Biased Point Of View

"Biased Point Of View" is what humans do when they/we talk about a subject  as if the whole world is the same sex, or race, age, etc. as themselves.
It can be found in quite a lot of forms, forums and venues, from creative prose to poetry, to songwriting, to unfortunately journalism, education, and instructional material that's supposed to be non-biased. It can even be found in many religious writings (including the Bible, the Quran, and many other religious or anti-religious materials), also in medical and psychiatric papers, and also in various science studies and reports.
When biased point of view is seen in creative writing and other creative projects, then it can be taken into consideration as part of the expression of the producer of the creative work. It should be pointed out during study, for example "Leaves of Grass" by W. Whitman; while much of it could be taken as gender-neutral, there are points that show that Whitman is writing in "male-only" and "male-favored" point of view, not from a "human" inclusive point of view. A very large amount of poetry and other creative writings are written in specifically biased point of view, which excludes or sometimes demeans and attempts to invalidate the point of view of others.
A song by the rock band Led Zeppelin, for example, states in the lyrics, "The soul of a woman was created below", which does not require further explaining. There are thousands, if not millions, of examples throughout human creative writing and other projects that expose the producers' exclusive and biased point of view. Refusing to recognize this fact seems very strange and agenda-based; there is no legitimate reason to deny that it exists.

There are more male-biased examples throughout human history mostly because more males than females have been permitted to create and publish their original work over the centuries. One will find the same holds true in relation to race and ancestry; those who are permitted or encouraged to create original work and have it published and preserved are the ones whose point of view will be seen, of course.
There is also an element of a higher objectivity in point of view in females because girls are often actually instructed to empathize with boys, while boys are often not instructed to empathize with girls. Also, being the mother of both daughters and sons, mothers in general tend to have more interest and empathy in both male and female offspring's real point of view than fathers in general, and are therefore more likely to have the ability to see the world from more than their own personal point of view.

When biased point of view is seen in Journalism, educational material, textbooks, instructional material, and religious writings, then the issue of agenda-based influence and conditioning is introduced.
Journalists who report from male point of view, female point of view, racial point of view, class point of view, and POLITICAL point of view are not doing "real" journalism, they are projecting their own personal bias onto whatever they're covering.

Educational material is agenda-based when there is a political, religious, anti-religious, sexist, or racist slant to the content, which means someone is trying to control the way students feel, think, and see the world and themselves.

A carpentry teacher can teach all of the students how to make a napkin holder, OR that teacher can IMPLY that only certain students would be good at it, or would understand how to use the tools and work with wood. One is actually objective teaching, and the other is subjective, biased, and agenda-based.

The story of the Little Red Hen was used by a first grade teacher to influence political agenda on the students. The story is straightforward, about putting in work and help toward something, and then getting to benefit from it (Little Red Hen is going to bake bread, but no one will help her do any of the tasks needed such as harvesting wheat or kneading the dough, so she does it all herself and then keeps it for herself and her family, without giving to those who refused to help when she asked them, which is a healthy and "normal" action.)
The aforementioned first grade teacher told the story to the students, but then skewed the meaning and asked the students questions such as "Why do you think the Little Red Hen was so selfish?" This is agenda-based "teaching", the story was not written that way, the teacher purposely twisted the meaning to match his/her political beliefs, and then "taught" the students in such manner.

Many religious writings are written in only one gender's or one race's point of view, due to the sex or race of the writer and producer of the piece. Those who are not familiar with objective "human" point of view, or perceiving the world outside of their own sex, race, or class, often express themselves and report stories in speech and writing in a biased point of view. So everything is from a male, TO a male, or from a female, TO a female, or from a certain racial ancestry TO another member of the same ancestry. It is often simply taught as  religious instruction WITHOUT recognizing that the content is completely biased because of the producer's personal point of view. Some writings we can see in the Bible, for example, are obviously personal instructions or advice to a son from a father, (specific, real people), but very few people seem to recognize this, or understand that it does NOT imply that the male point of view is "more righteous" than the female, or "wiser", or "higher" in wisdom on some esoteric level. They are simply the writings from a male, in male point of view, addressing his son, because he had a real son.

The less able a person is to perceive the world objectively, in the point of view outside one's own, the more likely he or she is to express themselves or convey instruction IN the person's OWN biased personal point of view, TO others who are similar to them physically.

