The real friend or partner who cares about you
also cares about your other friends and your family members. A friend
or partner who avoids interaction with you and your friends, but
interacts with their other friends and family with normal enthusiasm
without you, (as if you do not belong to that group), does not simply
have social anxiety.
They may only interact with your friends when they are ...
motivated by anger, jealousy, or when they find one of them attractive.
They are doing what they want to do, what they choose to do. Take it at face value.
If they are worried about what you are doing and who you are talking
to, but react defensively when you ask them the same thing, they are
showing that you are not a full "person" to them. Do they treat their
other friends that way?
Possessiveness is when a person wants
to own another person, but does not really want to be their true friend.
When we own something, we do not feel the need to empathize with it, it
is a thing. We want it to stay and do what we want. Of course many
people who are possessive will flatly deny it, and become very upset if
accused of it, but it's not hard to see.
A possessive person
will not call you, but will be miffed if you don't call them. They will
monitor who you talk to, but will not participate in the discussion.
They want to know where you are and what you're doing, but they don't
want to come along. They want to do things without you, and with other
people, and they don't really want you to join them, or be a part of
their discussions. They want you to care about them and for them,
understand, empathize, and listen, but do not do the same for you past
their comfort zone. (For example, if they need to be taken to the
hospital, and you have to drive an hour, they would expect you to take
them, even if they say the opposite. Saying that they don't expect it is
simply a cover for the fact that they have no intention of being there
for you, even if they were in the next town.)
If you ask them
to do something that's important to you, they may or may not do it; but
probably not. If they do, it has to be convenient for them, and not
uncomfortable. However they expect you to be fully understanding of all
things important to them. (They will even forget why you could not do
something for them, like if you had to take your father to the hospital
and could not help them that day, they will only remember that you
weren't there, not why.)
They will not include you in quite a
lot, including information or activities that affect you directly, but
they want you to keep them fully informed of yours, and they usually
want veto power over your activities and who you do them with. In other
words, you love to go to the beach: they will not go with you, but they
will be uncomfortable about you going without them. At the same time,
they will go do something that you would like to do, but will not invite
you, and will often meet up with other people. It's all about them
having a real, full, and autonomous life, mostly without you, and
without your approval, but they will deny this; and you having to report
and receive approval from them, even though they are not going to
participate in very much at all with you, or with you and your friends.
Why were they wanting to be your friend or partner in the
first place? Possibly because they saw you as something to be acquired.
If they thought you were well-liked, then that makes you attractive; if
they thought you are seen as beautiful by the world, that makes you
attractive to them as well. You will notice that when you talk, they
don't really listen, they mostly try to either argue, or dismiss you.
What are the things you DO together, like buddies do? Anything? How
often? When is the last time you wanted to do something and they said
"Yeah! That sounds like fun!" and they just WENT ALONG? When is the last
time you tried to express your pain from the relationship, and they
said "I'm sorry, what can we do to fix it?" and they actually followed
through? When is the last time they participated in a discussion with
you and other people, say, on your Facebook posts? They don't do this
because they don't want to be seen talking to you in a "real" way, and
they also may be enjoying watching others insult you.
Take
things at face value when it comes to relationships, friendship or
romantic, and don't let your mind trick you into believing it is what
it's not.
Many male and female humans tend to jump at the chance to oppose and argue with a female human, before and without fact-checking. Both male and female humans tend to hesitate before opposing and arguing with a male human, and will often even avoid fact-checking for themselves, and simply believe them. This is an effect of a patriarchal society.
You can check it yourself by observing the way you react to this very paragraph, knowing it was written by a female human.
What is your reaction~
Are you
1) Compelled to dismiss it?
2) Oppose it?
3) Argue with it?
4) Personally attack or try to insult me, or women in general?
5) Do you take it at face value and simply believe it?
6) Go look through years of observation and research to see if there have been other studies on the subject.
7) Observe very objectively whether this holds true in yourself, and those around you.
8) Accept it as a possibility that may or may not be true, and maybe look at it more closely.
9) It's something that I have already observed.
Most will do the first three.
Those who can not separate topics about human behavior from feeling like it's about them personally will do #4.
If I were a male, and I wrote the exact same paragraph, more people would do #5.
Very few will do #6.
A small number of people who make it a habit of being objective and observant will do #7, and #8 will only be done by those who are scientifically minded.
VERY few can hold a calm and objective discussion about this subject without having a defensive emotional reaction, or an angry reaction from being on the receiving end of this treatment in the past.
There are no Scarlet Letters in a healthy family.
When you and other family members set up one of your family members as a Scapegoat, you are damning them to a life of struggle, and their children, and their children's children. This is not opinion, it's fact. A healthy family does not exile or scapegoat a child, or anyone else, and the fact is, most who are set up as Scapegoats are not actually ...
the kind of person they are made out to be. ONLY unhealthy people do that; gossip about one of their own, turn on one of their own, make one of their own a target for a "bad reputation", Victim-blame them as if all the things they went through was their fault. (abusers always blame the victim. Healthy people want EVERYONE to be happy and healthy, and included in the Family, they don't trash and blame and ostracize.)
Those who have been Scapegoated can do this as well to someone else, as an attempt to get out of being the targeted one; they pick someone else, usually a person who they think is not going to bite back, as the "new" Scapegoat, and proceed to trash them, abuse them, use them, and trying to convince others to see them as a bad person. Scapegoating is about making one's own self look innocent and good, and another person look bad. That's not what people who care do.
Once your family has scapegoated one of its members (usually because someone is protecting whoever abused that person, and/or because someone is jealous of that person), they will no longer receive normal emotional support, normal respect, normal inclusion, normal anything. Family members will play "keep away" with all the regular resources and support from this person, and WATCH as that person's self-esteem crumbles, and if this person tries to get away from this abuse, they will try to cast even more shame and blame on them. They WANT this person to be close enough so they can keep them as a Scapegoat, they certainly don't want this person to escape their web and find success.
Scapegoats often keep trying to gain back their membership status in the family group, to be seen and respected as a fully viable and "real" member who deserves the same respect that others are getting. However- no matter WHAT the Scapegoat EVER does, the rest of the family will STILL continue to degrade, dismiss, and belittle them. If a Scapegoat became President of the United States, they will say that he or she slept or bought their way to the top. They will never let go of the Scapegoating, they NEED to have someone to stand on TOP of in order to feel like there is someone they are "better than".
They will do this to the children of the Scapegoat as well, and they will also TEACH the Scapegoat's children, directly or by behavior and example, to DISRESPECT the Scapegoat (the child's parent). This will lead to yet more lives filled with heartache, without normal resources and normal emotional support that other family members enjoy.
Another foolish and common human tragedy that people just keep doing, and don't try to stop.
One of the reasons it's so devastating to deal with a romantic relationship, or a friend, that turns out to be a Narcissist, is because many of us actually were bonding with someone we thought was our ALLY and stand up with us, and for us, against the N abuse we had already gone through in our family lives. We thought we had finally found someone to be our True Ally. For them to be the opposite of this is mind-blowing, it would be for anyone. Picture a King or Queen going into battle, defending their benevolent realm against a long time enemy who keeps trying to tear down the walls and take over the land. At their side as they ride into battle is their most trusted Knight. Suddenly when the battle starts to get scary, the Knight rides away, leaving the Queen or King to fight on their own, no one at their back against the evil enemy. The Queen or King looks up, and there, across the field, among the ranks of the enemy, walking their horse calmly and peacefully, talking with the enemy's ranks, is their MOST TRUSTED, Number One Ally, their number one Knight.
The N parent or family member already did this years ago. To find yet another person who would betray us in the same way, who is not even a family member who is already in that dysfunctional web, who has zero personal issues in common with us, is devastating.
NOW what do we do? We have to
A) Win this fight, and with them on the side against us instead of with us, our entire battle has changed, and we find ourselves outnumbered, and with more enemies than we knew, and now we have no idea who is against us on the INSIDE
B) Turn tail and run; intellectually we know we had better do this because we have been tricked, and don't know how deep that goes. But we also know that running away will add to the damage that our reputation has already suffered; but we have no choice; it's either turn back, or die.
C) When we get back, we must rebuild our kingdom from the ground up. People will talk about us incessantly, many who have N and control issues will blame US for the Knight leaving our side, even say we DROVE them away.
