Arrested Development, Childhood Stages

Codependent people who also have Narcissism issues can be stuck in the childhood stage before one learns that the world does NOT actually revolve around one's self. If they have not matured past this stage for whatever reason, then they can't "know better", much more than a child at that development stage would.

So if you are a person in their personal life, they probably see you as a person who "should be" giving to them, supporting them, praising them, and helping them on a ONE WAY basis, the same as a child expects all of that from the adults in their life.

The child expects their parent to come to their school concert and watch them, clap for them, and give them encouragement and support, which is normal and healthy, and if the parents DON'T do these things, then the child will probably experience unpleasant or even scary feelings, and may also feel angry toward their parent.
BUT~ the child does not think about supporting, encouraging, or helping their PARENT with his or her activities, tasks, and goals in the same way.
Part of growing up is learning about being supportive, but "MUTUAL SUPPORT" that one would find between PEERS of the same age is not and should not be expected in a Parent/child relationship.

The Parent is expected to help and support the child a lot more than the other way around in a healthy functioning family. It's mostly ONE WAY.
Over time, the parent guides the child about being supportive of others, both by teaching and by MODELING the behavior. (Timmy learns about gift-giving, and why we give gifts, by his parents' behavior toward him and toward one another, and also from being directly shown and taught about it, like talking about what present he's going to give his sister for her birthday, and helping to pick out a card and gift for his Mom or Dad.)


Think about what Timmy is being "taught" if his parents behave otherwise.
If Dad goes golfing on his Sister's birthday and misses the party, or makes fun of women while picking a Valentine's Day card with Timmy for Timmy's mother, or if his Mom constantly criticizes, corrects, and puts down his Sister and his Dad, or if his Dad doesn't show up for Timmy's School Play after promising he would be there.
What is Timmy being taught when his birthday party is a huge celebration, but his Sister is given a minimal acknowledgment every year for hers. Or, vice versa.
Or if one parent gets big acknowlegement and recognition for various things, big celebrations for birthdays and Holidays, but the other does not. 
So if a child gets stuck for whatever reason in this childhood developmental stage and carries it into physical adulthood, where he or she sees others as people who should be supportive, helpful, and praising toward them, (and often "let them" be "The Boss", like they're still playing pretend games of "Soldiers", "Cowboys", "Rock Star", "Office", or "Tea Party"), but NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, then they are probably showing Narcissistic behaviors and traits.

YOU have to help ME, YOU should be supportive and understanding of ME, YOU should tolerate MY behaviors, YOU should PRAISE ME and give ME recognition and acknowledgement, YOU should LISTEN TO ME, YOU should treat me with RESPECT, YOU should come when I call you...
BUT...
I DO NOT 'HAVE TO' DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

I don't WANT to do them, and I don't feel like you're important enough to deserve them, anyway.
You are here FOR ME, I'm not here "FOR YOU".

And I get to be The Boss. Because this is MY game, not yours.

I'm the one who is important, not you, so I get to be the boss over you, and I get all the support, praise, sympathy, attention, recognition, and rewards, both from other people and from you. You don't get any, because you're not an important person. I am.

If you played "Lone Ranger" with them, they would probably think that you SEE THEM as "The Lone Ranger", because he's the BOSS and the "star" of the show.
You can be Tonto if THEY ALLOW you to, he's a sidekick but he's pretty cool... or they might tell you that you can't be Tonto, that you have to be the random "maiden in distress" or "scared shopkeeper under attack".

Childhood Developmental Delay.
They're still back there, and they may not know it.
One can not be more mature than one is.

Abusers And Targets Have In Common: Weakened Boundaries

Injured or weakened boundaries is something that both abuse targets and abusers have in common.
That's often the thing people mistake for "kindred spirit".

~Someone who has similar injuries as I do, therefore they must "get" me, "get" what it's like to be targeted with abusive behavior and prejudice, "get" where I'm coming from and my point of view, and respect me as a valid human being.

Having injured or weakened boundaries does not mean anything at all about a person's character, core personality, values, biases, motives, brain function, or point of view.

But that's something that most people seem to learn the hard way, given that few are actually taught or guided about these issues while growing up.

In fact, many adults in many cultures and communities will deny that it even exists, and will often put the blame for abusive, bullying, or prejudice behavior on the targets instead of the perpetrators. They actually teach targets to blame themselves for other people's ill treatment toward them, and to sympathize instead with bullies, controllers, and perpetrators.
They often even encourage a reaction of "compassion", empathy, and extra tolerance for them, far above and beyond their "compassion" for targets and victims.

One can witness this in action by watching the way many male trauma-victims are treated BEFORE and AFTER their trauma experience. For example, a male fire-fighter first-responder to the Twin Towers tragedy was treated with great bias, as a walking "hero", being given the "privilege treatment" on a regular basis  BEFORE he experienced PTSD symptoms. But AFTER he started displaying them, others around him stopped giving him the "Hero/Great Guy" treatment, and started treated him like an "annoying whiner with Victim-mentality".
Those people included his own "friends" and family members.  

One can witness this in many Veteran's hospitals. Men who were treated as "Heroes" and given the "Great Guy" treatment by their community are often treated with amazing disrespect and disdain when they seek treatment for PTSD or other problems they're experiencing, not only by the people around them generally, but also by many Hospital staff members, never mind the government or insurance companies. 

This REJECTING OF and TURNING ON those who have experienced trauma, who show symptoms of the effects of trauma, or even who are known to have been targeted/victimized by abuse, sabotage, or BIAS and PREJUDICE (racism, sexism, etc) has been going on in our species for centuries.
It is modeled and passed down from generation to generation, all over the world, possibly in nearly every culture and country.

The ILL EFFECTS of this behavior can be seen very clearly in our world, both on a large scale and a personal scale. People actually TEACH other people to sympathize with and allow bullies and controllers to treat others with bias and contempt, and allow them to get their way, and gain power and resources.

A large part of this is basic Chimpanzee behavior, where members of the troupe allow bullying and aggressive behavior because they don't know any better. They grew up that way, so they don't do anything to change it.

Bonobos, also Chimpanzees, do NOT allow aggression or bullying, and live peacefully.
Studies have shown that a Chimpanzees placed in Bonobo society will adapt and learn their peaceful, non-aggressive, non-bullying, minimal "hierarchy" social behaviors.

Dr. Phil, Helping Or Hurting Society

One of the reasons I like to watch Dr. Phil is because the show helps illustrate and demonstrate the differences in various disorders and illnesses.
While I personally don't like the fact that human beings are put on display for the world to see and to judge, especially since it's international television (their reputations are forever altered), this also demonstrates some very important things:

First, the show has been on for several years, a rational adult would know that their "dirty laundry" is going to be aired, and that there's a possibility that their "laundry" is going to look even dirtier on the show, but they voluntarily go on the show anyway.

Second, if a rational adult is aware of this and goes on anyway, there must be a really good reason for it; why are so many people so desperate to get proper "help" that they would go on international television and tell the whole world their problems?

Third, if so many people are doing this and even fighting to get on the show, then there is either:

A huge national crisis of very poor boundaries and self-esteem;

a huge national crisis of getting a charge out of throwing others under the bus in front of other people;

a huge national crisis of substance abuse, addiction, and drug-influenced thinking;

a huge national crisis of hierarchy-creation, where people make some people "HEROES" and practically worship them, and make other people either "losers" or "villains" so they have an excuse to reject and disrespect them;

a huge national crisis of basic narcissism (not knowing how, or CARING about how to treat other people, nurture relationships, care for or about children, respect and care for others, or maintain family ties);

a huge national crisis of a complete breakdown in all things related to emotional health, mental health, the judicial system, and the healthcare system;

A huge national breakdown of normal human maturation processes (adults guiding children to become mature, happy, genuinely confident (not arrogant) adults who respect other people and know what ethics and integrity are, and why they're important).

WHY would so many people allow all of their "dirty laundry" to be aired on Television in front of millions of people, never mind Dr. Phil's audience with the oohing, ahhing, laughing at them, and shaking their heads in judgment.

They are either OBLIVIOUS to it, and to the potential damage to their own reputations, because they have deeper disorder issues than is being aired on the show, OR they are SO DESPERATE to get COMPETENT HELP that they would go on the show in front of millions of people.

Why would a rational adult be so desperate if "competent help" or support  (even just HEALTHY SUPPORT from friends or family), was available to them in their own area?

Well, they wouldn't be.    

There's a lot that can be learned from watching Dr. Phil, whether one agrees with the show, or with him, or not.

There's also a lot that can be learned about ourselves while watching the show by monitoring our own reactions to guests on the show, and to Dr. Phil himself.
For example we can monitor our habit of judging and "assessing" other human beings ~ our own level of arrogance and judgmentalness.

We can monitor our own tendency to categorically VALUE or DEVALUE others based on whether we AGREE with them or not (such as: Dr. Phil is an "okay guy" because we liked and agreed with his assessments, or Dr. Phil is a "Great Guy" because we like how he "tells it like it is" and because he's a large man with broad shoulders;
or Dr. Phil is a "hack" because we didn't agree with a couple of things he said, OR because we're envious of his success and position;
or Dr. Phil is a "Great Guy" (or a 'jerk") because he reminds us of a teacher, coach, uncle, or other man we have known;
or Dr. Phil is "cool" and a "great guy" because he sometimes insults and condescends to certain guests on the show, especially when HIS BIAS lines up with our OWN BIAS.)

