I think what's odd is how common it would be for the male to get caught up in her response - or how common it would be for people to empathize with him here. I might have myself some years back.

But ulitmately what's happening (that matters - I could be wrong...but assuming based on context clues):

Reporter asking her a question:

Her responding

Him interrupting

Her enforcing boundary

Getting caught up on the language and labeling her negatively seems a failure here...it's not about what she says, it's just that she enforces the boundary.

nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqgrn3au88tpvdjmhq8332psk4lyzgdumzv45v7a94ppf6kty4ud3xcnt2h0l How would you enforce a boundary in a moment where you had an important opportunity to speak and it was being interrupted?

nostr:nprofile1qyw8wumn8ghj7cmgwf5hxarsd9kxctnwdaehgu339e3k7mf0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyzmul86z57ttpy0gg0wwjxwnaaxqmjpwq2299m0shk7daw0vhyl8s06rj7w I'd love to hear your take on the vid.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I would probably stop talking and look at my husband until he is done and then continue to answer the question.

Then when we're alone, I'd bring it up.

We already have an established boundary of not interrupting each other, and if we miss it, we clean up the mess by asking for forgiveness, in private!

Someone else might touch his arm to indicate that he's crossing an already set boundary saying something like, "the question was directed at me, I'd like to answer it." Said kindly and calmly.

I would NEVER chide him in public. I don't even do that in private.

It's one thing to assert a boundary, but it needs to be done in kindness. She wasn't kind. It doesn't seem like she has asked him for what she wants, she sounds like she's asserting an unspoken boundary, meaning, she hasn't actually given him the chance to agree to not do that. Getting angry or annoyed and chiding someone for crossing our boundaries are not the same as making an agreement about how to treat each other.

This is why I strongly recommend Alison Armstrong's stuff, because she goes into detail about how to make deals and assert boundaries in a healthy way that works for both men and women. Frustration doesn't work, kindness does.

this might work at a dinner party. you think that's how a red carpet event works? Things are on a tighter schedule. It's likely Los Angeles or another large city where everything moves faster. Etiquette is different.

So do you think how she handled it was good?

She still didn't answer the question and came off as disrespectful and chiding.

I'm not most people, which is why I added the part of confronting him kindly. Yes, I think that would have worked way better! And wouldn't have cause her to look so bad. She could have conducted herself with elegance, but she chose to act rudely and condescendingly, ON THE RED CARPET, which is definitely not the place for that, unless that's the persona you want to portray.

I'm only seeing this clip. I don't know what the question even was...but answering questions on camera is a whole different thing...the relationship between the woman and the camera (and/or) reporter is different and not relevant.

I'm not judging her actions as 'good' or 'bad'.

It was her choice to enforce the boundary of "we're on the red carpet and I'm being asked a question....so I'm going to claim the space to answer the question I was asked".

I don't use the word "Chide" very often, but maybe you're missing the point? This isn't about Alec and Hilaria. This is about a person being asked a question on the red carpet, and then saying "I won't be interrupted", and then attempting to make a statement.

Ok. But you started asking me questions and I answered them. I care about how I act, and I think that's important. It is also important to set boundaries, but they kinda defete the point if they're done harshly or rudely.

Even if she wanted to control the situation, which is another thing I don't agree with doing(but that's a different issue) but even if one wanted to do that, there are so many other ways to do that that are still respectful to the person you're setting the boundary with.

As I thought I mentioned.... it's not about "controlling the situation". It's about responding to the question posed to her in the - and this is key - time/capacity allotted for quickly getting someone from the red carpet, to the film/event.

What I haven't understood your response to is what it's like to operate in a big city where communication is different in order to move things forward in a timely and orderly manner.

I'd love to see an example of what you're talking about in a similar situation if you happen to have one/dig one up.

I love how you summarized it:

"Reporter asking her a question:

Her responding

Him interrupting

Her enforcing boundary"

I think my argument is the same or similar as your one.

The main point was your summary. And then there are so many people, who are angry about how she enforces her boundaries seems unfair.

I feel to live in a balanced freedom-focused world, first offenders need to be stopped first. Analizing whatever reaction should be a secondary task.

And why would one defend this man in such a situation. Is everyone assuming he is a snowflake with no selfesteem? I think he is totally fine taking this critique. Based on his behavior it was maby not strong enought, since he just got on talking.

curious to hear your thoughts on "first offenders need to be stopped first'. I think you're saying something like "stop a problem as soon as you see it's a problem".

Also, when you say "he got on talking" you mean when he said "You're a winner", or went on talking to someone else.

To take your question literally - I think people defending him see this about loyalty (for lack of a better word). To me it seems like the reporter maybe asked a question that more or less wasn't positive on the show, or that was the energy there...and Alec was attempting to promote/defend/uplift Hilaria....so they see her response as basically being mean to someone who was trying to support her.

Sidenote: Is there a problem with your client? I see your post twice.

This can be a thing, that people think as you say. I do not think, that means can legitimize actions. Therefor I see that he unrespectfully interfered in the interview. I really do not understand why many people seem to prefer complex objectively false analisis over directly looking at what happened.

It is a very natural escalation that was caused by Baldwin.

Isn't it just logical to resolve problems at their core?

Probably. I'm fresh to nostr and still getting set up - LOL

If I understand you correctly I think many people speak to "worst case scenario" type conditions. Perhaps I'm engaging with that too much.

It seems people who believe a man has a certain place and a woman has a certain place have specific ideas of what a problem is, and what the core is....that's one of my understandings of it anyway.