Which person has the control, identity, and ego issues?
The woman who does construction work?
Or the woman who thinks that a woman who does construction is "trying to act tough" or
"trying to be something she's not"?
It's not a trick question, and deep down, you already know the answer.
Who's got the control, identity, and ego issues?
The man who wants to be a hair dresser?
Or the man who judges a man who wants to be a hair dresser as "weird" or "gay"?
Again, not a trick question, and you already know the answer.
When we Humans have problems with insecurity, we often try to categorize people into groups and sub-groups, and then DICTATE "RULES" and EXPECTATIONS for the people WE PUT into these groups of our OWN MAKING.
This practice of putting people into CATEGORIES gives US an excuse to feel like WE are a "member" of one of these GROUPS, and NOT a member of ANOTHER group.
So if we make a group called "Whites", for example, then we can claim to be a MEMBER of the group of "Whites", OR we can claim that we're NOT a MEMBER of this group, depending on our personal agenda.
If we want to claim that we are a categorically "GOOD and INNOCENT PERSON", then what we will do is say that "White People are BAD" and that WE ARE NOT WHITE, therefore we are "GOOD".
OR, we may do the opposite, and say that "White People are GOOD", and since WE are White, then we are categorically "GOOD".
It doesn't matter HOW we label the GROUPS WE CREATE, or HOW we separate people into these groups.
What matters is that we DO IT.
We don't seem to be AWARE of this behavior, or WHY we do it.
But deep down, we ARE aware, and we know damn well why we do it. We do it because:
WE WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP.
WE WANT TO "BELONG".
WE WANT TO GAIN IDENTITY FROM A GROUP THAT'S BIGGER THAN JUST OURSELVES ALONE,
AND WE USUALLY WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP THAT'S "SUPERIOR" TO OTHER GROUPS IN SOME WAY, SO WE CAN CLAIM THAT WE ARE SUPERIOR.
SINCE HUMANS ARE ALL THE SAME SPECIES, IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WE HAVE TO SEPARATE OURSELVES INTO SUB-GROUPS.
IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE SPECIES OF LIVING HUMANS, EACH SPECIES WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE SATISFIED WITH AN IDENTITY AS THE "SUPERIOR SPECIES", AND WOULD NOT SEPARATE THEMSELVES INTO SUB-GROUPS NEARLY AS MUCH.
For example, if Neanderthals were still around, then Homo Sapiens (us) would be more likely to make THEM into the "Other" or "Lesser/Less Worthy" Group, instead of putting so much EFFORT into making Sub-Groups out of our own species.
BUT, alas, there is only ONE species of Human on the planet right now, and that is "Homo Sapien Sapien". So to satisfy the apparent need for identifying one's self as somehow SUPERIOR to others, Homo Sapiens separate themselves into SUB GROUPS, and then create all kinds of fictional or exaggerated DIFFERENCES between each group.
(This may be a general Primate issue, similar behavior can be seen in other primates as well. Click here for Japanese Macaques making Elite Cliques, and Chimpanzees making Tribal warfare.)
These sub-groups that Humans CREATE are given various "innate" traits, behaviors, interests, limitations, and even emotions, motives, and agendas by those who create and maintain the story.
When a member of a Sub-group DOES NOT CONFORM to the group, they are frequently treated as if they're some kind of "weirdo" or "freak", or EVEN as if they're MENTALLY ILL.
Obviously, with REJECTION of "members" who don't CONFORM on such a severe level, the creation of sub-groups must be directly attached to the Human Ego, which is widely known and accepted to be rather large and overwhelming.
What does this sub-grouping look like?
A valid question.
Most adults know EXACTLY what this sub-grouping of Human Beings looks like, and since so many adults go along with it, they also often pretend that they don't know anything about it.
(This is called "Denial", when a person is trying to hide something that they don't want exposed because it's attached to their ego and identity.)
Another thing that many adults who create and maintain these Sub-Groups often do is try to RATIONALIZE them, claiming that the differences are "biological".
It's not difficult to "flush out" adults who are protecting their ego-identity in this way, and don't actually BELIEVE that the sub-groups are REAL;
all one has to do is notice how they claim STRENGTH and POSITIVE TRAITS for THEIR OWN SUB-GROUP, and WEAKNESS and NEGATIVE TRAITS for OTHER SUB-GROUPS.