REALITY is that Dr. Phil is a human being, and that he has talents, skills, knowledge, accomplishments, and a human brain that has emotions and perceptions, most likely the normal human desire for success and achievement, and human "flaws", just like everyone else. He has not shown signs of mental illness or personality disorder, and frankly he's pretty "aware", imo, considering he grew up in a region known for male bias, classism, prejudice, and gender role issues, and he's a large male who quite likely has been treated by others his whole adult life with either contempt or hero-worship. His parents probably played a large role in his upbringing, but his choices of occupation, focus, values, and his behaviors are his alone.

Sometimes I completely agree with him, sometimes I think he missed something very important, and sometimes I want to wing my shoe at the television because I can see some bias showing. But then I remember that this is a television show, that people are on there voluntarily, and that he has done quite a lot of good, for individuals and for awareness in general.

He doesn't just have guests on there and leave them hanging, he actually does a lot of work and is very generous about using his connections and resources to get them help (that they were not able to get elsewhere).
He's not God, he's not anything more than a human like myself and everyone else, so he's going to screw up and miss things, just like everyone else. But he's not running one of those "reality TV" shows or an Extreme Dysfunction "Talk Show". He, along with his wife Robin, have probably raised more awareness specifically about abuse, dysfunction, and the breakdown of the mental health system and other "systems" than anyone, because of the focus and the success of the show.  

So is he my "Hero"? Do I think he can walk on water? Nope. Do I respect him as a human being? Yes. Do I disagree with him sometimes, even often? Yes. Does that mean I think he's a "hack", incompetent, or just in it for the money and fame? Nope.
I respect him as a human being, and as a person who has real experience, knowledge, skill, and a passion for helping people and our world in general. He shows that he does seek real information more than he makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions, which is absolutely essential for any competent psychologist, counselor, or forensics professional. Maybe most importantly for me, a person who obviously genuinely cares about and respects his family, as far as I can tell from where I sit. I DO NOT know him personally, I have zero experience with him on a personal level, as far as I know it could all be an act for TV, or it could ALL be genuine, perhaps their family ties are even better than they look.

In summation, I personally see the Dr. Phil show as being more of a positive contribution to our current society than a negative one, as it stands, and from what I can see from my own view point.     

Some Signs That Someone Might Have Narcissism

Some of the first things one may notice when a person in their life has some level of Narcissism may include:

a "strong" presence that's often mistaken for healthy confidence or even physical strength;

a feeling in one's self of being in the presence of an "authority figure", like a parent, teacher, or manager;

a feeling of not being taken seriously, or believed;

a feeling of being judged, or found lacking or lesser;

not being able to "get a word in", or not being replied to, answered, or acknowledged after speaking;

feeling defensive against the person's condescension;

dealing with continuous criticism, corrections, and unsolicited, unrequested advice or "help";

getting continually advised, taught, and told about things that one knows about or is quite well-versed in;

having a feeling that one is being judged critically for appearance, grooming, attractiveness, and cleanliness;

feeling like the person keeps competing against you, one-upping you, trying to "prove" that you're "not all that" or that they ARE;

knowing that mutually agreed upon plans or invitations are likely not going to be kept intact or followed through;

having a feeling of either being "too rich" or "too poor" when around the person;

having to explain something several times because the person can not seem to absorb or comprehend what you're saying, and may even argue with you about something they can't know anything about (such as your own medical benefits, or what the electrician said earlier only to you).

feeling like one is getting pelted continuously with small pebbles, or dragged around on the ground, but not clearly knowing why;

feelings that seem to suddenly change (and that's not part of one's usual personality profile) from feeling comfortable, accepted, and liked to a foreboding feeling that rejection or abandonment is coming;

vague sense of worrying that one is being tricked, manipulated, or being laughed at behind one's back;

sense of walking on eggshells: an intuitive sense that one needs to be extra, extra careful about what they talk about because it seems like the person might be easily upset, offended, embarrassed, and possibly enraged;

strange feeling of anxiety that feels like something from childhood having to do with shame or doing something wrong, but there is nothing real that one has actually done "wrong'; 

having a feeling of being targeted for humiliation and put-downs, but perhaps not being able to pin down exactly why;

feeling of anxiety or a kind of shame when talking to other people who may or may not already be friends;

general feeling of being "not good enough";

having a general feeling of loneliness, being left out or left behind, even depression or serious anxiety issues that may or may not seem related to real events.

Gossip, Slander, And Following The Crowd

Gossip: Monkey see, monkey do.

Remember that most people (including ourselves) tend to follow the "lead" of other people around them. For example the way people are moving in a crowd. If we look at the way people dress from era to era, and listen to the way they talk from generation to generation and region to region, it becomes pretty clear just how much we follow other people's leads. Even subtle body movements in a small group will be mimicked by others; it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's just how we are. "Monkey see, Monkey do".

Whatever is 'acceptable', apparently, for foolish, irresponsible, destructive, or rude behavior in any given group is because someone is "leading" and others are following; it's "okay" to drink one glass of wine with lunch, but if you drink two, you're doing something bad... while in another group, they're all having two glasses, but NOT THREE...no no, never three... And in yet another group, they're all smoking marijuana, but they don't smoke cigarettes.. and in another, they smoke cigarettes and drink, but they don't smoke marijuana... etc., you get the idea.

Whatever is "acceptable" Social behavior also goes the same way of following. Mark tells jokes that are demeaning to Polish people, and we all follow his lead. But when Sal tells a joke that's demeaning to French people, we all get offended.
Mark is recognized in the group as a "leader", a "cool kid", and Sal is not. The key words are "WE ALL". When Sarah tells mean blond-haired-ancestry jokes, we are all expected to accept it, including the blond people. But when Henry tells jokes about African-ancestry-people, everyone gets offended. Again, Sarah is a "leader" in the group, and Henry is not "cool enough". But there is a day that Sarah tells a joke that demeans Native Americans, and everyone is expected to laugh, and most of them do.

SO IT GOES with Gossip and "Smear Campaigns". People go along with them because the group they're in already accepts gossip and slander, because they are following someone's lead. Those who are accepted as "Leaders" or "cool kids" can slander and gossip till the cows come home, and people in the group will just go along with it, not questioning, not stopping it, usually exacerbating it like the game "Telephone".
But if one of the people in the group who are not one of the "Cool Kids" started gossiping or smearing someone, they'd probably ignore him, or defend the person he's talking about.
They'll also ignore him or argue with him if he's talking about something "bad" that someone REALLY DID.

People tend to mimic the way others TREAT OTHER PEOPLE as well. So if Jane starts talking over Cheryl, others will talk over Cheryl as well. If Jerry tends to treat Luke with disrespect, others in the group will often follow his lead. If Sharon and John treat Jeffery like he's some kind of "Leader" who deserves extra respect for some reason, others in the group are likely to follow their lead.

Humans mimic and follow others, especially those whom they consider having equal or higher "status" than themselves.
They tend to purposely ignore and counter those who they are trying to make into "lower status" members of the group.

Obviously, some do this behavior more (much more) than others, and some do it much less than others.

"Getting Off" On Putting Others Down

Getting a "fix" from casting shame, disrespect, and blame on others is common for those with entitlement issues, especially when accompanied by insecurity.

Often a person with these issues will cast shame onto whole groups of people, like ALL of the members of the group are "bad".
Such as "all MEN", or "all WOMEN", or all members of one race, country, or religion.

Usually, (but not always), they cast "bad" onto a group that they don't include themselves in.

They often group people into sub-categories also, such as not just "all women", but all white women, or all brunette-haired-white women, or all tall brunette white women, or all brunette white women of a certain country or region.
Or all Northerners, all Southerners, or all upper management, or all banking employees, etc. (People who do this will make groups and categories out of anything, especially when they're seeking to cast others as "bad" so they can feel "good", "righteous", or "innocent".)

~Most people will seem quite oblivious to all the good things that you do and have done, but when it comes to finding a chink in your armor where their criticism might get in, they're suddenly paying close attention.

Victim Blame

"Victim Blame" doesn't just mean blaming the victim.
It also means sympathizing with the perpetrator, instead of the victim.

Anti-Abortion (my shiny butt)

Wondering:
Do all adults who are "Anti-abortion" voluntarily and willingly support, or at least happily help support babies and children who are born to mothers who can't support their children by themselves?
You can't have one without the other. It's not even about morality, it's about REality.

If you're going to demand that babies are not aborted, then you need to be one of the people who actually CARE about those babies, and those mothers as well. 
If the only reason you protest abortion is to cast shame and blame on other people, but you don't really give a crap about those babies, children, or mothers on a real level, then it's nothing more than hypocrisy.

Fathers who don't support their own children, or the mothers of their children, really don't have much of a leg to stand on either way.
And really, neither do family members of those mothers who are unwilling to be supportive.
Neither does anyone else who's not willing to help REALLY SUPPORT babies and children.

If you're anti-child support, or anti-welfare, or anti-female, or anti-females-getting-equal education, pay,  opportunity and respect, or you can't stand children, or you only "like" certain kinds of children (or humans), then sit down and shut up about it, you're NOT one of the people who are HELPING to support and raise babies and children.
Unless you're one of the few who are literally DIRECTLY helping to support babies and children, and their mothers, with your own money and time. Are you one of them? If you are, awesome, if you're not, zip it.