Seeing this in action right now is very simple and easy: Turn on any Major League Sports show and listen to the reporters or announcers, and turn on most media "news" networks in the US. Listen to most modern stand-up comedians, there are few who can do comedy outside of their personal biases and prejudices. Flip through comic books, listen to song lyrics. Watch practically any sit-com, some are more obvious than others (The Big Bang Theory is an obvious one). Read blogs online. Thousands of movies.
In fact, bias in the media, politics, creative projects and journalism may be at an all-time HIGH, in spite of the "information age" we supposedly live in.

To be sure, a person is not automatically biased because of their sex or race; there are and have always been both males and females, and people from any ancestry who are capable of relatively objective point of view. It helps when one sees one's self as a "Human being" first, who happens to have a certain background and be of one sex or the other.

Taking Things Personally

Taking everything personally is one of the issues that those with certain disorders including Narcissism have. They tend to project this onto others as well, including their children.
Children who grow up in families where Narcissism and/or Codependence is present are often confused about how to define "personal" or "non-personal".
So if Susan is angry about something that happened at school, when she comes home she tries to express that anger in a healthy way (talking about it in relatively polite language, not directed at those she is speaking to). However, someone in the home interprets her anger as being directed at THEM, and so instead of listening to Susan or respecting her emotions, they try to shut her down, and tell her she's "wrong" or "bad". They imply that she's overreacting, or that she must have done something to cause it. They also may talk about Susan being an "angry, hostile person", or even being "unstable", instead of treating her with basic respect.
This changes the entire situation from non-personal to personal; the behavior of the other person at Susan's school is now somehow SUSAN'S responsibility, and her anger about it is something she should feel guilty or ashamed about. So now, instead of the person's behavior being NOT about Susan (which it isn't, in reality), it's turned into being ALL about Susan, and she is being blamed and shamed for having and expressing emotion about it. So now, Susan feels self-conscious about her normal, healthy emotions, and feels responsible for someone else treating her poorly.
The reason for this invalidation and blame toward Susan has nothing to do with Susan herself, or for anything she's done. Susan did not come in the house slamming doors or breaking things, she did not attack anyone verbally or physically, she didn't kick the dog, she did not get drunk and drive her car, she didn't do anything at all that would actually be "hostile" or "aggressive behavior". She simply verbally expressed her natural, normal anger about something real that happened to her, and tried to tell the story about the event, of course in an "angry tone", because that's how humans express emotions.
Whatever we feel influences the tone and flow of our speech in some way, and that includes everyone except sociopaths. Some sound "more expressive" and others less so, but it's healthy and normal to have a "tone", and also a volume change, that expresses our feelings.
It is NOT the same as "raging", "exploding", or 'displaying aggression and hostility".
They can't discern other people's expressions of emotions because they see everything as being about them, and affecting them directly. Anything and anyone that is in their world is "personal".
They make terrible caregivers because they include every patient and client in their personal circle, and take everything others do and say as a personal engagement with THEM. So for example, if they were a nurse in a hospital, they would take it personally and become annoyed or angry if a patient in a psych. ward "gives them an attitude" (because they have a certain disorder, trauma, are sad, are upset about something, or are severely depressed), or if an injury patient in great pain kept calling them, or a patient was not responding as expected to treatment, or if they had to clean someone. As parents, when their child is upset, they take it personally and as a blow to their ego and their "serenity", so they will discipline/admonish the child for expressing their feelings (no matter what the emotion is, even fear or pain). If the child doesn't like certain food, they take it as a personal insult, or as the child rebelling against them. Anytime the child resists, disagrees, or displays emotion, they take it as a personal insult and "rebellion" against them. Anytime the child displays autonomy or initiative, or doesn't fully comply or submit to them will be taken as an insult, as aggression, and as "rebellion" against them. Anytime the child displays affection or admiration for others, they will again take it as an insult and rebellion against them, and they may resent both the child and the other person.
If a person expressing anger or any other emotion is someone they see as being "lower status" than themselves, they feel entitled to "admonish" or "punish" them for their healthy emotional expressions.
If a person expressing an emotion is someone they see as "higher status" than themselves, they may still take it personally, but will most likely "allow" the person to express themselves, and even take pride in being "understanding" of the person.
Micro-judging others, trying to control others with shame, trying to cast shame for anything and everything others do, say, and express are common in such families and groups. In order to stay out of the target range of the micro-judging and shaming, certain members "go along to get along", and will follow along with gossip, slander, ostracism and cruelty, eschewing fairness, compassion, respect, or justice, and will deny it to kingdom come, defending themselves and others who are doing it.
Blame will always be cast on the person who is the target of the gossip, shaming, ostracism, or abuse.
(If pressed for a reason why a person is being treated poorly and rejected, there will be given all kinds of character assassinating descriptions, like "he's self-centered" or "she's lazy" or "he's unappreciative" or "she's a slut" or "he takes advantage", but no real events will be given, because usually there aren't any; if events are given, they will often either be very petty but exaggerated to be serious (like "she didn't go to the dinner") or they will be from years ago (when he was 17 he showed up drunk) or it will be something that no one else gets judged negatively about (she got divorced!) or it will be blame for something that someone else actually did. The person who is targeted is usually actually a victim of someone else's abuse, and has been scapegoated in order to "make it go away". The person may be a victim of some other trauma or injury, and their symptoms and recovery were too annoying to deal with for others in the group. Sometimes the person is just a target of someone's resentment or envy, or refuses to comply with the control, ego, and egg-shell walking around others in the group.)