D) We have to guard against allies that the Knight has within the kingdom. We have no idea who to trust, or who is plotting against us.
E) We KNOW that the Knight has brought our secrets to the enemy, because we believed we could trust them with our secrets a long time ago.
F) Our anxiety level, based on REAL events and situations, has gone through the roof; now it is much harder to sleep, eat, and figure out what to do.
G) The Knight is threatening that if we don't let him/her back into the kingdom, he will wreak havoc. He tells everyone that we are crazy, and a tyrant, and he tells everyone that the gold that is missing (that he stole) was actually lost by YOU in a gambling ring, or in irresponsible spending. (People believe him because they like to hear about others doing something wrong)
H) We realize that the easiest way out, safely, is to leave everything we loved and that was familiar, behind. All we built, all we accomplished.
I) We are scared. We fear that wherever we turn, whatever we do, there will be someone watching us, judging us, trashing us, blocking us, punishing us, undermining us.
J) We are OVERWHELMED. This makes it very difficult to see the LIGHT that still shines, the hope that still lies ahead, and the goodness that is still in our future.
People who like to stay in control will often change the subject of the conversations frequently. Whether they bring up a topic or not, they will change it the moment they feel that they are not in control of the direction of the discussion.
Them: "The lady across the street has a cocker spaniel. Those dogs are yappy and can be vicious."
You: "Oh yes, I've seen it. It's a nice dog, she came up to...
me and let me pet her head~"
Them: "I need to clean the refrigerator. You'll be here to help me, won't you~"
(Regaining control of the conversation by diverting the subject, because their opinion was being shown not to prove true~ and regaining control of YOU by volunteering you to help with their work. A controlling person does not ask for help, they demand it from whomever they want to keep control over, regardless of the other person's schedule.)
<<(Just to be clear, that is not the same as a parent requiring a child to do chores. Children being assigned tasks in the home is a normal and healthy part of family raising, especially when it is done in a scheduled preplanned, and pleasant way, or when it is used as a punishment for actual misbehavior.)
Codependency uses judgment as a way to feel good about one's self. This is learned from someone else at some point in childhood. "She is always late, she's a bad person." "His car is rusty, he's a bad person." "Her car is dirty, she's not as good as us." "She's pretty, therefore she is stuck up." "He's clean cut, therefore he is not masculine enough." "He likes different music, he's not as cool...
as us." "She talks to that person, she must be having sex with him." "She talks to them, she must be doing drugs with them." "They play rock music, they must be drug users." "She doesn't smoke pot, therefore she is 'high and mighty'" etc etc etc "He doesn't have a college degree, he must be stupid, lazy, or shiftless." "She's nice, she must be weak, naive, dumb" "She's nice AND pretty, she must be weak, naive, dumb, and promiscuous" "He's single and not a jerk, he must be gay" "She likes to build and fix things, she must be gay" "I don't like her dress, she is a bad person" "She is friendly to both my husband and I, she must be after him" "She smiled at me, she must want "it", and she's "easy"" "He has nice clothes, he must be rich" "He seems smart, he must be a good person, and succesful" It goes on and on and on.
The English Suffix -ology or '''-logy''' denotes a field of study or academic discipline, and '''-ologist''' describes a person who studies that field.
Psychology is the STUDY OF mental processes in living creatures. A person who is a psychologist does not necessarily do all, or any, of the things that are commonly thought of, they don't have to be a counselor. They don't have to be doing anything at all professionally, and their studies, just like any other studies, do not have to follow certain "guidelines". In order to get certain DEGREES or CERTIFICATES in the field of PSYCHOLOGY, one must complete the required courses that go with that degree.
A musician for example, in this free country, can study music in any way they choose. They don't have to have a certain degree to be considered a "real musician". No one is going to tell them to stop studying music unless they do it in the "traditional" way that makes everyone else feel comfortable. Well maybe some people will... But LEARNING ABOUT MUSIC and playing it, and writing it, does not require that one attends Berklee, or that one actually graduates.
One does not have to go to Johnson and Wales, or France, to learn how to cook, or graduate MIT to become a software designer. There are many, many programmers who learned completely on their own, or had a little bit of schooling.
This society is now obsessed with degrees and certificates. A 24 year old with a business degree, and zero work experience, will be hired to manage groups of employees who have a huge amount of experience, and would often be much more efficient and successful in the managerial position.
We need to STOP this obsession and prejudice with degrees. If someone studies something, they are an ---ologist. If they get their degree, then they have acquired a degree in that subject as well. They are not "obsessed" with a subject just because they did not graduate Columbia or Brown with a Master's, it is THEIR path, THEIR interest, THEIR passion.
So unless you want to be told to put down your guitar because someone else doesn't think you should be learning music without going to Berklee, or playing it, or writing it; Or your ratchet set because you didn't get your mechanic certificate; Or your binoculars and camera because you didn't get a degree in Ornithology, or your spatula because you didn't graduate Johnson and Wales, then stop trying to tell other people what they should and should not be interested in, or studying, or writing and talking about.
List of "ologies" :
http://chemistry.about.com/od/mathsciencefundamentals/a/ologylist.htm
Talking TO another person is worlds apart from talking AT another person. We talk TO whom we respect, and we tend to talk AT whom we don't. The person on the receiving end knows the difference.
Hostile Environments are created by the members of the group, when members of the group feel that they possess superior traits, and bond on these supposedly superior traits. Anyone who enters the group, whether it's a small friendship group, a class, a family group, or a workplace, who does not share this "superior trait", will often be treated unkindly, coldly, and with disdain. (Like a 'dirty peasant' who doesn't "belong" in the Royal Courtyard).
You may well be creating a "hostile environment" if you belong to a group of people who have come together based on superficial traits, and if you and your group hold pride in these traits.
For example, a Women's History class that is made up of all women, and is led by a female professor, can easily create a hostile environment toward male students. If their focus on the subject is objective and straightforward, then the class may be safe, and all students can learn and participate without feeling like an "outsider". But if the women plug this into their personal egos and identities, and make it about themselves, bonding with each other on their femaleness, "Men Can't Get This, Only We Get This", they are probably creating a hostile environment toward males, AND toward any females who refuse to participate in the "us against them" games. (Women's History is not FOR women, it is HUMAN HISTORY that pertains to everyone, and is FOR everyone.) Such a hostile environment will perpetuate itself; most male students will feel uncomfortable, and drop the class, or not take it in the first place when the atmosphere of the class is talked about. Therefore there will be few men in the class. Not because men "can't get it", or "can't learn it", but because of the hostile environment.
Any group can do this~ groups based on ethnic identity; "WE" are the "good people" and "They" are the "bad people", "dumb people", "racist people", "arrogant people"~ members of the group are not intellectually able to see themselves or others as individuals. Groups based on Political Parties are very common as well.
Groups based on their age~ teens of all generations do this. "We" understand things that the "older people" don't GET, man! (Remember that?)
But older adults do this as well. Of course, these older adults were often the same people who did this as teens. They just change the thing they have in common with the other people they have grouped themselves with. (Baby boomers, for example.) "We" get stuff that no one else gets, man!
Groups based on gender are the most common. People will often believe that another person, whom they know NOTHING about, has similar skills, life experience, knowledge, and interests all because they are the same gender as themselves. Or that the person will automatically bond with them, or be on their "side" against the opposite sex. This creates very hostile environments, separation, division, resentment, and halts productivity and progress.
Like the Women's History class mentioned previously, if for example there is an Advanced Math class, and the professor is a male who has it in his head that males are better at math than females, and there are male students in the class that want to echo his sentiments, (the ego desire to "own" knowledge), then that class will probably be a Hostile Environment toward female students. Not only will there be few females in the class because of this obvious vibe, so the female students will feel exposed and unprotected, but also the male professor will do all kinds of subtle things to avoid acknowledging the female student as a "Real Member" of the group. Any male students who engage in this behavior will NOT be corrected by this professor, he will allow it to happen, pretend he doesn't notice it, turn away when it happens instead of addressing the problem. It is a matter not just of direct bullying by the professor, but of laying down a red carpet for anyone else who desires to display hostility toward the female student.