People who really want abortion to stop, for real, not just who get off on blabbering on and on about who's it and what's it and who's RIGHT...,
need to be part of the solution, not part of the cause of the problem.




(I was a younger mother once, and I can tell you that the "support" I received was pitiful, especially from all the establishments that everyone assumes HELP young mothers and children. The church, the "state" agencies, planned parenthood, even most of the nurses in the hospital where my baby was born (Yale) were ridiculous in their ANTI-supportiveness.

...Maybe if they knew I had family ties there, they wouldn't have been so cavalier or snotty... lol... then again...)

And no, I'm not "pro-abortion", but I AM PRO-SUPPORTING BABIES AND CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS. The "programs" that we do have frankly SUCK, they're like vortexes of shame and dysfunction.

And I know VERY FEW PEOPLE who say they're Anti-Abortion, who don't COMPLAIN about welfare, or try to cast SHAME on young mothers, unwed mothers, or single mothers, and even fewer who don't COMPLAIN about CHILD SUPPORT.
I also DO KNOW a few single FATHERS who also get the bum's rush treatment when it comes to helping them SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN.

Romantic Love And Narcissism

In "romantic relationships", Narcissists are much more concerned with keep their "options open" than with actually building a relationship with another person. If they commit to one person, that's like blowing off all the future possible "hot babes", "scores", or even "possible soul mates".
After they think they've "hooked" a mate, they aren't going to be doing any more courting ritual stuff, showing affection, going out of their way for their partner, or even showing basic respect, courtesy, or consideration.
Holidays are probably going to be disappointing and painful after they don't feel like they need to "capture" you anymore.
There won't be anymore wonderful "dates" or romantic weekends.
There won't be great friendship anymore, or mutual admiration, or dreaming plans for the future together.
When the "relationship" starts to really go sour, you'll probably notice it and try to repair it, try to get them to communicate with you about what they're really feeling and thinking, help them if they seem depressed or frustrated, try to make things better.
But they're not going to cooperate...
because...
they're NOT actually INVESTED IN IT.
They don't really WANT to be in a committed relationship.
Not just with YOU, with ANYONE.

Sure they were infatuated with you, probably, at first, but while you were going along with the process of relationship building and emotional bonding, THEY were going through an entirely different process: DEVALUATION.

Romantic relationships for people with Narcissism are usually not "REAL" to them. They're a passing fancy, a burst of excitement, an EVENT, a phase, something they experienced, something they achieved.

Picture it like a thrill-seeker's expeditions.
A person who climbs mountains doesn't keep climbing the same mountain, and they don't usually decide to LIVE on one particular mountain. Their "rush" is from climbing NEW mountains. Once you're done with one, you're onto the next one.

A base-jumper doesn't keep jumping off the same bridge or cliff. They see different sites as challenges to be "overcome". Once they've achieved a jump off a certain bridge, they're already planning the next one.

THIS is how Narcissists see "romantic relationships".
NOT like non-narcissists do.
No, they never really loved you, not like you wanted them to, not like you thought.
They probably loved the rush from the infatuation, and loved the excitement from being with you for a while. But that's not "love" between two people, it's not a BOND.

A race-car driver doesn't "love" the track she's on. She LOVES RACING. She loves the THRILL of racing. Each race is a NEW conquest, a new challenge, a new thrill.

A rock climber doesn't LOVE one rock and move in, and live there, and stop going rock-climbing because he's found the "ultimate rock" and there are no others that could ever measure up, so why bother. No, that's not what he's doing, he's not LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO CALL HOME. He's looking for the RUSH he gets from climbing new rocks and cliff faces.. That means he doesn't WANT TO STAY in one place, even the best site he's ever climbed. He WANTS TO get that RUSH, and he can only get it when he explores NEW rock faces.
 It's about HIM, about HIS RUSH, NOT the rock face.

Narcissists are addicted to RUSH, and to "reward" ~ they don't build relationships, and they can't, really. Sadly.

Judging You For Worthiness

Assessing others to be "worthy" of their acceptance and their approval is common in those who believe they have natural entitlement and superiority.
They see themselves as one of the members of the "higher minded", "cool", "intellectual", or physically superior crowd, and are therefore entitled to do such judging and assessing.
This can come from actually having Narcissism, but it can also come from growing up in an area where people separate themselves and others into sub-groups, and places more supposed STATUS on one group than another.

Kids learn what's around them, they don't have any other point of view. So if the "jocks" are getting put on pedestals in a kid's community, that's what seems normal to a kid. If it's only male "jocks" who are given this "status", then that's what the kid is going to think is REAL, like that's really how things ARE in "Life".
This kid will likely then either feel like "one of the important people" if she's accepted into the group, or she'll feel like she's one of the "rejects" if she's not accepted.
The kids IN the group will likely feel like they ARE "more important", because that's what everyone else (i.e. certain adults around them) are telling them and showing them, so of course they're going to believe that they're the ones who have the "power" to ASSESS and JUDGE other people's "worth", and believe that their "worth" is the highest.

Kids usually believe what they're told and what they're shown about ANY sub-group like that in the larger group. If it's only Hispanic male jocks who are getting the "higher status" treatment in the school or community (or families), then the kids IN the group will probably believe that those kids really ARE "better", more important, or superior to others, and OTHER KIDS will ALSO likely buy into it, and will probably want to BE one of them, or want ACCEPTANCE from them, OR resent them.
No different if the kids who are getting the "higher status" treatment are Caucasian-descent male jocks, African-descent male jocks, or Asian-descent male jocks.
Make the "higher status" sub-group female jocks, and that's who the kids will think is REALLY "higher status".
Make them Asian female jocks.
Give only the Basketball Team, but not the Swim Team, that "Higher Status" treatment. The other kids both on and off the team will likely buy into it.
Make the sub-group the male-only Science Club, and that's who will be the "most worthy" and "most high-status" group; that's who will buy into their own superiority, and who other kids will want to be accepted by, or who they'll resent.
Make the sub-group the female-only Astronomy Club, and that's who will be the "most worthy" and "high status".
ETC!!!

Change the "High Status" group to ANY sub-group, any age, either sex, any ancestry, and the kids who grow up around it will BELIEVE it.
That's why people don't just reject organized crime groups and gangs in their community. The adults behaved AS IF the members of those groups were "important", and so the kids of course bought into that, it's what they were shown.

EVERY region, every country, every area, every community, and even every family perpetuates the MYTH of "who is important" and "who is more worthy", and for the most part, the communities follow right along in those footsteps, because that's what they saw while they were growing up.

SO, it's not strange that some adults believe that they're naturally superior and more worthy, and that other adults buy into it and allow them to BE "superior", JUDGE others for "worthiness", and have easy access to more power. privilege, and resources. The kids from both sides of this imbalance were TAUGHT and SHOWN these things by adults while they were growing up.  

Inciting Hatred With Accusations Of Bigotry

When a person is talking about racism, and you are listening to them, do you assume that their goal is altruistic and innocent, or do you double-check that?

What is their real goal?
Are they trying to invoke FEELINGS, or are they reviewing actual information in an objective manner, looking at the whole picture, looking at different points of view, seeking causes and solutions?

What are they REALLY trying to accomplish?

And the same can be said for those who are talking about ANY kind of bigotry.
Some Men's rights groups try to incite hatred in order to get people to join them and follow them.
So do some Feminist groups.
So do some Gay Rights groups.
So do Left Wingers and Right Wingers...   
Some "civil rights" groups do it, some religious groups do it...
The MEDIA THRIVES on it.
Many songwriters do it, and so do many artists.
Even some "support groups" do it, especially on the internet.
Political candidates of every color, both sexes, and every background do it every day.

What is the REAL GOAL?

Those who look to INCITE FEELINGS of "US AGAINST THEM", of disdain, disgust, TEAMS, and especially Hatred, are doing it for a self-serving reason. They WANT SOMETHING.
They want you to join their team, or they want you to give them money, or they want you to vote for them, or they want you to help destroy others (so they can "win" and get power and control).

When you join a team of HATERS, you're not joining a positive cause. You're joining a negative agenda.

You aren't on a "team", you're being allowed to participate AS LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH THEM.

No one cares about YOUR POINT OF VIEW or OPINIONS in such a group, they ONLY CARE THAT YOU ARE ALIGNED WITH THEIRS.
The moment you disagree with their "line" is the moment you are cast out.


Haters hate. Haters like to incite others to hate. Haters don't care about anyone's point of view but their own. Haters don't care about anyone but themselves, no matter how much they SAY they care and PRETEND they care, they're full of shite.
Haters hate, and that's pretty much all they do, and a lot of them want to MAKE MONEY from it.

Advertisers and politicians have known for centuries that it's much easier to get people to follow you when they're joining in a "hate" campaign AGAINST someone else, than getting them to follow you because they genuinely agree with you and support your ideas.


(Remember "Coke VS. Pepsi"? They were both in on that. Worked like a charm.)

Demonizing People We Don't Like

We have a long, long, LOOOONG history in this world of demonizing people we disagree with, and who threaten our hierarchies and our egos.