Then, point that fact out, and watch them become argumentative, dismissive, flustered, frustrated, angry, and even enraged.
MOST Sub-Groups are based on physical body differences, simply because it's the easiest way to divide people into groups.
THEN, after the people are divided into these groups, the Group-creators will place all kinds of labels on the members of each group, USUALLY POSITIVE LABELS for their own group, and NEGATIVE LABELS for other groups. HOWEVER, whichever Sub-Group has been holding "power" and "control" in a given region will often be given MORE POSITIVE TRAITS by most of the population, and Sub-Groups that have been literally oppressed in the same region will be given MORE NEGATIVE TRAITS by most of the population, INCLUDING members of THAT Sub-Group.
(For example, studies have been conducted asking both men and women about who would make a better President, a man or a woman, BOTH men and women described more leadership and positive traits in women than in men, BUT THEN THOSE SAME men and women said that they would VOTE FOR A MAN over any woman.)
Some examples of common Sub-Groups that Humans often create, perpetuate, elevate,
place status or supremacy upon,
place inferiority upon,
and use to claim victimhood, innocence, intelligence, status, entitlement, and strength:
Black People
Brown People
White People
Yellow People
Red People
Men
Women
Boys
Girls
Wealthy
Middle Class
Poor
Tall
Short
Average Height
Unattractive
Good-Looking
Average Looking
Old
Middle Aged
Young
Teen
Elderly
Child
Religious
Non-Religious
Sophisticated
Ignorant
The Privileged
The Oppressed
White Collar
Blue Collar
Union Members
Non-Union
Athletic
Non-Athletic
Physically Weak/
Physically Strong/
Academic
Non-Academic
Heterosexuals ("straight")
Homosexuals ("gay")
Democrat
Republican
(Any Political Party)
Right Wing
Left Wing
Conservative
Liberal
(Note: most of the Pol. Parties, and also descriptive labels such as "Liberal" or "Conservative" seem to have completely lost their actual definitions and original platforms, due possibly to the influence of mass media and/or social media. For example many people call themselves "Liberal" who have no idea what "Liberal" actually means: Being open to hearing other points of view; an ACTUAL "Liberal" would want to hear all points of view about a topic, and gather as many opinions from as many sources as possible, INCLUDING "Right Wingers" and "conservatives", so they would have as much information as possible BEFORE making a decision or a "stand" about something; and even after they have made a decision, they would STILL WANT to hear more view points from more sources as they come up. A true "Liberal" would not want MORE Federal government control, they would want LESS.)
Humans will separate these Sub-Groups into even SMALLER Sub-Groups, and then claim or deny membership:
For example:
Homosexuals:
Gay (homosexual males):
Lesbians (homosexual females)
(THEN)
Homosexual males:
"queer", "flaming", "effeminate", etc.
OR
"macho", "masculine",
OR
"androgynous"
Homosexual females:
"girly", "feminine",
OR
"dyke", "butch"
OR
"androgynous"
(Not a complete list, there are many more mostly demeaning labels stamped on people by BOTH heterosexual group-creators AND homosexual group-creators.)
ALL RACIAL GROUPS have been divided into Sub-group upon Sub-group upon Sub-group throughout the eras and generations, and have also been re-categorized, re-grouped, and cross-grouped countless times. This seems to go amazingly unnoticed and ignored for the most part, most likely because of the same Human desire to be a member of a "special group".
What's your "race", for example?
But... what is your ancestry?
But wait... what ancestry is your mother's family, and what is your father's?
Why do people of the same race have different colored hair and eyes?
But... what is the ancestry of your mother's mother, vs. your mother's father?
And how about your father's father and your father's mother?
And each of their parents? NOW what's the "Ancestry"?
What country was your great, great grandmother on your mother's side born in?
How about your great, great, great grandfather? On your father's side?
When does the "ANCESTRY" become "REAL"; when do we just decide to start pretending that it's somehow "pure"?
What will really bake a Sub-Grouper's Noodle is finding out that there's NO SUCH THING AS "RACE"...
(What they'll most likely do is immediately deny this scientific claim, and continue to argue that "yes, yes there IS a such thing as race!")