Hostile Environments are created by those who have ego-identity issues, who desire to be a member of an "elite" group. Those who try to work and learn in such an environment are often sabotaged to the extent that they cannot complete tasks or achieve their goals, which is of course the goal of the members of the group. (Then the group members will say "See, he/she couldn't do it because he/she is not one of us.")
An intriguing, and also often aggravating, thing that some people do on
a regular basis is claiming ownership of ideas, knowledge, and things.
A very common example is when a person learns how to do something, and
then treats others as if they are stupid or ignorant because they have
not learned how to do that yet. As if the knowledge they have...
acquired is innate, they were born knowing it.
People who do this also tend to do something else: they want to be the
"One Who Knows", as if the knowledge is a solid object that only one
person can own. They will often treat certain others as if they do NOT
KNOW what THEY know~ they couldn't possibly... (If they know how to run a
machine, you don't. Because in their minds, the knowledge to run the
machine is like a stone held in your hand. Only one person can hold a
stone. If they are holding it, you can't be holding it.)
I have
run into this on a regular basis in the building trades. It looks like
sexism, and it is to some extent, but it's not really about that. It's
about the individual's ego. "I know something that makes me special" or
"I know something that proves I am one of the Men" is very common, and
obviously an issue from childhood that was not grown out of. "Masculine
knowledge" does not exist in reality; all knowledge can be learned by
anyone who wants to learn it. But the sexism is just a symptom; the men
who keep trying to prove that a woman does not know what they know ALSO
do this to other men, based on any kind of superiority/inferiority
issue.
As a personal example, probably the most poignant one I
can remember was: a male friend who does manual labor for carpenters
part time (he has a full time office job) explained to me for literally 2
hours how he dug holes for footings of a deck, and how much work that
was, how much dirt was moved, and how it takes a long time, how
difficult, what it was for, etc etc etc, (something he had done the
previous summer), and how NO ONE UNDERSTOOD HOW MUCH WORK IT WAS. Why
was that poignant? Because he was telling ME all this, as if I had no
idea about digging footings, or building decks. That same day I had
LITERALLY left work, taken a shower and drove out to meet him~ the
shower was to wash off dirt and sweat from DIGGING FOOTING HOLES all
day, manually; it was the fourth day of it; I had to dig them manually
because of the location, and they had to be extra deep, and the dirt had
to be moved up a hill... for MY CONTRACTING BUSINESS. My friend
actually interrupted, dismissed, and ignored me every single time I
started to explain that yes, I could relate to the difficulty of digging
footing holes... Another glaring example: One day my partner, my
employee and I were looking at a kitchen remodel, where the closet wall
had to be reconfigured. I assessed it and explained in detail what I
thought we needed to do to achieve the goal. The two men were silent
until I finished. My partner then proceeded to repeat exactly what I had
just said, nearly word for word, explaining it as if he had thought of
it completely himself. My employee just stared in surprise~ I said
"That's what I just said" my partner said "No you didn't~" my employee
said "YES, she DID." That kind of thing happened OFTEN, with lots of
different people, in various scenarios.
There are plenty of
women who do this as well, especially with things that bolster their
identity as a "Woman", just like when men do it. If one of these women
knows a recipe, she often convinces herself, and everyone else, that she
is the only one who can make that dish, or make it well. This woman
often is the "only one who knows how to do the laundry", as if this
knowledge is innate. Exactly like the man who believe they are the "only
one who knows how to use the chopsaw". This woman is also the Authority
On Child Rearing, she is the Only One who know how to wash a baby, how
to make bottles, how to hold a baby, how to dress a child, how to
discipline a child. How to make a bed. How to vacuum, how to mop, how to
fold towels, how to do secretarial tasks. Anything that she knows how
to do, especially if it can be labeled "Feminine", she is the authority,
and she will condescend to women when she can get away with it. Exactly
like this same man will condescend to other men when they can get away
with it.
They seem to completely forget LEARNING how to do
things. They were simply born knowing everything they know, and they
would rather not have someone else share this knowledge.
You
can also see this same behavior with THINGS. with many of these same
people. If they receive something they like as a gift from you, they
often convince themselves that they are the one who acquired the thing
all on their own. Sometimes they will even invent a story about
acquiring it. If you let them borrow or use your equipment, they often
come to believe that it belongs to THEM. They simply forget or delete
that the thing is yours. (How many CDs have you lost to this?) I have
lost thousands of dollars of tools and equipment over the years to this.
I have also lent things to others who not only decided that
it was their own, but "forgot" that I was the one who showed them the
thing in the first place, and even that I had any interest or experience
in the subject. They completely convinced themselves that they were the
one who discovered whatever the interest was, and then proceeded to
behave toward me as if I had no knowledge, interest, or experience in
the subject at all. They literally have to "Own" EVERYTHING that is in
their possession, or in their heads, and they seem to completely delete
anything that is related to you giving them the thing, or you doing the
thing, or you knowing about the thing.
These men and women
will DELETE anything that shows what they believe isn't right in their
heads. BOTH men and women who do this also go along very much with
gender roles and sexist sabotage; it makes it much easier for them to
"Own" knowledge and things in their fantasies. BOTH males and females
will dismiss men who are regular cooks in the home, who are the main
child-caregiver, male nurses, stay-at-home-fathers, etc, and will
dismiss female auto mechanics, politicians, doctors, carpenters,
engineers. If something has a "male" or "female" connotation to it in
their heads, they will dismiss a person who is not the right sex, and
will deny that they could POSSIBLY have any "real" knowledge, skill or
experience.
Arrogance is not interested in playing music
at his own hearth, with those he shares bread with; he only wants to
play for kings. Humility, however, knows where the real gold is spun
when the music plays.
Just for today give up the fear of competition. We can all share in the dream of abundance when we choose integrity, honor and respect as the terms for constructing our future.
~Edie Britt
One of the biggest problems many people have with relationships, be they friend, family, or romantic, is that they believe that the other person HAS to stay with them. Taking relationships with others for granted is a symptom of Entitlement, much like when one believes they deserve to get paid at a job just for showing up. The proof that someone believes they are Entitled to their relationships, and that they do not view them as a privilege, and an honored invitation from another living, sentient being, is when they verbally and/or emotionally attack when the person decides that they've had enough of being taken for granted.
To be sure~ How do you know if you are the one who is being "entitled", or who is being taken for granted?
It's simple. If your reaction to this is "Why should I treat her/him/them with respect? What have they done to deserve it? And they are supposed to be there for me, not the other way around, and I can't stand them anyway, they're stupid" ~Then you are definitely the one who feels entitled, and you will probably get a rude awakening that you will not understand until you have gone through all kinds of problems in your life that you have created with your entitlement consciousness.
Wake up so you can have a good life.
Use the talents you may possess: the woods would be silent if no birds sang there except those who sang best. —Henry Van Dyke
And do not discourage a bird to sing, just because you are arrogant and
only want to hear the song of the lark. The bird was born to sing, and
you were not born to silence her. Go busy your mouth with something more
productive than insulting another. --- Marianne Black
A red flag of Narcissistic people is how they
lose interest in the conversation with you when they no longer like the
subject. They were not engaged in talking WITH YOU, they were engaged in
receiving the attention they were looking for FROM you. As soon as you
start talking about something they don't find interesting or find
uncomfortable, they will suddenly fade away~ they have to go, or there's...
something else going on, or they have a pain in their leg, or they're
tired, any reason to end the conversation. Sometimes they will even make
an announcement that the conversation is over, as if they are your
authority; either way, if they are being passive-aggressive, or outright
rude, they are asserting control over you, and showing that their
conversation with you had nothing really to do with their interest in a
reciprocal connection. They don't want to hear what you have to say
unless they LIKE what you are saying, and agree with it; its not about a
connection with you.
They don't know that non-narcissistic
people like to have reciprocal conversations, that they enjoy hearing
the thoughts and opinions and observations of people they know. They
often don't know that differing points of view are GOOD, and not cause
for enmity, but actually build connection between people.
You will not ever have a "real" relationship
with a person who has Narcissism. They will always live inside their own
life, and will not integrate with you. Your life and personhood is not
"real" to them, it is not nearly as significant as theirs. Your
experiences, your life, your past, your knowledge, wisdom, your
aspirations, needs, desires, passion, laughter, hopes, dreams, heart,
and soul are ...
no more real to them then if they had watched it on a brief TV documentary about you.