Whenever there's a person who shows up making some kind of ripples of change in the Status Quo, whoever doesn't like that change will jump on the person and try to destroy their reputation, try to turn others against them as a human being, and try to discredit everything about them.
Quite often, completely false rumors about a person will get made up and circulated in order to get people who might LIKE the changes and therefore be supportive of the person, to turn against the person.

How can you tell if a person is being attacked in this way? It's easy:
The attacks are NOT directed at the person's IDEAS, but at the PERSON THEMSELVES.

It's called AD HOMINEM

So let's say I lived in the 17th century and started a school for girls that taught Knighthood, this would have probably happened to me. Even if I published an opinion piece about teaching girls to be Knights, they probably would have pulled this crap on me.

Who is "THEY"? "THEY" would be the people who NEED the current structures of "society" and "hierarchy" to stay exactly as they are, so THEY can continue to have the POWER and PRIVILEGE that they're used to.

GIRLS becoming KNIGHTS? Who ever heard of such a thing?! GIRLS wearing armor? Wearing pants? Learning sword fighting? Learning the Chivalry code?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
GIRLS being given RECOGNITION and CREDIT for being STRONG, BRAVE, and IMPORTANT?!!!
HOW AWFUL!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Why is it so awful?
Because if GIRLS were taught the same as BOYS: how to be KNIGHTS, then the privilege and power of Knighthood would no longer be exclusively Male.
AND that means that MALES could no longer be manipulated with promises of being rewarded with MALE PRIVILEGE and ELITISM.
It would mess up the CONTROL and POWER, and would wreck the standing Hierarchy, which means people in power would LOSE their control and power positions, especially when the culture of FEAR broke down.

SO, when I started that Knighthood School for Girls, they would have come for me. Not because there's anything actually "WRONG" with girls learning to become Knights, but because it would SCREW UP their POWER, because it would SCREW UP the status quo and fear-culture.

ALL CULTURES that have POWER HIERARCHIES have OPPRESSION and FEAR, and use REWARDS OF ELITISM and PRIVILEGE to manipulate and create followers.

So when someone shows up that throws a wrench in it, the first thing "THEY" do is try to QUIET the person down, get them to "go away" or lose their drive and confidence. If and when that doesn't work, "THEY" will try to SMEAR the person so others don't listen to them and don't follow them.
"THEY" try to get people to turn against the person categorically, and see the person as a "BAD WOMAN" or a "BAD MAN", or at least as a "CRAZY PERSON".

Humans fall for it quite a good deal of the time.

If this doesn't work, they might literally attack the person.
Many people who have invoked or represented POSITIVE CHANGE from a place of fairness, freedom, and love have actually been killed throughout human history.

Freedom, fairness, and love are destroyers of POWER MONGERS, and they know it.

So the next time you hear that so and so was really a "bad person" because he or she did or said such and such, don't just JUMP ON the train, turning against them like a witch-hunter.
Take some steps back and look again, in a more objective light.

Objectivity, Who Has It?

ob·jec·tiv·i·ty

[ob-jik-tiv-i-tee, -jek-]  noun
1. the state or quality of being objective: He tries to maintain objectivity in his judgment.
2. intentness on objects external to the mind.
3. external reality.
ob·jec·tive

adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
(Merriam Webster)

ob·jec·tive

• adj.adjective

  1. Of or having to do with a material object.
  2. Having actual existence or reality.
  3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
  4. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
     an objective appraisal.
  5. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
  6. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
  7. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
     (yahoo.com dictionary)
     
     HOW THE EARTH CAME TO BE AND HOW WE GOT HERE IS A WONDERFUL TOPIC TO USE TO EXPLORE OBJECTIVITY.
     
     
     If John BELIEVES IN Creationism, he's not "OBJECTIVE".
     
     If Mary BELIEVES IN Evolution, she's not "OBJECTIVE".
     
     Both John and Mary are making how the Earth came to be about THEMSELVES:
     THEIR OWN BELIEFS, OPINIONS, 'TEAM', EGO, and COMFORT.
     
     If either John or Mary was OBJECTIVE, they would not feel EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT in whether one was true or the other, or NEITHER, or BOTH. 
     Nor would they feel competitive about which one was "right".
     
     How the Earth and the creatures on it got here is UNKNOWN to humans,
     we weren't there.
     All we can do is gather as much information as we can, from as many sources as we can, and look at it from different angles, and talk about it.
     
     Having emotional investment in which "theory" is the "right one"
     DOES NOT CHANGE what really happened.
     
     The Earth is HERE, we are HERE, Hurray! Neato! Isn't that wonderful?
     
     How it got here, and how we are here is something that was WAAAAYYYYY BEYOND Human Control and influence.
     Arguing and fighting about HOW does absolutely NOTHING, except create more conflict.
     
     Humans have a VERY HARD TIME with "objectivity", because we just LOVE to fight about "Who's RIGHT" and "Who's the Smartest".
     
     We give POWER and RECOGNITION to those we recognize as "Right", don't we?
     So we want to be on the "Winning Side", so we can be associated with the "Winner".
     
     People who are OBJECTIVE don't care about teams and sides or WHO is "right".
     
     It takes HUMILITY to be objective, and to entertain the thought that one does not have all the answers, or that someone else might have valid information that we don't.

Aligning With The Narcissist's Image

Narcissists are often drawn to choosing "romantic partners", or even platonic friends, because they think this person will IMPRESS their friends or family.

When the person does or says anything that doesn't align with the Narcissist's "image", the N. will often start to turn on the person, and devalue them, often ending in rejection of the person, or even attack.

This can happen in any relationship with a Narcissist, including family; an N. parent will reject their own child because the child isn't lining up with the N. parent's IMAGE.

ADULT LAND

People with garden-variety narcissism usually want others to be super-understanding, supportive, sympathetic, considerate, accommodating, and caring toward THEM.
But will actually get annoyed, angry, even enraged, and often disappear when it's time to give the other person support, help, understanding, accommodation, sympathy, or care.
It's not just that it's "one way", it's "ONE WAY or the HIGHWAY".

They want to be free to say and do anything they feel like, including treating others badly, and be given "understanding" for the way they behave, as if that's synonymous with being "nice".
But those who GIVE them "support", "understanding", "respect", "courtesy", or "care" are NOT supposed to expect it FROM THEM, apparently, for anything.

In other words, you're supposed to be "understanding" of them not paying you back a 10,000.00 loan, even if you can't pay some of your own bills because of it. But if you need a ride or some kind of help, you "brought your problems on yourself" and are some kind of "loser" or "bad" person. (Not in reality~ just according to a Narcissist).

You're supposed to be "understanding" of them insulting you, calling you names, threatening you, rejecting you, treating you horribly, and gossiping about you;
But if you even display any kind of "annoyance" or God forbid, anger or sadness toward them, you're a "BAD PERSON..."

You're supposed to be "understanding" of them looking at, flirting with, or even cheating with others...
but of course if you even speak to a member of the opposite sex who you've known for years, you're a "Bad Person".

You're supposed to cater to their every need, want, desire, and whim, because you care about them.... it shows you care about them...
But any needs, wants, desires or whims that you have are considered by them to be "burdensome" or "unnecessary" or "silly".

Everything is "one way". You GIVE , they TAKE.
They make requests and demands, you DON'T.
You fulfill THEIR requests and demands, they don't fulfill yours.
THEIR schedule is "important", yours is not...
THEIR friends and family are "important", yours are not...
THEIR financial well-being is "important", yours is not...
THEIR career and future is "important", yours is not...
THEIR emotional well-being is "important", yours is not...
THEY have 'natural' authority, privilege, and entitlement, you do not...

Narcissists live like LITTLE KIDS who set up CLUBHOUSES, trying to make their own little Hierarchy.
"No, JOHN is the leader! Because! Because he's the tallest!
And I get to be the assistant leader!
No, Jessie, you don't get to be anything, you have to do what we tell you, or you can't be part of the club. You have to bring the snacks."

This is NOT HEALTHY, this is NOT the way it's EVER "supposed to be", not in a family, partnership, or community.
Not in ADULT LAND.

Entitlement And "Shutting Others Down"

A rather common Control behavior that can be seen in many humans is trying to "shut others down" when they don't agree with them, don't like them, or don't like whatever the person is talking about.

The feeling of ENTITLEMENT regarding "shutting others down" is also, unfortunately, pretty common, and is often passed down in family or community culture.

Those who desire control and power often seek this feeling of entitlement. The desire is about having some kind of title, position, rank, or image that supposedly gives them some kind of "natural authority" to tell others what they can or can't talk about, what they can or can't feel, think, EXPRESS, or do.

It is of course very common for anyone with BULLY behaviors to seek some kind of power or authority entitlement, for more than one reason:
Number one, just because they get off on bossing other people around, and get a charge out of successfully intimidating, herding, controlling, or shushing other people.
Number two, they desire some kind of way to shut people down who talk about the bullying itself.

Some "bullies" are the way they are because they learned it from others, usually other members of their family, like one of their parents, but they can also learn it from others outside of their immediate family.

Some "bullies" act that way because they've internalized their defensiveness from BEING A TARGET of a bully, again often a family member, like one of their parents, or others outside the immediate family.