The woman who does construction work?
Or the woman who thinks that a woman who does construction is "trying to act tough" or
"trying to be something she's not"?
It's not a trick question, and deep down, you already know the answer.
Who's got the control, identity, and ego issues?
The man who wants to be a hair dresser?
Or the man who judges a man who wants to be a hair dresser as "weird" or "gay"?
Again, not a trick question, and you already know the answer.
When we Humans have problems with insecurity, we often try to categorize people into groups and sub-groups, and then DICTATE "RULES" and EXPECTATIONS for the people WE PUT into these groups of our OWN MAKING.
This practice of putting people into CATEGORIES gives US an excuse to feel like WE are a "member" of one of these GROUPS, and NOT a member of ANOTHER group.
So if we make a group called "Whites", for example, then we can claim to be a MEMBER of the group of "Whites", OR we can claim that we're NOT a MEMBER of this group, depending on our personal agenda.
If we want to claim that we are a categorically "GOOD and INNOCENT PERSON", then what we will do is say that "White People are BAD" and that WE ARE NOT WHITE, therefore we are "GOOD".
OR, we may do the opposite, and say that "White People are GOOD", and since WE are White, then we are categorically "GOOD".
It doesn't matter HOW we label the GROUPS WE CREATE, or HOW we separate people into these groups.
What matters is that we DO IT.
We don't seem to be AWARE of this behavior, or WHY we do it.
But deep down, we ARE aware, and we know damn well why we do it. We do it because:
WE WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP.
WE WANT TO "BELONG".
WE WANT TO GAIN IDENTITY FROM A GROUP THAT'S BIGGER THAN JUST OURSELVES ALONE,
AND WE USUALLY WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF A GROUP THAT'S "SUPERIOR" TO OTHER GROUPS IN SOME WAY, SO WE CAN CLAIM THAT WE ARE SUPERIOR.
SINCE HUMANS ARE ALL THE SAME SPECIES, IN ORDER TO DO THIS, WE HAVE TO SEPARATE OURSELVES INTO SUB-GROUPS.
IF THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE SPECIES OF LIVING HUMANS, EACH SPECIES WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE SATISFIED WITH AN IDENTITY AS THE "SUPERIOR SPECIES", AND WOULD NOT SEPARATE THEMSELVES INTO SUB-GROUPS NEARLY AS MUCH.
For example, if Neanderthals were still around, then Homo Sapiens (us) would be more likely to make THEM into the "Other" or "Lesser/Less Worthy" Group, instead of putting so much EFFORT into making Sub-Groups out of our own species.
BUT, alas, there is only ONE species of Human on the planet right now, and that is "Homo Sapien Sapien". So to satisfy the apparent need for identifying one's self as somehow SUPERIOR to others, Homo Sapiens separate themselves into SUB GROUPS, and then create all kinds of fictional or exaggerated DIFFERENCES between each group.
(This may be a general Primate issue, similar behavior can be seen in other primates as well. Click here for Japanese Macaques making Elite Cliques, and Chimpanzees making Tribal warfare.)
These sub-groups that Humans CREATE are given various "innate" traits, behaviors, interests, limitations, and even emotions, motives, and agendas by those who create and maintain the story.
When a member of a Sub-group DOES NOT CONFORM to the group, they are frequently treated as if they're some kind of "weirdo" or "freak", or EVEN as if they're MENTALLY ILL.
Obviously, with REJECTION of "members" who don't CONFORM on such a severe level, the creation of sub-groups must be directly attached to the Human Ego, which is widely known and accepted to be rather large and overwhelming.
What does this sub-grouping look like?
A valid question.
Most adults know EXACTLY what this sub-grouping of Human Beings looks like, and since so many adults go along with it, they also often pretend that they don't know anything about it.
(This is called "Denial", when a person is trying to hide something that they don't want exposed because it's attached to their ego and identity.)
Another thing that many adults who create and maintain these Sub-Groups often do is try to RATIONALIZE them, claiming that the differences are "biological".
It's not difficult to "flush out" adults who are protecting their ego-identity in this way, and don't actually BELIEVE that the sub-groups are REAL;
all one has to do is notice how they claim STRENGTH and POSITIVE TRAITS for THEIR OWN SUB-GROUP, and WEAKNESS and NEGATIVE TRAITS for OTHER SUB-GROUPS.