The reason they can not connect is because they don't see anything outside
of their own box as being "Real". They built that fort many years ago,
and they brought their favorite things in it, and that's the world to
them. Their family might be built into it, sometimes even a buddy,
usually from childhood or adolescence. But that's it.
If they
really want or have to go somewhere, they will put wheels on it, but
they won't come out. They see no need to, the real world is inside their
sanctuary; you are not "real" unless you come inside; but then, you are
assimilated into the rest of the things that are under the N's control.
Continue along with that metaphor for a moment. How do you think the N person would act toward a toy in their collection that came to life, and had their own ideas on how to live? What would happen if that toy wanted to redecorate even a small portion of the fort, or bring in a pet, or go out into the world on an adventure? Would the N person go along with the toy, or would they simply tell it "no", and punish it if it took the initiative anyway? How would the N person feel about the toy having other friends in a normal way, inviting them into the fort, going out to do things with them? Would the N want to go with them, or would the N feel embarrassed about being seen cavorting with a bunch of toys?
The N believes that they are in full control over others, not unlike a child who pretends with dolls. The world only exists as their own version, and anything outside their version is just "wrong".
Kim Cooper has found a way to cure Narcissism, but the task of getting a Narcissist to actually DO anything at all, especially that he or she doesn't feel rewarded for in some way (think ego) is nearly impossible. You can see what it looks like if you want: Narcissism Cured
Where are all the jokes and criticisms in the media about the candidate's looks, weight, hair, vocal tone, shoes, outfits, and "hotness" factor?
Oh... right... that only happens when the candidates are women.
I keep forgetting... See, I actually believed it when the adults told me that all American citizens were treated with the same equality and respect because Americans are above all that petty prejudice Jr. High crap, and I just can't seem to shake that fantasy.
Ask
yourself if you were running for office, would you want to be attacked
like the political ads? Do you think there is nothing in your life your
opponent could use against you? Are you that kind of person who would
attack another person the way they do? Why would you vote for a person
who would do that?
Interesting thing that narcissists often do is the same behavior that immature children often do~ they don't know how to accept gifts or compliments.
Often, when a narcissist receives a gift, they will not accept it gracefully, they will look it over and assess it, judging whether or not they like it or approve of it. If they don't LOVE it, just like a child who has not learned manners, they will SAY SO. They will often reject the gift outright, as if the gift giver has insulted them with their "dumb" gift.
The Narcissist feels entitled to receiving gifts, large or small, and has not matured enough to understand that the people in their lives do not exist to serve them.
If the N loves the gift itself, they will often do something else interesting; they will assimilate the gift into their list of accomplishments. As if they acquired it on their own. They simply "delete" the fact that the gift was GIVEN to them by another person, and rewrite the story to make themselves the person who went and got the thing, or the money. They see it as something they earned, or found, or created, not as something that was given to them. It looks like it's a way to avoid showing gratitude, but N's seem to actually believe their own reality-rewrites.
An exception to this behavior is when the Narcissist has something to gain by displaying good manners; if a person they have a crush on, or a person they want to impress or get on their good side, gives them a gift, then the "good manners" come out, as if it's a natural part of the N's day to day personality.
Often if you compliment a Narcissist, they will not say "thank you", they will hear the compliment as an expression of awe about their magnificence, and take the opportunity to expand upon how wonderful and important they are. This Is Spinal Tap has a wonderful scene spoofing this (Language Alert):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgViOqGJEvM
One of the things a traumatized person needs most is to feel "normal" again, to be reassured that the people around them care about them for real, are glad that they survived, and are eager to make sure they're okay. LONG TERM "okay", not just in the moment, or for today, or until we all get sick of "dealing with it". The traumatized person needs to feel that they their "people" love them and LIKE them, and want them around. They often want to be heard, need to tell their story, and need to see that their family and friends have their back.
Ironically, the larger portion of humans do just the opposite to a victim of trauma. They often turn away from the person, cast blame on the person, stop treating them like "one of their kind", as if the person is the one who created this terrible thing to happen to them. This is a psychological malfunction, where a victim of crime, abuse, or trauma is wrongfully placed by those around them as the perpetrator of the trauma.
When people can not handle the caretaking of an individual in their group because they are not mentally or emotionally equipped, they often turn on the the very person who they are supposed to be caring for because they feel overwhelmed. Often they feel guilty or ashamed, and in order to cast these feelings off of themselves, they throw them onto the traumatized person.
Many victims of trauma develop PTSD, exacerbated by the cold treatment of those whom they had previously trusted. To be chased by a grizzly bear through the woods is traumatizing. To get to the family home and find the door locked, and no one will open it from the inside, is severely traumatizing. To have to wrestle with your keys with the grizzly bearing down on you, unlock the door, and get inside, only to find everyone shaking their heads at you and accusing you of making it up just to get attention, or backs turned on you as if you had done something wrong and should be ashamed, can be absolutely devastating, even debilitating. The person now knows they are not in a safe environment, and not surrounded by people who have any interest in their well-being.
And once a person is stamped as a scapegoat in any given group, when there is no one to stand up for them, the group will usually treat that person like a pariah for the rest of their lives; and to clinch it, this stamp will often be spread far and wide, just to make sure that no one ever believe the real story. A pariah is shunned, judged, refused resources, made fun of, laughed at, used as a dumping ground for family problems. It's the most terrible way to treat a person. And yet, it's very common in human families and groups all across the world, in every social and economic strata.
If there's someone in your family or group that has been labeled "black sheep" or "bad", a person who people love to call crazy, who they seem to delight in bashing, chances are the whole truth is being hidden. Think about how you would want to be treated by your family or group, and compare that to the way they treat and talk about that person. Do they seem bent on making sure that person is spoken of in a negative light? Do they show concern for things that person went through, or do they dismiss every single thing that happened to that person? Everyone needs to feel like they are cared about by their group, like they belong, like they are safe.
Don't confuse friendship with image.
If we pick people to connect with based on how other people will see us, we are not living in truth. Civility, Friendship and Love are based in the heart, not on appearances. When we are afraid to be seen with someone, then we are either surrounded by false, image obsessed people, and we have grown to be accustomed to living in fear of their judgment, or we are that way ourselves, creating "friendships" based not in good will and true bonds, but in what we will get out of them.
Prejudiced people are just doing what they did when they were 4 and 5, trying to group people together and separate differences, trying to get a feeling of importance for themselves. If they are a boy, there will always be a boy in the class who has self-importance issues, and declares boys to be better than girls, and tries to rally all the boys to follow along. There is often a girl in the class who does the same thing with the girls. There is usually at least one kid who does it with hair color, ancestry or skin color, rallies all the kids who otherwise would not have thought twice about it to be in a little "club" (so that kid can be the leader of said 'club') against other kids who "aren't like them", and there are often teachers, parents, and other adults who do little or nothing about any of it, or make it worse. Prejudiced adults are doing the exact same thing as they did then, they just never grew out of it. Giant toddlers, lol. Giant bottle in one hand, huge sagging diapers, and a big huge pacifier square in the middle of their face. And don't forget soft, cuddly Blankie :)
Next time you or someone you know makes a sexist put-down, a racist remark, a snotty mean comment about someone with different hair color or a certain body type, remember they are showing their inner King or Queen Toddler.
The emotional well-being of those around us IS our responsibility, and if people didn't shrug that off so much, there would be a lot less sadness, anger, and fear.
When another person is upset in some way, if we mean to be a friend or a comfort to them, we must keep in mind that our goal is to be there with them mentally, and lead them back into a more neutral emotional state. Just like a bottle of soda that gets shaken up, our emotions shake up the chemicals in our brains. That's ALL humans, unless there is brain damage. When someone is upset, whether it's anger, sadness, fear, rage, depression, or terror, we ARE our "brother's and sister's keeper", not their Authority Master to shut them down with aggression or put downs. A true friend listens, and listens, and talks, and listens, and seeks to give companionship, and seeks to help the other person come gently back to feeling grounded again.
How do you keep control over a person, a group, a society, a country, a world?