Some "bullies" might have been born with more of a desire for 'domination' than the average human  and were not successfully guided about it as they grew up. Most animals including humans are born with domination-compulsion and behaviors, (both males and females, regardless of ancestry or body type), but humans especially have the capability to guide and teach their offspring about behaving fairly and politely toward others, and not following their "instinct" to bully.
The lack of this guidance is often seen in families and communities where members create little 'hierarchies' among themselves.
Many will actually model and teach offspring that bullying and domination behavior is "OKAY" for SOME members of the group, but "SHAMEFUL" for others; voila, instant "hierarchy"; bullies feeling no shame in their behavior, and so do it all the time, even get a feeling of confidence or superiority from it, and those who are getting bullied feeling shame simply for standing up to those who are always trying to 'dominate' them.

Infidelity And Narcissism

Not all Narcissists cheat, but infidelity is common for those who have the disorder.
Everything about infidelity aligns with NPD.

Doing something "sneaky";
breaking "rules";
going behind someone else's back;
feeling like they're 'rebelling' against an 'authority/parental figure' (their spouse or partner)~
~
Getting an attention FIX from someone outside their marriage or partnership because they're so so attractive and special;
Getting adoration, praise, and 'sympathy' from someone;
~
Seeing the person they're cheating with as some kind of "prize"
that they've "earned" or that they "deserve"
~
Trying to show or prove "Entitlement" to being 'above rules', or to having multiple sexual partners, because of their "Superiority"
~
Showing others and their partner that they are superior to their partner.
~
Showing others and their partner that their partner is "under" them; direct emotional abuse and attempt to oppress.
~
Simply being addicted to sexual stimulation
Being addicted to doing things that are "under the radar" or "outside the law"
~
Fixation and obsession with "chasing" sexual interaction
~
Addiction to being 'pursued' sexually
~
Going further down the rabbit hole, a person with a severe Narcissism disorder may have other disorders that manifest in sexual addictions and deviancy. Narcissists who don't "cheat" with live persons often use porn or the internet.
Narcissists will often rationalize paid-for sex as "not cheating".
~
Narcissists OFTEN LIE about being in a committed relationship to a very elaborate degree, and will often KEEP LYING, trying to convince a target that they are indeed "available".
They will also often lie about the status of a relationship that they can't completely hide in order to convince a target that their partnership is horrible, or that they plan to leave their partner.

Liberals: Disagreements, Movements, Causes, and Higher Intelligence

It amazes me how many people call themselves "Liberals" now who are nothing of the sort.

A real "Liberal" would be someone who wants to hear the points of view of other people, whether they agree with them or not.

You're not a Liberal just because you label yourself one.


If you're prejudice against groups of people, you're not a Liberal.
(For example, prejudice against other political groups, against racial groups, against religious groups, against AGE groups).

If you don't want to hear WHY someone has a different point of view than you do, you're not a real Liberal.

No, you're NOT a real Liberal just because you SAY you are. *

If you are adamant in all of your beliefs and opinions, and think anyone who disagrees with you, or has different beliefs than you is WRONG, dumb, crazy, or bad, you're DEFINITELY NOT a "real Liberal".

If you think all rich people are "bad", you're not a real Liberal. That's the same as thinking all poor people are "bad", or all working or middle-class people are "bad".
(If you don't understand this, try harder.)

If you think it's okay to make fun of the way people look, or that it's okay to pick on people or publicly criticize them or gossip about them because you don't agree with them, or you think they're not cool enough,  then you are so far from being a REAL Liberal it's not even funny.

If you think you're ALWAYS RIGHT, and you think your opinions and your beliefs are the "right ones' because you FEEL like they're RIGHT, you're probably calling yourself a Liberal, but you're not actually a real Liberal, sorry.

If you LIKE IT when OTHER PEOPLE get rules and laws placed on them, but you're always rebelling and proving how cool you are by breaking rules, or you're always making excuses for breaking rules or not following laws, then no, you're so not a real "Liberal".

If you think you're NOT a "Rich Person" (you're struggling, right?) because you're not a Billionaire, but you can afford a new car, or more than one car, and a house, or two houses; you don't worry about being able to buy groceries, you go to restaurants and do recreational things on a regular basis, you think going to the salon on a regular basis is part of "normal life", and on top of all of that you think buying shoes for a hundred dollars or more a pop is just how everyone lives (except for really poor people), you're DELUSIONAL, forget about politics.  

If you put groups of people on a pedestal as if they're all martyrs, saints, or innocent children, and forget (ignore) that they are individual adult human beings in that group who are different from one another and autonomous, with fully working minds just like you and just like people you don't like, you're not a real Liberal.

See the definition for "Liberal" below

*(TO 'CONSERVATIVES': WHY are you going along with using the label "Liberal" to describe Statists and Authoritanists?! Are you really "conservatives"? You know full well the use of the term is bogus, why do you continue to go along with it? Seems like there's a double agenda here, one group trying to make themselves look innocent and intellectual, and the other going along with it in order to ruin what the REAL word MEANS. Sound paranoid? Grow up. That's what's going on, and you know it. Pretend-conservatives are control freaks and have always wanted to stifle REAL Liberalism, because it exposes their control agenda, no different than their "opponents". Political Left Wing and Political Right Wing are the SAME where it matters: obsession with control, power, desire for superiority, and self-righteousness.)

Liberal Definition

adj. adjective

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
   
   
   "NOT LIMITED TO OR BY ESTABLISHED, TRADITIONAL, ORTHODOX OR AUTHORITARIAN ATTITUDES... etc."
   
   DOES NOT MEAN BEING AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE'S BELIEF, OR TEARING DOWN ANYONE WHO IS NOT "BEING A REBEL", JUST LIKE YOU.
   
   YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL BECAUSE YOU REBEL AGAINST CHURCH.
   
   YOU WOULD BE A LIBERAL IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT WHY OTHER PEOPLE GO TO CHURCH, OR SYNAGOGUE, OR MOSQUE, OR ARE BUDDHIST, OR HINDU.
   YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT A REAL LIBERAL IF YOU REBEL AGAINST ETHICS AND MORALITY BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU'RE BEING COOL OR SMART,  OR REBEL AGAINST ANY KIND OF "ESTABLISHED" ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE IT'S "ESTABLISHED", OR BELONG TO A POLITICAL PARTY AND "TOW THE LINE", OR DEFEND EVERYTHING YOU DO AND SAY AS IF YOU ARE ALWAYS PERFECT, ALWAYS RIGHT, AND ALWAYS INNOCENT, OR SAY THAT YOU DO DRUGS AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT, OR DO "HATING" OF OTHER GROUPS WHO AREN"T JUST LIKE YOU.
   
   To be an ACTUAL "Liberal", you would have to WANT to hear about other people's points of view, you would have to WANT to understand where they're coming from, and WHY; you would have to WANT to understand and gather as much information about a topic as possible BEFORE YOU MADE some kind of "POLITICAL STAND", and you would be OPEN to CHANGING your stance when you found out more information that you didn't previously have or understand.
   
   THERE ARE NO SET POLITICAL "STANCES" FOR A REAL LIBERAL EXCEPT FOR A ONE BASIC THING: FREEDOM.
   FREEDOM TO SPEAK, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, FREEDOM OF BELIEF, FREEDOM TO THINK, FREEDOM TO LEARN, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS, FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT, FOR EACH PERSON.
   
   

Russia: Olympic Closing Ceremony

Standing Ovation! Especially for the wink~;) that was fantastic!

It's not over yet, but so far, so awesome.

Narcissistic Assumptions

Having Narcissism means not being able to accept, take in, or comprehend incoming information as it really is.

Processing incoming information is very difficult for those with Narcissism. They already have a preconceived picture in their mind about most people, things, and events in the world, so they only accept real information if it MATCHES their picture. If it doesn't MATCH, they kick it back out, delete it, ignore it, or RE-CONFIGURE it, twisting and editing it until it matches.

They will either completely DENY information that doesn't match the picture that they've already created, or they'll twist it so severely that only one or two true snippets of information remain in the story.

For example: Jocelyn met Sherry last week, and knows nothing about her, except for the way she looked that day, the way she spoke, the car she was driving, and her approximate age.

Jocelyn has already formed a picture in her mind of who and what Sherry is, from her physical capabilities to her financial status, her intelligence level, to her overall character.   
Every time she meets Sherry again after that, she treats Sherry AS IF the picture she has made of her is CORRECT.

Every time something about Sherry comes up that does NOT MATCH this picture, Jocelyn feels uncomfortable.  She then either acts like the new information is NOT TRUE (like it's "made up"), or she feels like she's being INSULTED because she feels like she's being told that she's "WRONG".

OR, she will simply delete the information right out of her mind.

Jocelyn does not care what or who Sherry REALLY IS. She only cares that HER PICTURE of Sherry remains intact, because that PICTURE was drawn by Jocelyn's Ego.

Jocelyn drew her picture of Sherry based on her body size, age, apparent weight, facial features, ancestry, hair color, and her clothing and apparent "style". Jocelyn believes that she is actually ABLE to draw very large conclusions about other people based on an extremely small amount of "information", but it's really all based on things in Jocelyn's own mind, and on her insecurity issues.