The more families and individuals within a community who are affected by Narcissism or Codependence there are, the more this "taking things personally", "status-mongering", "micro-judging", "self-righteousness", "clique behavior", "domination displays", "envy-based retaliation" and "blame/responsibility evasion" is evident in the local community on all levels, and the effect can be exponential. One person and family affects another, which affects another, and so on.

Secret to the Secret

The Secret to the Secret is within the feeling of safety, sanctuary, confidence, gratitude, and enjoyment ~:)

Fear is a block, anxiety is a block, worry is a block, frustration, resentment, envy, shame, and hostility are blocks to manifestation.
Guilt is not shame, and is not a block, but shame can result if one does not take accountability for something that one feels guilt about.
Being accountable for one's actions and behaviors clear many of the blocks, along with gratitude; gratitude fuels the process of manifestation. So does appreciation of life force around us, (including bugs, spiders, reptiles, and humans, as well as plants and cute and cuddly animals; life force is life force, it's energy), and appreciation for the amazing beauty and abundance that surrounds us.

Controllers and abusers cause these feelings in others which prevents them from manifesting, achieving, and gaining.We cause ourselves these feelings as well, but usually because we've experienced fear and anxiety in the past.

A loop gets created in a person's mind and therefore life: One is worried about survival, whether it's physical or otherwise, therefore one puts more energy into worrying and anxiety, or fear, and one does not stay in the feeling of safety, confidence, and enjoyment. One's contemporaries are also in worry, anxiety and fear, and are therefore also not in the feeling of safety, confidence and enjoyment.

Being in this loop means a person may be doing things to calm or escape his or her worry, anxiety, and frustration, instead of doing things and being in the "place" where one would feel good, safe, and happy. When we are in the place of feeling safe, feeling clean (physically and conscience-wise), and feeling enjoyment for what we are doing, we are much more able to achieve one's little or big intentions, with or without manifestation.

 We can achieve this combination of rather pleasant, calm, and warm feelings, or rather remember, (almost all of us have felt this at several points throughout our lives) without the use of substances; in fact, since the "high" from a substance is always temporary, is from an external source, and does not actually cause the full impact of what we're looking for, it's more of a hindrance than a help. Also, substance use is usually accompanied by feelings that block and inhibit what we're looking for. So in achieving and remembering these feelings, we are much more likely to find them if we are "sober". We can find this "place" with any number of methods, but some of the easier ones are laughter (without malice or dark sarcasm), certain very soothing, mentally stimulating, and emotionally or spiritually uplifting music and songs, playing fun games with people whom we like and can trust, eating excellent food either by ourselves or with others, again whom we like and can really trust, things that help us get our minds out of worrying, and focused on the good thing that we are doing. We may want or need to mentally understand our anxiety issues, and what the root cause of our unsafe feelings is, and then teach ourselves how to feel safe.

When we are in the company of others who are also feeling safe, clean, and enjoying what they're doing, we are connected with their positive frequency and resonance, and the energy expands and increases. It does actually make a difference whose company we are keeping, whether it's personal or at work, and it makes a difference for others as well when they are keeping our company. There is no need to make drama about rejecting or shaming others, especially since that would inhibit the feelings we're looking for, it's simply good to remember what "RESONANCE" is, and how it applies to being in the company of others and in them being in our company (are we contributing to the atmosphere, or dampening it, and are they contributing or dampening? Remember it's not about shame or blame, both of those will dampen the energy, whether we apply them to ourselves or someone else.)

The Secret to the Secret is within the feeling of safety, sanctuary, confidence, gratitude, and enjoyment ~:)