You simply create chaos so people don't have time to think, to relax, to become inspired. You try to convince them that their ideas are silly, their observations are dumb, and that there is no hope for their aspirations. You do not give them time or space to heal, or to become inspired, or to build their strength and resources.
You create hostility, fear, prejudice, heartbreak and anxiety so their brain's energy is spent in the Amygdala, instead of the Cortex. The Amygdala is the part of the brain that deals with emotions.
Those who realize what is going on, especially in personal relationships, can definitely recover, and usually do. The controller person often reacts with rage when their puppet strings are exposed.
In larger groups or agencies, when several people are involved in the manipulation, they often react with self-righteousness, convinced that they are somehow superior and entitled to treating other humans this way for a "bigger cause". They will often try to redirect the aware person, and sabotage them in different ways. If this does not work, they can smear their reputation so no one takes them seriously. If it still doesn't work, they might just rub them out. The aware person would often choose death than life as a caged animal, so the manipulators still don't "win".
People who are trying to prove that they are "one of the Good People" in a family or group often develop a habit of trying to "bag" others. Scapegoats are common in this kind of dynamic, there is one person who everyone uses as a dumping ground for criticism. That way, they always have someone to point at, away from themselves. Children often do this before they are taught to take accountability f...
or their own actions; they will "tattle" on another child in order to feel important and above blame. It makes them feel like a temporary adult. However in groups where there is scapegoating going on already, many members of that group will pick up this behavior in order to avoid becoming a Scapegoat. Reporting to others what one of the members of the group is doing "wrong" is common, but promoting the well being of that person is not the goal. They will say they are "concerned", but they will not call that person directly and try to be their friend, or talk about them in good ways, or promote their interests or accomplishments. They will just keep trying to "bag" that person to others in order to get "policing" points, and there is always a lot of secret talking about other members.
The difference between communicating about issues and insulting another person's character is as stark as night and day.
The communicator will say "I feel like you don't care about me when you do this~ " or "What was the reason you did or said this~" or "I feel very depressed and I don't know what to do" or "I would like us to communicate better by learning some skills from a professional" or "I am extremely sad or depressed"
The insulter will reply "You always feel like nobody cares about you! You need help!" or "I'm sick of you constantly asking me my reasons for things, I am what I am. You're too sensitive, and you're always complaining." or "YOU feel depressed! You have the easiest life I've ever seen, and all you do is complain!" or "Every guy/girl you were ever with, and ever will be with, you will badger with this 'communication' crap! You are the one who needs help!" or "You're just trying to get attention! Just get over it already! My God you are driving me crazy!"
Ironically, when the insulter speaks to the communicator, they are met with empathy, friendship, and help if needed. If the communicator finally gets fed up with the insulter and insults back, all hell breaks loose, and the insulter will accuse the communicator of being an abuser. So, the communicator is always the giver of empathy, and never the receiver of empathy. (Unless the insulter is in a certain mood). It will not change unless the insulter changes it, and they usually don't even know they're doing it; to them, they're just defending themselves in the way they learned, and they are often oblivious to the damage they do, or to the positive effects they experience from receiving empathy, friendship, and help.
Skipping and tripping through life, that's a shame,
Ignoring the sages will douse out your flames.
How does it feel screaming silently to yourself?
...
No one to listen....no one to help.
Sabotage your dreams, you'll get what you sow.
How do I guide a lost soul? Who's to know?
Your pride is shaded under bountiful trees,
Disguised as happiness as you drop to your knees.
Life is huge, visions abound.
Rise up, ask your soul, it wants to be found.
Oh how I love you, the light in my eyes,
Watching you suffer, living the lies.
Revelations are waiting, dig deep, listen clear
Only you can unleash them and banish your fears.
~K.B.Goad
The reason males have been "running the world", overall, for so many centuries, is as simple as school yard thuggery. When people let bullies get control of anything, they control all the people too, and they do anything to keep their power. Good men become fearful about standing up for women against male bullies, so the women are left to stand up for themselves against all of the men. And we all know what bullies do when people stand up to them; they fight DIRTY. The only way to stop them is to take them out of any power position, and the only way to SEE it is to stand up for equality. Bullies hate equality, they will always fight to keep their "group" above any other group. Bullies do this with anything that will work on the people they are trying to control : race, sex, nationality, money, the lack of money, background, hair, height, education, lack of education, whether you own a motorcycle or not, have children or not, married or not, anything. People get conditioned very easily to believe "that's the way it is" and "don't rock the boat", to their own detriment.
When you stand for true equality, you expose the posers.
A
lot of us have developed, from youth, a habit of escapism. When we have
had enough of one emotionally abusive person, we call and go seek
solace from a friend. But then that friend starts showing their Narc
face, and we call someone else; then we escape that person, and go back
to the first one. Often that first one is Home. We don't realize we are
picking Narcs to populate our support network, so we end up like a
pinball, bouncing off one to another and back again, always having to
deal with some new jab from one of them. We keep ourselves in this
pinball machine as long as we have more than one to go back and forth to
and from, or until we realize that we are in the machine. When we
realize it, we can liberate ourselves. That feels great, until we
realize we are alone, because we've taking ourselves out of the pinball
network we've built, and there's nothing in its place. Then we have to
rebuild a healthy one, with what people skills? With judgment that keeps
picking Narcs?! That's where we need to really take care and take care
and take care of ourselves, and tread slowly and carefully, and love
ourselves and our children. The trap is when we get overwhelmed at this
point and we go and find someone to fill that awful loneliness, but we
don't know if we are choosing healthy people or not. The real trick is
to truly learn how to love ourselves, even through loneliness, and connect very very carefully with new people, watching them from an emotional distance for a long time. And learning everything we missed about boundaries.
Our ego is the thing that tells us to listen to one person, and not to another;
to learn from one person, and not from another.
If God came down to Earth looking and sounding like the kind of person your ego wants to listen to, you will listen, at least casually and nod, and say "yes, that person is wise". But if God came down to Earth looking and sounding like the kind of person your ego usually thinks of as having nothing valuable to say, you will ignore God Himself, or Herself. (Depending on what form God chose that day.)
If you don't believe me, believe yourself. Just pay attention to your own reaction when you ask a question to a room full of people, like "what's the best way to get to the highway from here?" Or, "Where should I dispose of my used motor oil?" Or, "What do you think of these candidates?"
Who is it that you find yourself believing, and who is it that you find yourself ignoring? Keep asking random questions, and keep watching your own reaction, and how it feels when each different person gives you an answer. The feelings are from within you. They don't come from the other people. This is how con artists are able to be so successful. They know this game, they know how to act like your preconceived notions of who to believe.
The ego tells us that it knows who to listen to, who has experience, who has the Answers. Not the intellect.
Ever notice how you like a person, you hit it
off, they are really nice and they act like a real friend, they don't do
anything mean to you and they're funny and witty, and then you just
kind of don't really want to talk to them anymore, or hang out with
them, and you're not sure why? If you know they have not done
anything "bad" to make you wary of their motives, and you're not angry
at them for doing something mean or inconsiderate, and it's just that
your feeling of affinity for them has "gone away",
It can be hard to understand how much effort a narcissistic person puts into controlling others. An N parent for instance will encourage their child to go in a certain direction, and then block that direction. "You're such a good musician" and then not let them practice in the house, or take lessons, or give them rides to performances, or show any support. If the child of an N person shows normal emoti...
onal display, the N parent will often try to shut them down, regardless if the emotional display is joyful or sad, excited or angry. If the child (youth or adult) of an N person is trying to recover from some kind of trauma, the N parent will frequently criticize them, interrupt them, chastise them for their "mood swings", or blame them for the event. They will deny them even the support that a casual friend would give, and in fact will often exacerbate the trauma and make recovery difficult or impossible. The N parent will often tell people that their child has mental issues in order to destroy their credibility, and take away any support network the child would have.