Jocelyn has "drawn" her picture of Sherry as physically weak, fragile and fearful, because that makes Jocelyn feel strong in comparison.
She has drawn Sherry as possibly good at office work, because she looks like someone she used to know from work.
She has drawn Sherry as emotionally unstable because Sherry's manner was kind and pleasant, not demanding or controlling, and Jocelyn needs everyone to be either below her or above her.
She has drawn Sherry as "stuck up" and "flirtatious" toward men because she found Sherry to be physically attractive.
Sherry's social life, financial status, family life and past has also already been drawn by Jocelyn; she has Sherry as having come from a lower-middle-class family with nothing "special" about them, as Sherry having never been married or having kids, as Sherry having a history of being dumped by men who were bored or annoyed with her after a while.  
She has also drawn Sherry as being devoid of any kind of extra talent or ability, because she's already drawn her as "lower" than herself.

Sherry is nothing at all like Jocelyn has drawn her.

So every time something comes up that shows that Sherry is not weak, fragile, or fearful, Jocelyn feels INSULTED or annoyed, like Sherry is just doing it to on purpose to prove Jocelyn "wrong", or to "show off" and "prove" something to everyone (as if she's mentally unstable).

When a mutual friend needs help moving some furniture, Jocelyn jumps in front of Sherry and orders her around, as if Sherry would break of she tried to help, and as if Jocelyn is strong as an ox.

When there's a spider on the wall, Jocelyn tells Sherry to stay away from it, it could bite her... when Sherry picks it up and puts it outside, Jocelyn feels INSULTED that Sherry didn't ALLOW her to boss her around and treat her like a scared little boy.

When Jocelyn finds out that Sherry has two sons, she's actually upset, and feels humiliated. She wanted Sherry to be a person who didn't have much of a real life, never mind two lovely children.

When Jocelyn finds out that Sherry is a sponsored Mountain Climber, she starts to really dislike and resent her.

Jocelyn had drawn Sherry as a mousy, weak, insecure person without an interesting life, who got by on her looks, for ONE REASON ONLY:
Because that picture made JOCELYN feel like a "better person" in comparison to Sherry.

Jocelyn took it PERSONALLY when piece by piece, her picture of Sherry proved to be inaccurate. She tried to MAKE Sherry fit back into her picture by TREATING her like she WAS the "Sherry" in her picture. When that didn't work, she tried to manipulate her with social games. When that still didn't work, she showed her dislike toward her in the way she treated her.

Eventually Jocelyn rejected Sherry altogether, but she did it as if  SHERRY was the one who had something "WRONG".

To Jocelyn, Sherry DID do something "wrong"; she didn't CONFORM to the picture that Jocelyn had created of her.  

This "Picture-creating" of other people, things, situations and events on a lesser scale is a function of the normal Human mind, but those with Narcissism do it to a very high degree. They create an elaborate picture based on a little bit of information, and then seem to believe that the picture is correct.They do it with total strangers whom they have never met, but they also do it with people who are in their personal lives. Even with their own family members.

When CONTRADICTORY information shows an inaccuracy, they tend to take it personally, and can feel like they are being rebelled against, insulted, and even humiliated. 

This reflects why so many people actually feel OFFENDED or ANGRY when a man shows an ability that's supposed to a "female ability", and when a woman shows an ability that they see as a "male ability". 
Their personal picture is being shown to be "WRONG", and that means they can't use it to boost their own ego or enhance their own image.  


Narcissists NEED other people to be either "Higher" than they are, or "Lower" than they are. People who they have deemed "Higher" are treated a certain way (often like a "leader", a "guru", a parent, or a "star"), and people who they've deemed "Lower" are treated another way (like a child, a weakling, a sidekick, a crazy person, a stupid person, or a servant/subordinate; or in the case of enmeshment and self-deprecation, as a "fellow loser", "fellow peasant",  or a "fellow wimp/moron/weakling").

Trust Is Earned

Trust is earned.
Relationships are built over time, and earned trust is what the building blocks are made of.

Genuine trust cannot be earned quickly.

When we find ourselves trusting another quickly and letting them "in" or inviting them "in", into our homes, our personal lives, our private feelings, thoughts, or information, there is something going on with either our own boundaries or with the other person, sometimes both.

We often say we hit it off with someone right away, and sometimes it's quite true. But that does not mean that we should, or need to, open our proverbial front gate, open the front door, give them the metaphorical or literal key to the back door, or give them access to our private lives and information.

If that's the "price" of the friendship or relationship, then it's too high.

Trust is earned, and it needs to be earned in both directions.

Messages From God

This is from "Messages From God". It's very poignant to Control and Narcissism because this is one of the main things a Controller will try to undermine and control in a Target. After a while, they can successfully train a Target to undermine this in themselves:

"Today we believe God wants you to know that ...
there is a right time for each of the things you do.

If you try to live counter to your personal rhythms, you will expend more time and energy to get things done. Body and soul suffer when you force yourself to wrestle against your own rhythms. Listen to your rhythms and follow them."


Controllers/Narcissists try to make Targets abandon and reject their OWN "personal rhythms" and live around and cater to the CONTROLLER'S "personal rhythms".

The essence of Codependency.

Narcissistic abuse takes it a step further, trying to destroy the Target's sense of "personal rhythm" and "self" altogether, and REPLACE it with that of the Narcissist's.

Are Your Emotional Issues Really Just Mental Illness?

A serious and common effect of growing up in a community and/or family that's dysfunctional is a lack of ability to attach an EMOTION to the original CAUSE of the emotion.
So if one had a conflict with a loved one in the morning, they can feel an apparent free-floating, random sadness, anxiety, or frustration in the afternoon.

Looking at it from the outside, it's easy to see that their sadness or anxiety was from the morning conflict they had.
But the person themselves does not make the connection; they've been trained to see their "negative" emotions as some kind of personal flaws or emotional illness that has nothing to do with anything that actually HAPPENED.
If they do make the connection that it has to do with that conflict, they may then diagnose those feelings as over-reactions, or inappropriate responses to the incident.

When a child in many dysfunctional groups expresses an emotion, ANY emotion, the child may be told "not to feel that way", or that their FEELINGS are "WRONG".
They may also be told that what they saw didn't really happen. OR that what they THINK happened didn't really happen.
Or they are countered, dismissed, ignored, or argued with whenever they TELL something that happened, and are often told to calm down and stop acting so happy...sad/angry/excited/hopeful/proud/upset/scared.

When they verbally express their feelings, describing their feelings to another person, they are often told that they shouldn't feel that way, or that they're not being grown-up, or that they're acting babyish, or to "stop whining" or complaining.
Many children are even PUNISHED or DISCIPLINED for expressing any emotions that ANNOY the adults around them.

Children in such environments start to BURY their emotions and their emotional expressions in order to avoid humiliation and other consequences.
It's common for them to try to shut them off, or shut CERTAIN ones off (most boys in Western cultures try to shut off emotions such as sadness, fear, and joyousness, and most girls try to shut off anger, fear, and excitement and pride).

Since shutting off emotions is not actually POSSIBLE, they often end up FUNNELING all of their emotions THROUGH only a couple of emotional expressions.

So Jimmy's FEAR looks like an ANGER/Rage reaction, because ANGER reactions from BOYS are accepted by the people around him, but not normal fear.
Jenny's ANGER looks like SADNESS/FEAR reaction, because sadness and fear from girls are accepted in her group, but not the normal human emotion of anger.

Johnny and Mary, however, were punished or attacked for any emotional expressions by the people around them, so they tried to SHUT OFF ALL of their emotions equally.

All four of them, but especially Johnny and Mary, experience frequent episodes of "free floating" depression, sadness, anger, frustration, and love, joy, pride, and euphoria.
They've even been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders.
HOWEVER, these "free floating emotions" have not been addressed in therapy with any suggestion that they're not RANDOM.
They are all still under the impression that REAL EVENTS are NOT CAUSING their changing feelings. They have bought into the presumption that they have chronic mental illness that causes these supposedly random emotions.

For example: Johnny was laid off last week from his job of ten years. He's lost his benefits, and he's having no luck finding another job. He's married with a five-year-old son, and a fifteen-year-old Retriever. He has nowhere to go if he can't pay the rent, and he'll lose the car if he can't make his payments. His wife does not earn enough to cover their expenses by herself.
Johnny thinks he has depression and has an anxiety disorder. But he does NOT attribute his feelings of loss, sadness, anxiety, shame, worry or fear to the fact that he was LAID OFF and his family could lose their HOME and their vehicle as a result. Losing either or both of course would cause further consequences for Johnny and his wife, and also his son.

Johnny is actually in counseling for depression and anxiety, but neither him nor the counselor draw the obvious lines between what has actually HAPPENED, and what he's FEELING.

All the adults actually feed this DENIAL process. The only thing anyone is willing to validate or acknowledge is that Johnny might be worried, and also that Johnny is angry about getting laid off. (Those things are acceptable for males in his regional culture, no one will belittle him for those emotions.)
Other than worry and anger, all of his other real feelings are categorized as UNATTACHED to any REAL events, and so are attributed to mental illness.