Then, point that fact out, and watch them become argumentative, dismissive, flustered, frustrated, angry, and even enraged.
MOST Sub-Groups are based on physical body differences, simply because it's the easiest way to divide people into groups.
THEN, after the people are divided into these groups, the Group-creators will place all kinds of labels on the members of each group, USUALLY POSITIVE LABELS for their own group, and NEGATIVE LABELS for other groups. HOWEVER, whichever Sub-Group has been holding "power" and "control" in a given region will often be given MORE POSITIVE TRAITS by most of the population, and Sub-Groups that have been literally oppressed in the same region will be given MORE NEGATIVE TRAITS by most of the population, INCLUDING members of THAT Sub-Group.
(For example, studies have been conducted asking both men and women about who would make a better President, a man or a woman, BOTH men and women described more leadership and positive traits in women than in men, BUT THEN THOSE SAME men and women said that they would VOTE FOR A MAN over any woman.)
Some examples of common Sub-Groups that Humans often create, perpetuate, elevate,
place status or supremacy upon,
place inferiority upon,
and use to claim victimhood, innocence, intelligence, status, entitlement, and strength:
Black People
Brown People
White People
Yellow People
Red People
Men
Women
Boys
Girls
Wealthy
Middle Class
Poor
Tall
Short
Average Height
Unattractive
Good-Looking
Average Looking
Old
Middle Aged
Young
Teen
Elderly
Child
Religious
Non-Religious
Sophisticated
Ignorant
The Privileged
The Oppressed
White Collar
Blue Collar
Union Members
Non-Union
Athletic
Non-Athletic
Physically Weak/
Physically Strong/
Academic
Non-Academic
Heterosexuals ("straight")
Homosexuals ("gay")
Democrat
Republican
(Any Political Party)
Right Wing
Left Wing
Conservative
Liberal
(Note: most of the Pol. Parties, and also descriptive labels such as "Liberal" or "Conservative" seem to have completely lost their actual definitions and original platforms, due possibly to the influence of mass media and/or social media. For example many people call themselves "Liberal" who have no idea what "Liberal" actually means: Being open to hearing other points of view; an ACTUAL "Liberal" would want to hear all points of view about a topic, and gather as many opinions from as many sources as possible, INCLUDING "Right Wingers" and "conservatives", so they would have as much information as possible BEFORE making a decision or a "stand" about something; and even after they have made a decision, they would STILL WANT to hear more view points from more sources as they come up. A true "Liberal" would not want MORE Federal government control, they would want LESS.)
Humans will separate these Sub-Groups into even SMALLER Sub-Groups, and then claim or deny membership:
For example:
Homosexuals:
Gay (homosexual males):
Lesbians (homosexual females)
(THEN)
Homosexual males:
"queer", "flaming", "effeminate", etc.
OR
"macho", "masculine",
OR
"androgynous"
Homosexual females:
"girly", "feminine",
OR
"dyke", "butch"
OR
"androgynous"
(Not a complete list, there are many more mostly demeaning labels stamped on people by BOTH heterosexual group-creators AND homosexual group-creators.)
ALL RACIAL GROUPS have been divided into Sub-group upon Sub-group upon Sub-group throughout the eras and generations, and have also been re-categorized, re-grouped, and cross-grouped countless times. This seems to go amazingly unnoticed and ignored for the most part, most likely because of the same Human desire to be a member of a "special group".
What's your "race", for example?
But... what is your ancestry?
But wait... what ancestry is your mother's family, and what is your father's?
Why do people of the same race have different colored hair and eyes?
But... what is the ancestry of your mother's mother, vs. your mother's father?
And how about your father's father and your father's mother?
And each of their parents? NOW what's the "Ancestry"?
What country was your great, great grandmother on your mother's side born in?
How about your great, great, great grandfather? On your father's side?
When does the "ANCESTRY" become "REAL"; when do we just decide to start pretending that it's somehow "pure"?
What will really bake a Sub-Grouper's Noodle is finding out that there's NO SUCH THING AS "RACE"...
(What they'll most likely do is immediately deny this scientific claim, and continue to argue that "yes, yes there IS a such thing as race!")