An N partner will set their partner up for failure constantly; they will build them up to believe they are in love with them, and then leave them hanging, blow off plans, criticize them, treat them like they're a "bother". When the partner expresses sadness or pain about any of this, the N partner criticizes them for that too. It is a constant lose lose. Many N partners will tell everyone that their partner is crazy or emotionally reactive, when the truth is the "emotional reactions" are about the N's treatment toward them. The N will always throw the relationship, and their partner, under the bus, in order to preserve their self-image and ego, and seem to be unaware that this is not what "happy couples" do with and to their partners. They seem to be very confused about why they can not find happiness with another person, but will not look at what they might be doing to contribute to this problem. They certainly will not listen to their partner talk about what they could do to make things better, or what they are doing that causes their partner sadness or pain; at this point they have deemed the partner unworthy and a lesser person. The NON-N does not let go of a relationship just to preserve their feeling of being right; love is their goal, not being right, or defending themselves to the detriment of the relationship. They WANT to know what they can do to help make it better, as a team, with their partner. They WANT to learn how to treat their partner better, as much as possible.
N "friends" do all of this too; and they often use people for "sidekicks". An N "friend" does things like make plans with a person for weeks, even plans that cost the other person significant money, and blow them off at the last second with zero consideration for the other person. They will invite their sidekick to an event only to treat them as if they "tagged along", as if they didn't really want them there. They will try to influence people's opinions of their sidekick, so they can appear like the good, smart, innocent, or strong one of the two by contrast. They may influence the person's children, try to gain favor and undermine the person's authority, turn the children against the parent in covert ways, give them candy and gifts outside of the parent's parameters, break rules that the person has set, lead the child to believe that their parent (the N's sidekick) has significant mental deficiencies ~ disguising this as being a peacemaker or a good listener, even give the person's children drugs.
The N's motivation is to gain and maintain control and power. Friendship, empathy, good will, integrity and love will not come before this.
There are people all around us who are dealing with one of these, or all three at the same time, or some other situation with an N person. When someone seems like they "can't get out of their own way", or like they're always depressed, or always having some kind of trouble, we should not assume that they are creating all of their own problems.
What is it like having Narcissists in your family?
Picture being chased by a Grizzly Bear for 5 miles, falling and breaking your ankle; you make it home, the bear close on your heels; you are pounding on the door, yelling "open the door"! The N parent, sibling, or partner takes their time shuffling across the room, looking out the window, looking through the peephole, saying "who is it?"... eventually opening the door, annoyed at your yelling. They criticize the mud on your shoes and call you lazy when you collapse in a chair. They call you paranoid when you tell them to bolt the door, and refuse to look out the window to see if there is a bear outside. When you try to explain what happened, they accuse you of antagonizing the bear. They offer no sympathy, help, or even water, and probably just go back to whatever they were doing. You need a drink of water, so you limp to the kitchen; you can't reach the glasses, so you ask for help; they get you a glass, but huff and puff and roll their eyes.. you are so pathetic. They say "you should not have been near the woods". When you tell them that you weren't near the woods, that it came out of nowhere, they say "Yeah right". When you cry out in pain from your ankle, they say "You're just trying to get attention." When you ask for a ride to the hospital, (no they have not offered), they are too busy helping their friend decide what color carpeting to put in their living room, you are interrupting their important discussion with their important friend. You have to call a cab and spend your last $20. They will not come and visit you at the hospital, even if you are kept for three days. They might call you to get information in case someone asks where you are. If they do end up going to the hospital, they will stay very briefly, not really talk to you, and might imply to the staff that you are crazy or "difficult". When you get home, they will not let you recuperate, they will constantly tell you to do something, or imply that you are being lazy for laying around, or that you should just GET OVER IT. If you try to talk to them about any of this they will become angry. Your ankle will take much longer to heal because you keep getting up to get the N's demands done, or leaving to try to avoid their wrath. If they do bring you anything to eat, or tend to you, it will not be what you requested or needed, but it will be what they felt like making or doing. If you wanted chicken soup, you will be getting meatball soup, the kind you hate. And if you don't like it, you're a spoiled brat. (They are only tending to you in order to be able to say that they did it.) You may lose your job because when you went to the hospital, your manager called your house; the N picked up and said they hadn't seen you, but you were probably just fine, and that they would have you call when you got in. The N told your friend the same thing when they called, not that you were at the hospital with a broken ankle. The N tells no one where you are, or what happened, unless they think the person already knows. When people see you limp, the N will start telling them that you have made up another crazy story to get attention, and you are making their lives even harder with your "ankle issue", OR they will change the entire story and make themselves the "hero" who saved you, and has been caring for you like Florence Nightingale. Even if you were chased by a Grizzly Bear and survived, the story will STILL be all about the Narcissist.
Codependent families do things like call each
other about another family member who they have labeled as "emotionally
or mentally ill", because they are "concerned" about them, but they will
not speak directly to that family member. That would be too real, and
too direct; and it would be something like treating that scapegoated
family member as if they were a Real Person.
They create the scapegoat in order to have someone in their group who is always lower status than
they are, and to give that person real and direct support like they
would give a "Real Family Member" would risk elevating the scapegoat's
self-esteem and feeling of belonging, and that would upset the apple
cart. The status quo in the family is created, and then carefully
maintained, for years, no matter what it costs to whoever is elected
"Scapegoat".
Often a person who is not even close to being mentally ill
will be the person who is elected, only because they are the least
likely to cause consequences. They are often the person who is easiest to
paint "crazy", because of their gender, demeanor, birth order,
appearance, or occupation. Often a high IQ, attractive looks, or looks that are "different" make a person a target of jealousy and who seek to push the person down. Cousin Sally who has a quiet or happy
demeanor, who would rather sing in a band then go watch the men play
softball with everyone else, is much easier to scapegoat than Uncle
Frank, who is an electrician and plays softball on the town league.
Everyone disregards Sally's actual reality, they simply delete it and
replace it with their own; Sally has owned three businesses, is a
composer and songwriter, an accomplished artist, worked with special
needs children, is a good mother, does not go near illegal drugs, has a
clean driving record, and has helped many people through the years. And
yet they paint Sally as an irresponsible whackjob who "probably does
drugs" (although no one has ever seen her do them), and promiscuous
because THEY find her attractive; not even close to the truth. Frank,
however, has cheated on his wife several times, has received 2 DUI's,
has blown off his own child's school functions to play softball with
"the boys", would rather go bowling and drinking with his male friends
than do anything with his wife, and is still labeled a "Great, Stable
Guy".
Reputations are often simply a facade created by families and
communities, in order to maintain their illusion that makes them feel
safe and feel like they are part of the "Good People Crowd". There has
to be an outsider in order for there to be insiders.
Yeah so how are good parents supposed to keep
it together when everyone around them is pulling their kids apart?
There's only one or two people a kid has for parents. If both are not in
it with both feet, as in spiritually, mentally, emotionally, not just
financially, and support each other; if one undermines the other and
wants to gain power and respect over the other one by diminishing the
other..parent in the child's eyes, then you don't even have one full parent.The disrespectful one is the one who tries to turn the kid against the
other one; now the kid has no one he or she can respect.
So then what?
Who does the kid listen to then? There is a whole globe of humans who
hate, hate, hate, and they are the loudest monkeys, the ones who the
kids will hear first and most often. The ones who the kids will learn
from. The kid is not going to hear the polite, intelligent teacher who
respects both genders equally and lives life with integrity. The kid is
going to hear the disrespectful jerk teacher who favors certain kids
over others, and blatantly makes harmful gestures and noises to the kids
he harbors prejudice against. Or the teacher who makes light of doing
drugs or committing crime. Or the coach who trashes the opposite sex in
order to "motivate" the players. Or the cop who acts and talks like a
street thug. Or the "cool Aunt/Uncle/Friend" who GIVES a kid alcohol or drugs. Or the pastor who incites people to hate and attack instead
of seek peace. Or the community leader who treats people like they are
stupid.
Kids are children, they learn from every single person they come
across, and they don't know why adults do what they do, they just know
that they are being accepted as adults anyway for whatever they do, even
if it's ridiculously wrong. So if that's what you do to be a "man",
learn to walk and talk like a thug or a politician, act superior to
women, make fun of people, don't take anything seriously except for thug
stuff; avoid doing anything at all that wrecks you Tough guy image; or
if that's what you do to be a "woman", be mean to other women and try to
hurt them, act submissive and dumb to men and try to get their
attention and approval, learn to walk and talk like either a thug or a
valley girl, don't take anything seriously except for "chick" stuff,
make yourself into Mother Superior toward other women as another way to
dominate them, avoid doing anything at all that wrecks your Girl Image,
well then that's what they will probably do, because they learned it all
by watching.
