Non-confrontational people

[Bumpitybumper]

I have realised that I am becoming increasingly irritated by a specific brand of non-confrontational person that seems to be unable to deal with any kind of disagreement in a mature or effective way. Their reluctance to confront a situation can just lead to the other parties involved doing all the work to resolve an issue and having to coax the non-confrontational person to actually engage in the process of resolution can be incredibly frustrating.

I guess the thing that really winds me up is these people view their non-confrontational nature as a positive and as a sign that they are just too "nice" to engage in disagreements. This would be easier to accept if the same people weren't engaging in passive aggressive behaviour or weren't busy trying to characterise the people actually trying to sort the issue out as the bad guys and themselves as the victims.

So AIBU to say that actually being non-confrontational isn't a positive trait and sometimes it's essential that everyone is able to confront issues or deal with disagreements when the needs arises?

If being non-confrontational is burying your head in the sand and avoiding things that need dealing with, then that is a bad thing. If being polite and avoiding passive aggressive behaviour is non-confrontational in some situations, then a good thing.

Given we are such a divided society, perhaps some people have become non-confrontational because they are fed up with division and hatred.

Thanks @Bumpitybumper. Get what you mean, and yes I even more agree with you!

Interesting that the vast majority of posters seemingly agree with me but the poll indicates a more even split of opinion. I guess the people that disagree are too non-confrontational to post

I guess the people that disagree are too non-confrontational to post confused

A couple of years ago I had someone say similar to me.

I'm very non-confrontational.
They said how much they'd rather get it thrashed out and deal with it.

So when they were causing a problem, I took them at their word and told them. They didn't take it well, and have spent the last two years going round sulking round me, feeling aggrieved.

So my conclusion is what you actually mean is that you want to tell other people that you disagree but can't cope when it's done to you.

I'm non-confrontational. If someone doesn't like me or has an issue with me that's their problem, why should I feel the need to "resolve" anything?

I voted YANBU, but with some qualifiers:

1.some things are small and insignificant so it is genuinely easier to get on with it and create a fuss. Sometimes raising things makes more drama than is needed over a non issue that is, at most, minorly irritating

1. it's much better to resolve things without confrontation if possible. Why anyone would choose confrontation over non-confrontation is beyond me

Both of those are absolutely fine by me. Lack of confrontation is much better to me than being a drama llama.

However, if people say they're non-confrontational but in reality they are passive aggressive, expect people to read their mind, don't voice their needs or opinions and then whine endlessly about not being listened to, don't have their say but huff and puff and play the victim because "I think I'm so nice that people take advantage" etc then they need to get a grip in my opinion.

@Picklypickles
I'm non-confrontational. If someone doesn't like me or has an issue with me that's their problem, why should I feel the need to "resolve" anything?
That presumes that the problem is one-sided in which case you are of course absolutely right. I'm talking more about situations where both parties would agree that there is a problem or at the very least the non-confrontational person thinks there is an issue.

Yes which is why Eugenia Cooney irritates me even though feel harsh to think this of someone so “nice”

In my view, if you can't handle being called out on something, be more careful to not create a reason for that confrontation.

If you don't like something, don't bitch behind that persons back, say it out. There are diplomatic and reasonable ways of doing it. It does not have to be argumentative or passive-aggressive.

It's a clear demonstration of someones emotional intelligence in how they take it or give it.

@Bumpitybumper

True, however you don't need to be confrontational to resolve an issue do you? You can discuss it calmly and rationally, perhaps agree to disagree and decide whether its something you can move past or not.

I'm not non-confrontational because I'm "nice" its because IME being confrontational, arguing, shouting etc doesn't solve anything, it just creates drama and no good ever comes of allowing yourself to be dragged into other peoples dramas especially when so many people can't seem to function without drama and have a tendency to create it out of nothing - I want no part of that thanks!

I think you're right pickly

It's perfectly possible to be friendly, polite, assertive, and stand your ground when it's needed without being confrontational. Equally, even people who are normally non confrontational will have moments where they are more confrontational.

I think the problem I see is that most sensible people would fall into the categories you, me and others have drawn up (resolving issues by tackling them in a more pleasant, non dramatic way), but we probably don't self label as non confrontational in life because we're just getting on. Whereas someone who makes a big fuss about how non confrontational they tends to be a passive aggressive/martyr version of a drama llama. Whilst confrontational drama llamas thrive on things being heated and angry and love the attention, the so called non-confrontational drama llamas tend to also love the attention but seek it out by being passive aggressive, avoiding issues and then moping, whining and playing the victim under the guise of "but I can't help being nice... I'm just not interested in confrontation" with the subtext of pleae ask more, please please, let me show how nice I am so you can gush over me.
They're two sides of the extremely irritating coin.

@Picklypickles
Theoretically of course you're right, but in my experience most self proclaimed non-confrontational people don't confront or tackle an issue at all. It's not that they want to manage conflict in a different way but that they want to avoid it all together.

I agree with you OP.

There was a thread on here a few months ago about making a list of rules for new baby visitors to distribute. Things like no children, no holding without washing hands. Some posters said it was rude, some said sensible.

All I kept thinking is HOW are there people about who are old enough to have children but too pathetic to have an honest conversation with their friends and family about when and how they can visit the new baby? They actually think emailing a list of rules is ok because they are too scared to tell people in person?

Imagine trying to deal with people like that in the workplace

Is it ok to be non-confrontational - yes
Is it ok to be non-confrontational and expect someone else to sort it for you - no

Add to that list:

Is it ok to be non-confrontational and then bitch and whine for ages about it to everyone but the person in question - no

You’re not wrong. The ones that annoy me specifically are those who announce “I don’t like confrontation “ whenever they must make a slightly tricky decision thereby putting the onus on others to do it. However they then proclaim it wasn’t really their idea and they didn’t feel listened to making out they’re the good guys. It’s pathetic.

You know what. I have to apologise.

I’ve been labouring under the misapprehension that ‘confrontational’ meant to not shy away from awkward or uncomfortable conversations. And to be non-confrontational meant to never challenge, however mildly, anyone else.

But I’m totally wrong. I’m not a confrontational person but I don’t shy away from standing up for myself or others including saying no or calling out bad behaviour.

So don’t mind me. I’ll be sitting over here, being an idiot

You're not an idiot actual.
I think some people understand the words differently (as shown by how many people seem to think being nice and non confrontational means being passive aggressive and doing nothing).

I think the issue is slightly in the language. If one was to say that they were to "confront an issue" you wouldn't assume that they were going to tackle it with an argumentative or hostile intent (which would be the dictionary definition of confront). I think in common usage "confront" can mean to simply tackle somethingdirectly and assertively. This can be a positive way to deal with certain situations and people that lack the ability to do this irrespective of whether the situation demands it are the specific brand of "non confrontational" that I referred to in my OP and subsequent posts.

So AIBU to say that actually being non-confrontational isn't a positive trait

YANBU. It seems to on the rise with people that can't even speak to other people in a shop or something.

Society is going to be seriously fucked more than it already is in a few years.

It very much depends on the context. One of the examples given was going to a teacher.

I would always go to a teacher rather than enter a debate with another parent, and I think that is down to appropriate channels for dealing with school based issues and nothing to do with being non confrontational.