Johnny's brother Rod has been told he has chronic Depression as well, but neither Rod, nor his psychiatrist, nor Johnny has drawn any connection between the way Rod feels, and the hardships that he has experienced in his life. Hardships like the death of their father when they were children, or getting abused by their Uncle when he came to "help out" their Mom, or getting in an accident when he was 16 that caused his grades to drop, which ruined his track for a Scholarship to pre-medical school, which meant he couldn't afford to go because there was no one to co-sign a student loan. So instead of becoming a Surgeon like he had planned all of his life, Rod has been struggling in low-paying jobs, trying to support himself, trying to figure out a way back to his original track and trajectory, and worried about his Mom and his brother, and his brother's family.
If only he hadn't gotten in that accident... he'd be a Doctor, and he could help take care of his family runs through his mind many days.
BUT, instead of giving any of that any consideration, making any connection between REAL events and Rod's FEELINGS, his Psychiatrist and his psychologist diagnose him with Chronic Depression and an Anxiety disorder, as if they're innate defects that Rod was simply born with
(just like his brother... oh, right, it runs in the family, yeah that's it...), and prescribes medication. 

This disconnecting, burying, dismissing, and detaching from one's own normal emotions is a pervasive, globe-wide issue that many, many people have been "trained" to do, either by family members or by being exposed to dysfunctional individuals in the the larger culture.

That free-floating feeling of ANXIETY I had last night was not random, or from a past experience, it's from my hour-long drive home in freezing icy conditions.
That free-floating feeling of anger I was having this afternoon is not self-loathing, or some kind of "rage issue", it's from the conflict I had on the phone with a nasty customer service person.
That free-floating feeling of love and joy that permeated my being the other day was not because I'm just a sunny, lovely person inside or that the world is so wonderful, it was from having a great time with my son and his best friend at the dinner party we had.

When we have a long-time habit of DISCONNECTING our EMOTIONS from REAL EVENTS, often due to a dysfunctional environment where DENIAL is the norm (for control purposes), we often end up NOT KNOWING WHY we feel certain things, and we may also ATTRIBUTE our feelings to the WRONG things, the wrong reasons, and the wrong people.
We might have been SCARED when the neighbor's dog came racing around the corner, snarling, but an hour later we think we're having an anxiety attack because the phone is ringing.

Emotions are natural and normal, and are caused by our thoughts, and by our reactions to external events. Naming what emotions we are feeling can help heal the disconnection rift that so many experience, and help us to feel grounded again. We can also then explore whether our emotional reactions seem appropriate in relation to the actual events that took place, and we can then find out how to improve the way we deal with things that seem to cause stress and problems.

Bar Stool Critics: You Aren't A "Real" Singer...Teacher...Scientist...Psychologist...Artist...Lawyer...Doctor...Craftsman...Baseball Player...Drummer...Clothing Designer...Interior Decorator...Mechanic...Dog Trainer...

"You aren't a REAL singer, though. You don't have any hit songs, and you don't have a big recording contract. Now my cousin, he's a real singer, he's in such-and-such band. He gets paid really well. He went to school for it. He..."
I've actually heard this spoken to me, and versions of this, many times throughout my life.
When I was very young, this stung me pretty hard, I bought into it and believed that there was merit to such accusations.

But... as I grew older, I realized a few things:

First, why would someone SAY something like that?
What kind of total lack of manners and maturity would allow someone to say that to another person, even if they thought it was true?
I would never say something like that, not in a hundred years.
It's rude, mean, arrogant, thoughtless, and hurtful.
And besides all that, it doesn't even make sense.


Second, why would someone think they knew all kinds of details about my life, my experience, and my accomplishments?

Especially when they barely know me, or just met me?
Since THEY haven't "heard of me", that apparently means that I have little or no experience, little or no skill, little or no talent... HUH?
So.. only "famous" people can sing, or only "famous" people have any skill or experience, AND the only people who are "famous" and "real" are people who THEY have heard of...

Just how oblivious are people to what others around them are doing, or have done? Extremely.
I've actually had people who have known me my entire life since I was a very small child, upon hearing me perform at some event say things to me like "I had no idea you could sing!" or "I never knew you sang!" or the one that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, "I never knew you could sing like that!"
~I've been singing, as in "on stage", since I was 2 and a half years old. It's a "normal" thing for me, it's one of the things I've "always done", the way some people have been skiing or rock-climbing their whole lives. When someone I've known since I was a tyke says "I never knew you could sing", first of all, it freaks me out. Never? How have you "known" me my entire life and never knew that about me?

And so I might be reacting strongly to that, it just feels strange to me. I mean I'm not talking about acquaintances who may or may not know or remember things about me, however I might be putting more "closeness" and "depth" on certain relationships than are really there.
Just because I grew up with them or with their kids, or they're related to me, or I worked with them for years, or they've been friends with my parents for decades, or that I know that they're a nurse and an artist who collects antiques, but really wanted to be an architect, doesn't mean they remember personal things about me; maybe I have a better memory, maybe I thought there was more to the relationship connection. 

But... why, when they DO find out that I sing, is it such a big deal? So I sing, so what? Lots of people sing, lots of people ice skate, too. Lots of people do all kinds of things. Why is it such a big deal that I sing, and why do they seem *shocked* that I don't necessarily suck?
"I didn't think you had it in you.." Um, is that supposed to be a compliment...?

Then I remember that many people assume that others CAN'T DO THINGS that they haven't actually SEEN them do with their own eyes. (And even then, they'll often pretend it's not happening.)
Especially if they don't already have that person up on a high Pedestal.  


Third, why are they trying to make my skill, experience, talent, and accomplishments SMALLER, LESSER, or unimportant?

What are THEY getting out of implying, or SAYING, that I'm not "really a real singer", or that someone else IS a "real singer", or that my skill, ability, and experience is somehow "lacking"?
What exactly are they REALLY trying to accomplish with that?
They CHOSE to say those things, the words didn't just fly out of their mouth like moths from a box of old rice.
It WAS "on purpose".
So... what was the goal?
Are they a Critic who gets paid for publishing their reviews of performances, and they wanted to share their "critique" with me?
Are they my Vocal Coach?
Are they my manager?
Are they the Choir Director, the Conductor, the owner of the Club or Arena?
Are they a close friend who is giving me a "heads up" about a shaky performance, and doing it with grace, tact, and caring?

Nope, nope, and nope...
So...what are they getting out of it?

Fourth, why would someone be THINKING that at all?

Looking back over my "life in music", which spans the whole thing, I scanned memories of times that I might have thought something like that about someone else.
WHEN did I think "He or she is not a REAL (whatever)", and what was I actually FEELING that prompted or instigated those thoughts?

I did find a few memories that matched. Remembering as much of each whole scenario as I could, every one of them had one common denominator:
Resentment.

Scanning the memories again carefully, there was not one single time that I had those kinds of thoughts that were diminishing or demeaning toward someone else where I actually believed that the person WAS NOT a "real" whatever it was, or that they couldn't "really" do it.
In every single case, there was something ELSE going on that invoked an emotional reaction from me.

Some examples:
This guitar player man who was a friend of a friend, who kept doing weird social things. Like pretending to be my friend and asking me to "hang out", and then treating me like a child or like I was "bothering him" when I showed up.
When I finally mentioned it to someone else (a person who kept implying that I had a "crush" on this man), the person was dismissive toward me because they LIKED this guy. They didn't want to accept that he wasn't wonderful.

So that was a few feelings mixed together, mostly resentment, toward both the man and the other person.

When the man played at the local watering hole I remember clearly feeling and thinking "He's an imposter, he's not a real musician, he's faking it." Which of course was not true, he was not faking it, he was a pretty good musician. My feelings were about his social behavior toward me, and feeling demeaned by him AND by the person who was dismissive toward me.
My thoughts transferred my resentment onto his musicianship, because I was trying to make him SMALLER in my mind somehow.

Another example: a singer who was part of a group who came to my Church. He was quite good, and as far as I know, a nice person. I didn't spend any time with him.
However: some people in my Church kept talking about how wonderful he was, and how wonderful the group was, gushing on and on. Which by itself would not have bothered me, and I thought they were wonderful too.
But those were the same people who consistently treated me with condescension and belittlement, who would treat me like I was "weird", "unstable", or "silly" for singing or being a musician. (This was before I understood what "projection" was about, of course.)
So, I remember thinking "He's not even a REAL singer" about this young man who was actually an excellent singer, but who was being treated like a Royal Prince by people who regularly treated me with excessive disrespect, like a "wanna-be" or a "silly child".
It had nothing to do with HIM at all.

There have been other times, of course.
When I remember farther back, I can remember those times when I was over someone else's house and their parents made us lunch, or took us somewhere; I remember thinking "Their parents aren't as good as MY parents." Or "their house isn't as good as OUR house (had nothing to do with the size or 'poshness' of the house)". Or even "Our dog is the best dog."
I've asked many people about this one, and most of them report thinking the same thing when they were little. 

In fact, remembering times when I did actually notice that someone's SKILL or confidence showed a possible lack of experience or ability---
thinking "They're not even a REAL singer/musician" DID NOT cross my mind.
I have felt things like compassion, the desire to protect them from rude people, excitement for their future, and I've been greatly inspired~ (I do love seeing someone who isn't a "decorated veteran Expert" in something who has the chutzpah to get up and do it because they WANT TO and ENJOY IT).

But putting them down, and trying to DIMINISH them is not a reaction that I have when I notice that someone's skill is not at an "expert" level, whether due to lack of experience, or because they haven't done the thing in a while.