"Blond or Red Haired Person" "Rich Person" "Dark Skinned Person" "Light Skinned Person" "Female Person" "Male Person" "Dumb Person" "Smart Person" "Mentally Ill Person" "Homosexual Person" "Heterosexual Person" "Ugly Person" "Beautiful Person" "Large Chested Woman" "Small Chested Woman" etc, etc, etc, reflects what is inside of US, not them.
It is all the same behavior, and it all comes from US, not THEM.
No matter what we have JUDGED the other person to be, in order to make
ourselves feel better, the fact remains that we choose how we treat
others. The labels we put on others are not what drives our behavior
toward them. WE are choosing our behavior, attempting to control others
with the way we treat them.
The important part of the sentence is not "disabled person" or "beautiful woman". It is "Being unkind, rude, dismissive, hostile, mean to the"...
Replace it with "Being kind, courteous, respectful, honestly fair and polite to the"...
When we practice this all the time, to everyone we interact with, then
we can finally get to know others as the real human beings they are.
Both
men and women have emotions and express them. However I learned that
there have been studies that show that a woman's voice affects the
emotional part of a man's brain. This causes men to think that women
are so emotional when they speak. If this is the case, how would men
even know how to discern communication with a woman about an issue
without feeling emotional triggers? Whether you are a man or a woman,
do you find this to be true for you or not?
Harry KruegerSorry
to say, communication, especially of feelings, is a vanishing skill
among men. Parents feel more threatened by each other, don't know how to
both honestly give and receive emotions,
and all too often tend to focus on the "excesses" of their partners,
not because of the uniqueness of their brain function, but because of
their own insecurity. Sorry to say, this gets passed on to young men and
women by example... and becomes a strengthened norm of behavior when
they enter into relationships.
Lisa ConcidineInsecurity
does get thrown into the mix. Having a healthy relationship by being
able to nurture it is an important skill most people have not seen in
practice.
To answer your question, I find it to be true for women as well. I noticed this in myself when I was about 12; in middle school I became aware that the teachers were being seen and treated more according to gender stereotypes than their actual personality traits, by almost all of the kids, not just the boys, and pretty equally among the kids; and then I looked around to see that this was pretty common, and no one was teaching the kids anything about it at all. I had to learn by myself to hear and see closer to reality than what my conditioning wanted me to hear and see, but I was lucky to have had the influence of some relatives who were good examples of objectivity and less bias, that might be why I caught it at all. I also noticed that the ADULT male teachers were by FAR the most gender biased, as a group. The male exceptions stood out like sore thumbs, but seemed to have given up railing against this crappy paradigm. (They treated everyone with respect, but seemed very leary of standing up for those who were disrespected due to gender bias, as if they had been bitten before.)
Three female teachers come to mind, all very high intelligence, and one in particular had a very objective personality. Most of the male teachers were highly emotional in their manner, and seemed completely unaware of it. The really fascinating and disturbing thing was how most of the kids and adults as well had it backwards; they rated the female teachers as MORE emotional, and the male teachers as LESS emotional, and it was very clearly quite the opposite. Most of the emotional displays from the female teachers were limited to happiness and frustration with being treated with blatant disrespect, however the emotional displays from the male teachers ran the entire spectrum on a daily basis. It illustrated that the female teachers were much more aware of their behavior and vocalizations reflecting their emotional states, and controlled this much more, and that the male teachers were unaware of their emotional states being reflected in their behavior and vocalizations, and didn't seem to bother trying to control it. Which illustrated, on a cultural level, that the female teachers were EXPECTED by others to behave non emotionally, and tried harder to control their behavior, obviously due to consequences if they did not, and the male teachers were NOT under scrutiny for this, but apparently felt so comfortable with their emotional displays that they were not even aware of them.
Both males and females tend to "hear" a male voice as informative, and a female voice as emotional. Varying from person to person of course; it's still mostly socialized from birth, and passed on, like Harry said. Mother does most of the caretaking of an infant, and the child is listening to her voice all day long, and the voices of other women as well when they go to daycare or when female relatives and friends are there;
From the baby's POV, Women surround me, care for me, clean me, feed me, hold me, clean me, are constantly responding to my emotional displays, constantly making noises and gestures that signal emotion from themselves, and are continually controlling my movements. They are also the ones who make me do things I do not want to do, and they often try to manipulate my emotions with all kinds of words, tones, and gestures.
For example when a baby does not want a bath, or does not want to eat vegetables, but we make them anyway. Women often tend to try to manipulate the baby by trying to convince her to feel happy about the event or to "like" the food, even if they hate it. Men do not do this nearly as much, they often resort to force by making their voice sound threatening. They also give up trying to force the baby to do things the baby is protesting much more quickly.
Both men and women often feel personally offended when they cannot seem to "make" the baby do what they want, and often blame the baby for not responding to their personal methods. The baby doesn't get convinced that they want a bath; a woman may say "She is fussy" or "She doesn't like me" or even "She's not normal". And when the baby does not stop protesting when a man tries the "authority" voice, he may say "She doesn't listen" or "She is insolent" or "She's a spoiled brat".
If you break this down further, the gender of the BABY is just as important of a factor as the gender of the parent, as far as the parent's gender bias behavior~ MOST parents whether male of female, are much more tolerant of male babies' and children's behavior, and much more micro-managing of girl babies' and children's behavior, right from birth. They seem to view a boy who does not respond to control and discipline cues as feisty, independent, and strong, and do little to change it; and a girl with IDENTICAL behavior in a very negative light, and punish them for it. (Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the most common reaction.)
So, girls end up being hyper vigilant and self conscious of their behavior and emotional displays; there are only a couple of emotional expressions that they are "allowed", and so they often channel all their emotional expressions to these. It is why women often express anger with tears, that doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much as a little girl expressing anger with a confident vocalization. Boys tend to be very self conscious ONLY of emotional displays that could be labeled feminine, and therefore channel any of these into a masculine display, or hide them. Both genders end up with various interpersonal problems because of this.
Then fast forward from babyhood through childhood and adolescence; by now kids have internalized all the facades being paraded around by adults, who internalized the same, or similar, facades when they were children. The plumber is a man, he comes to the house and TELLS Mom what is going on and how he is going to fix it. He does not display much emotion, because he is not being challenged. Mom, however, is doing the habit of submissive listening, which women often learn to do growing up in order to avoid being challenged and bullied. So the child sees: Plumber Man is confident and knowledgable, and Mom has no idea about anything having to do with plumbing, and is deferring all authority to the Plumber Man. The Plumber Man is only displaying skill and knowledge, while Mom is displaying zero skill or knowledge, and only displaying appeasement, which shows as emotional. If Dad comes home during this exchange, then Plumber Man will divert his attention to Dad, and blow Mom off. Dad and Plumber Man will then probably have a discussion that sounds like knowledge about the subject, and they will leave Mom out, as if she is not "one of them" (a real adult). Dad does not do anything to change this, he is probably enjoying the display of being spoken to as a "Man" by another "Man" who "Knows About Man Things", and enjoying feeling superior to his wife.
The child watches all of this.
Mom might show frustration, annoyance, chagrin, humiliation, even anger, but will try to cover it up, and the men will probably not notice at all. She was most likely punished or ridiculed for showing those emotions as a youth, and also knows that if the men notice, they will not say "Oh I'm sorry for treating you so disrespectfully! Please join in on the discussion with us! We want you to be a part of this!" They will do the childish/superiority complex thing and say "Calm down, what are you all upset for?! What do you want to talk about this stuff anyway, this is Man Talk". She will probably hide it from the men, but the child will see it, being extremely tuned in to Mom's social signals. Thus, the child again sees "Men are knowledgeable and informative and skilled, and Mom is not. Men speak with confident tones and pleasantries toward each other, and Mom is mysteriously emotional for no discernible reason." It can also look to the child, when Mom leaves the room, that the Men are being socially polite, and Mom is not, and therefore that is why she is not included in the conversation.
