reaction to the physical move and my focusing on the verbal comment.
This polling clerk was not the same clerk I was handing out documents to, he was another. A bystander, so to say.
Should addressing the physical move take precedence (and exclusivity) over addressing the verbal move?
So my feeling is that the initial physical move by my acquaintance (the “fake pat”) should have taken precedence in my addressing, while I let it slip as the power-mover distracted me with his verbal comment.
This in turn gave the clerk the feeling he could bump into me deliberately without consequences.
In other words, assuming I somewhat checked the verbal comment, I left an opening to be physically ”disrespected”, which to me was worse.
Should I have independently addressed the subsequent bump on my shoulder by the clerk as well?
I probably should also have independently checked the bumping by the clerk:
Clerk: (bumps on my shoulder) Here’s pen and ballot.
Me: Excuse me, why did you hit me on the shoulder?
And then keep the frame that I didn’t appreciate it.
This would probably have been necessary in any case (ie, even though I did not check the physical move by my acquaintance).
Because it’s one thing to have a person you know “playfully hit” you, but a totally different one to have a stranger do so to attract your attention instead of speaking.
Another possible reaction meant to address physical moves only
So, assuming that giving precedence to addressing the physical move is correct, and trying to draw my conclusions on the ideal reaction, here’s what I think I should have done/said:
Acquaintance: (hits me in the back without me seeing him) Don't bother those who work Bel.
Me: Why did you punch me in the back? (then keep frame)
Clerk: (bumps on my shoulder) Here’s pen and ballot.
Me: Excuse me, did you just hit me on the shoulder?
One my friend uses. " Hey no bad touching".
Quick and easy, no overinvestment and you can decide how loud and cold or angry or joking tone.
Thanks Transitioned, in line with your idea I could have said
(To the first clerk) Excuse me…
(To the guy) Hey no hits below the belt. And by the way friendly as usual I see. Now excuse me I was talking with her…
(To the second clerk) Why did you hit my shoulder?
I’ll try keeping it lower investment next time, it’s possible my mistake was going a bit overboard with the tone and stuff.
Still probably better than before when I would not have said anything.