The only times I have had that kind of reaction toward someone is when I feel RESENTMENT.
Not once have I thought "He/she is not a REAL (whatever)" in a diminishing, belittling way because I actually thought they were lacking in skill, ability, capability, or talent.




Who's a "REAL" Singer? Who's a "REAL" Musician? Who's a "REAL" Chef?
Who's a "REAL" writer...mechanic...builder...plumber...CEO...teacher...counselor...


What exactly are YOUR "criteria" and "requirements" for SOMEONE ELSE to be a "REAL" something or other? 
Do your requirements match that of others around you?
Do they match that of other countries?
Do you believe that all successful people have formal training or degrees?

What do you call a person who has had many hours of training, but did not acquire a formal degree?

What do you call a person who is self-taught? (Like many, many famous artists, actors, writers, and musicians?)

What do you call a person who has discovered a new species, or a breakthrough medical discovery, but has not acquired a formal degree?

How about all of the people in previous centuries who did all kinds of things without the kind of "formal training" that we have grown accustomed to in the last century?
(How does one design and build a Parthenon, for example, without going to a modern University and graduating with a Master's Degree?)


I HAVE come across people who exaggerated or had lied about their past accomplishments, experience, degrees, and titles.
But that's NOT the same thing as not being able to DO something, or not being CAPABLE of something.

Having a degree, for example, means a person DID accomplish getting that degree, and that deserves credit, it's a real accomplishment. But that doesn't DIMINISH the ability of others.


The best Chef that ever walked on the Earth might have little or no formal training.

OR, the best Chef on Earth could LIE through her teeth about being the Queen's personal Chef, or graduating from a prestigious Chef school, or being the Head Chef at the White House during Jimmy Carter's presidency.
No formal training, no degree, no important jobs, NOR fabricating training and experience still wouldn't change the fact that she's a fantastic Chef, the best, even.

By the same token, a person who's an "okay" Chef could have graduated from that prestigious Chef school, and could have gotten some prestigious jobs because of that degree, and probably can get good references from people they've connected with due to the school and community. They might have worked in the White House or the Palace, or been a personal Chef to celebrities. But none of that makes them a "Great Chef", or even a really GOOD Chef. They might have been just good enough to pass their classes and graduate, and just skilled enough to keep a position. But that other Chef who didn't go to that school, or really work in the White House or the Palace, who has no formal degree, may always be BETTER at being a Chef than they are.

So which one is the "REAL CHEF"?
And how would one KNOW?

So what would happen. probably, if the two of them were up for the same position?
Who is more likely to get the job, the GREAT CHEF who has no formal degree, or the mediocre Chef who has a degree?
Or what if they both have a degree, but the first (the "great") Chef has one from a Community College or State program, and the second (the "mediocre") Chef's degree is from an expensive, prestigious school?
What if they BOTH have the same degree, from the same school, but one of them is tall, and the other one is short? Or one is female and one is male? Or one is Asian and one is African? Or one dresses conservatively or unflashy, and the other one dresses "sexy"? 

We humans are not very good, as a rule, at judging the abilities, talents, and skills of other people; we tend to rely on superficial things: titles, hearsay, appearances, and our own emotional reactions. Very few potential employers would give both Chefs an equal "shot", or NOT make assumptions about which one is probably more skilled or more talented.

We humans tend to PROJECT assumptions and judgments onto others, both negative and positive, based on our emotional reactions and our own bias and prejudice.

Is Your Pattern Of Bad Relationships And Job Problems Really Just Yours?

It is prudent to look around at the culture one lives in objectively if one wants to figure out what's going on with their life and relationships.

If the culture is racist, then the people in the culture are likely going to treat one person better or worse than another based purely on their race. Negative treatment may be due to fear, or it may be due to bigotry, or it may be the way a person was brought up (conditioned). But the fact remains that if the region is racist, then some people will get treated better and some will get treated worse.

If the culture is sexist, then the people in the culture are likely going to treat one person with respect, or EXTRA respect, and another will get treated without respect, or with less.
One person will be praised, helped, and given resources, and another will be ignored, "shut down", insulted, belittled, dismissed, made 'smaller' and 'weaker', and kept from resources. 

If the culture has one bigotry, then it usually has the others as well.
Bigotry and bias are not about specific physical characteristics, they're about insecurity and domination issues.
Bigots will FIND an excuse to target individuals; for example if there's no women around, then MEN will be targeted, using body size, finances, etc. as an excuse,
If it's only women in the group, then certain women will be singled out and targeted for disrespect.

Bigotry in a culture means that there IS BIGOTRY in SOME OF THE PEOPLE in the culture, and it's being practiced, so there WILL BE certain people who are treated with EXTRA "respect", and certain people who are treated with LESS "respect", by many of the people in the region.
People in a given culture will either REJECT bigotry, or they'll allow it, and many often end up going along with it after a while.

Find out if there is bigotry, and what the bigotry is in the culture by observing others objectively.
WHO do people talk about with contempt?
Black men? White men? Blond women? Asians?
  
WHO do people GREET with a SMILE and a handshake, and who do they seem to barely acknowledge?

WHO do people LISTEN TO when they TALK, or tell stories, or give opinions or information?
And WHO do they tend to interrupt, ignore, argue with, "correct", or "shut down"?

WHO gets to be "in charge" of random things, and WHO gets treated like they need ASSISTANCE and advice with everything?

WHO is "allowed" to be FUNNY, EXPRESSIVE, and TALENTED, STRONG, CONFIDENT, SMART, SKILLED,
and WHO is ignored, criticized, made fun of, and gets left out often?


Bigotry in a culture reveals itself when it's observed, very plainly. 

So if a person finds that they keep getting treated with disrespect by the people around them in different groups, or if they find that they keep having romantic relationship troubles, if they keep getting passed over for promotions, or ignored and disrespected no matter how hard they work or how talented they are, or how they dress, it can be a valuable practice to LOOK AROUND more closely at the underlying prejudices and biases in the area.
It might CLARIFY what's really going on.

Don't rule out biases that aren't obvious; for example, not having the same "look" as others (hair, makeup, clothes, shoes), being short, being of a different ancestry but the same "race", having a different hair color, etc.
(A woman I know was rejected from a local church because she and her husband were not from the "right" European countries. ~Another person I knew was told to "go back where she came from" when she started work in the neighboring town, by people who were of the same ancestry.)

Realizing that it's NOT PERSONAL, that we're being treated poorly because of OTHER PEOPLE'S PREJUDICE AND BIAS ISSUES can be very freeing. We can take the "personal" element out of it, and be assured that it's not "us", it's "them".
We can make better decisions and plans when we have more information.

For example: Jackie Robinson, the baseball player, KNEW the difference between being rejected by others because of his PERSONALITY, like they just didn't like HIM, as a person, and being rejected by certain others because they had prejudice issues toward people of his ancestry. 
He was rejected over and over and treated like crap, but he knew it was because of bigotry, OTHER people's issues. NOT because he was some kind of bad person who was unlikeable, or unworthy, or untalented, etc.

There is a HUGE difference between being rejected and disrespected because of bigotry, and being rejected and disrespected because of one's personality or capability.
Each affects one's self-esteem, confidence, and spirit in profoundly different ways.
Jackie Robinson found the strength and confidence to STAY, and keep going, and so did many others, and that may have been due to the fact that they grasped the nature and dynamics of bias and bigotry.

When you know you're getting treated like crap for bigotry and bias reasons, it takes much of the burden of doubt, shame, and fear away that we often have when we think it's because of who we are as an individual person. When it's bias and bigotry, it's NOT about "us", it's about "them".

The female auto-mechanic who got fired from three different shops never made one serious mistake, but she was told that her personality was abrasive, and that she slowed the shop down because she couldn't work fast enough. At first she believed them, and her self-esteem took a nosedive. She thought "I'm a bad person, I'm annoying, I can't make friends, no one likes me", and she thought "I can't work any faster, I'm a failure, I'll never be able to keep up." But then she overheard her ex-boss talking about her with another mechanic... and she found out they had been setting her up, and that the thing about her personality was just to add "weight" to the excuses to fire her. Then she heard him say "Chicks just don't belong in a &&^%$ Garage, they belong filing and making coffee". They had FIRED her, compromised her LIVELIHOOD and her life because of THEIR bigotry issues. She didn't press charges, she didn't do anything to retaliate, she just got another job. After she got the job, she told the new boss that she knew all about the bigotry crap in the other shops, and she told her lawyer as well. It never happened again. Before she knew it was bigotry, she really believed that it was HER, and that she might really be a bad person and a failure; she was about to give up. After she found out what was really going on, her confidence came back and she took control of the situation.
In another situation, a person might decide to move away and find a better place to live and prosper.

Even people who aren't "bigots" are usually affected by whatever the general cultural biases are in their area. AND, even people who are members of an "oppressed" group can be riddled with biases and prejudices as well, even the same ones as the rest of the region.
So it can be a kind of accepted cultural habit that few seem to be consciously aware of.
(BUT, if you talk about it, they all get really defensive...) 

OF COURSE, we are each and all responsible for our OWN behavior and actions, and sometimes it IS "US". There might be bigotry in the region, AND we might be acting like a jerk, or acting irresponsibly. Some people like to blame everything on other people, and deny responsibility for their own behavior.
When we practice genuine objectivity, we can observe BOTH ourselves AND our culture, and find ways to improve both.