This scenario happens all the time in this culture, over and over, reinforcing itself. The child might realize what was going on if Mom's SISTER was a Plumber, and it was known that she was very knowledgeable and skilled, and this was a normalized part of the child's life. If she came over and the men treated HER in this way as well, then the child might get a glimmer of something beinTo answer your question, I find it to be true for women as well. I noticed this in myself when I was about 12; in middle school I became aware that the teachers were being seen and treated more according to gender stereotypes than their actual personality traits, by almost all of the kids, not just the boys, and pretty equally among the kids; and then I looked around to see that this was pretty common, and no one was teaching the kids anything about it at all. I had to learn by myself to hear and see closer to reality than what my conditioning wanted me to hear and see, but I was lucky to have had the influence of some relatives who were good examples of objectivity and less bias, that might be why I caught it at all. I also noticed that the ADULT male teachers were by FAR the most gender biased, as a group. The male exceptions stood out like sore thumbs, but seemed to have given up railing against this crappy paradigm. (They treated everyone with respect, but seemed very leary of standing up for those who were disrespected due to gender bias, as if they had been bitten before.)
Three female teachers come to mind, all very high intelligence, and one in particular had a very objective personality. Most of the male teachers were highly emotional in their manner, and seemed completely unaware of it. The really fascinating and disturbing thing was how most of the kids and adults as well had it backwards; they rated the female teachers as MORE emotional, and the male teachers as LESS emotional, and it was very clearly quite the opposite. Most of the emotional displays from the female teachers were limited to happiness and frustration with being treated with blatant disrespect, however the emotional displays from the male teachers ran the entire spectrum on a daily basis. It illustrated that the female teachers were much more aware of their behavior and vocalizations reflecting their emotional states, and controlled this much more, and that the male teachers were unaware of their emotional states being reflected in their behavior and vocalizations, and didn't seem to bother trying to control it. Which illustrated, on a cultural level, that the female teachers were EXPECTED by others to behave non emotionally, and tried harder to control their behavior, obviously due to consequences if they did not, and the male teachers were NOT under scrutiny for this, but apparently felt so comfortable with their emotional displays that they were not even aware of them.
Both males and females tend to "hear" a male voice as informative, and a female voice as emotional. Varying from person to person of course; it's still mostly socialized from birth, and passed on, like Harry said. Mother does most of the caretaking of an infant, and the child is listening to her voice all day long, and the voices of other women as well when they go to daycare or when female relatives and friends are there;
From the baby's POV, Women surround me, care for me, clean me, feed me, hold me, clean me, are constantly responding to my emotional displays, constantly making noises and gestures that signal emotion from themselves, and are continually controlling my movements. They are also the ones who make me do things I do not want to do, and they often try to manipulate my emotions with all kinds of words, tones, and gestures.
For example when a baby does not want a bath, or does not want to eat vegetables, but we make them anyway. Women often tend to try to manipulate the baby by trying to convince her to feel happy about the event or to "like" the food, even if they hate it. Men do not do this nearly as much, they often resort to force by making their voice sound threatening. They also give up trying to force the baby to do things the baby is protesting much more quickly.
Both men and women often feel personally offended when they cannot seem to "make" the baby do what they want, and often blame the baby for not responding to their personal methods. The baby doesn't get convinced that they want a bath; a woman may say "She is fussy" or "She doesn't like me" or even "She's not normal". And when the baby does not stop protesting when a man tries the "authority" voice, he may say "She doesn't listen" or "She is insolent" or "She's a spoiled brat".
If you break this down further, the gender of the BABY is just as important of a factor as the gender of the parent, as far as the parent's gender bias behavior~ MOST parents whether male of female, are much more tolerant of male babies' and children's behavior, and much more micro-managing of girl babies' and children's behavior, right from birth. They seem to view a boy who does not respond to control and discipline cues as feisty, independent, and strong, and do little to change it; and a girl with IDENTICAL behavior in a very negative light, and punish them for it. (Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the most common reaction.)
So, girls end up being hyper vigilant and self conscious of their behavior and emotional displays; there are only a couple of emotional expressions that they are "allowed", and so they often channel all their emotional expressions to these. It is why women often express anger with tears, that doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much as a little girl expressing anger with a confident vocalization. Boys tend to be very self conscious ONLY of emotional displays that could be labeled feminine, and therefore channel any of these into a masculine display, or hide them. Both genders end up with various interpersonal problems because of this.
Then fast forward from babyhood through childhood and adolescence; by now kids have internalized all the facades being paraded around by adults, who internalized the same, or similar, facades when they were children. The plumber is a man, he comes to the house and TELLS Mom what is going on and how he is going to fix it. He does not display much emotion, because he is not being challenged. Mom, however, is doing the habit of submissive listening, which women often learn to do growing up in order to avoid being challenged and bullied. So the child sees: Plumber Man is confident and knowledgable, and Mom has no idea about anything having to do with plumbing, and is deferring all authority to the Plumber Man. The Plumber Man is only displaying skill and knowledge, while Mom is displaying zero skill or knowledge, and only displaying appeasement, which shows as emotional. If Dad comes home during this exchange, then Plumber Man will divert his attention to Dad, and blow Mom off. Dad and Plumber Man will then probably have a discussion that sounds like knowledge about the subject, and they will leave Mom out, as if she is not "one of them" (a real adult). Dad does not do anything to change this, he is probably enjoying the display of being spoken to as a "Man" by another "Man" who "Knows About Man Things", and enjoying feeling superior to his wife.
The child watches all of this.
Mom might show frustration, annoyance, chagrin, humiliation, even anger, but will try to cover it up, and the men will probably not notice at all. She was most likely punished or ridiculed for showing those emotions as a youth, and also knows that if the men notice, they will not say "Oh I'm sorry for treating you so disrespectfully! Please join in on the discussion with us! We want you to be a part of this!" They will do the childish/superiority complex thing and say "Calm down, what are you all upset for?! What do you want to talk about this stuff anyway, this is Man Talk". She will probably hide it from the men, but the child will see it, being extremely tuned in to Mom's social signals. Thus, the child again sees "Men are knowledgeable and informative and skilled, and Mom is not. Men speak with confident tones and pleasantries toward each other, and Mom is mysteriously emotional for no discernible reason." It can also look to the child, when Mom leaves the room, that the Men are being socially polite, and Mom is not, and therefore that is why she is not included in the conversation.
This scenario happens all the time in this culture, over and over, reinforcing itself. The child might realize what was going on if Mom's SISTER was a Plumber, and it was known that she was very knowledgeable and skilled, and this was a normalized part of the child's life. If she came over and the men treated HER in this way as well, then the child might get a glimmer of something being amiss. However, a male child might get less of a glimmer, because he may be fantasizing about the day he grows up and gets to be a member of the "MEN who are allowed to boss women around" club. A female child, however, may ALSO be fantasizing about the day she grows up and gets to be a member of the SAME CLUB, not realizing that she will be on the receiving end of the bossing because of her gender, and that she will NOT be "seen" as an individual who is "more worthy" than the rest of the women.
Because the children witness the males treating Mom with disrespect, they become confused over and over about Mom's actual authority, does she deserve to have the respect of an authority figure? (If the MEN don't think so, then why do I have to listen to her? She obviously doesn't know what she's talking about anyway half the time, at least that's how the men treat her, so it must be true, since they are skilled and knowledgeable. All she does is do trivial and emotional things, not Real and Serious things like the Men. And all women are similar to Mom, and all men are similar to Dad.)
This child is being conditioned to hear and see males as skilled, knowledgeable, and emotionally confident, and females as unskilled, less knowledgeable, inexperienced, submissive, dramatic, and UNDESERVING of the full array of Respect and Displays of Respect, Integrity, and Courtesy that are given to men.
(All it would take for this to change is for one single generation to wake up and raise their children without gender bias, but I personally don't think humans as a species are capable of it.)g amiss. However, a male child might get less of a glimmer, because he may be fantasizing about the day he grows up and gets to be a member of the "MEN who are allowed to boss women around" club.
This child is being conditioned to hear and see males as skilled, knowledgeable, and emotionally confident, and females as unskilled, less knowledgeable, inexperienced, submissive, dramatic, and undeserving of the full array of Respect and Displays of Respect and Courtesy that are given to men.
(All it would take for this to change is for one single generation to wake up and raise their children without gender bias, but I personally don't think humans as a species are capable of it.)
