What's Mine Is Mine; What's Yours Is Mine

Picture a person with Narcissism standing in front of a storage tent. Their whole life is inside the tent, everything they do, everything they own. They're standing in front of the door, blocking it so no one else can come in. Everything in the tent is THEIRS, and THEIR BUSINESS ONLY, "for their eyes only". They are very protective of the contents of their tent, and rarely invite anyone in.
Those who do get invited in become one of the Narcissist's possessions (not in reality, just in the N's mind).
Those who get invited in are not allowed to "explore", or to ask questions about anything.
Those who are invited in are not allowed autonomy, nor their own thoughts, feelings, or opinions. Inside the N's tent, everyone has to cater completely and fully to the N. with no question about anything, no differing opinions, no talents, skills, or even knowledge that the N. doesn't have, and no expression of any discomfort, pain, annoyance, anger, or sadness.

When they've targeted a person, the Target's "storage tent" is expected to be wide open for the Narcissist to come and go whenever they please, invited or uninvited. The N. feels entitled to ownership of all contents inside the Target's tent, and feels entitled to know every detail about everything. The N. feels entitled to criticize, correct, or throw away anything at all inside the Target's tent.
In order to have easier access, the N. might demand that the Target take down the very walls of their tent.
The N. might have a yard sale with the Target's possessions.
The N. might simply give them away.
They might invite other people into the Target's tent.
The N. feels entitled to dictate what a Target can or can't bring into their own tent, or remove from their own tent, because the N. believes that he or she owns the Target, the Target's tent, and all of its contents.

The "rules" that the N. puts on his or her OWN tent for others to follow are completely different from the "rules" the N. imposes on the Target, and on the Target's tent.
The N. feels that he or she literally deserves and is entitled to complete control over the Target and everything about the Target, and the Target's entire tent, but that the Target has ZERO entitlement, authority, or control over the N, or the N's tent, or the contents therein, and not even over the Target's OWN tent, either.

So, the Narcissist feels ownership and entitlement over BOTH TENTS, and feels entitlement to COMPLETE RESPECT AND PRIVACY for THEMSELVES, and will defend that privacy passionately, with righteousness, ...but does NOT AT ALL respect the privacy, personhood, possessions, or anything else about the Target or within the Target's tent.

Playing Games With Your Stuff: Narcissist Shenanigans

Those with Narcissism issues, whether they'd be "diagnosable" or not, may inadvertently "gaslight" a target by moving their possessions around, taking their possessions, throwing them out, or giving them away to other people.

This gaslighting with STUFF is not necessarily on purpose, so it's not really "gaslighting"; that's when it's INTENDED to make a target look crazy or think they're crazy, that's the GOAL.

People with N. issues tend to actually believe that any "stuff" that's within their grasp belongs to them, so they may do things that look like gaslighting, and WILL confuse a target or make them feel "crazy", but if that's not their actual GOAL, then it's not really "gaslighting". It's just self-centeredness, inconsideration, bad manners, and disrespect.

In other words there are reasons behind some of these behaviors that may or may not have anything to do with purposeful targeting of a person.

Those who have N. issues may treat their own possessions and personal space with the utmost respect, but will NOT treat another person's possessions and space with respect. They might throw a person's coat into a closet instead of hanging it up neatly, but their own coats will be hung neatly. They might be very, very careful about their own car's finish, but sit on, put stuff on, step on, even dent or scratch up another person's car. 
THEIR possessions are treated with very high regard, but other people's possessions are treated like scraps and junk.
It's not necessarily because they are trying to ruin the other person's things, it's that they honestly see their own things as "very valuable", and another person's things as "not valuable", AS IF the other person SHARES the SAME POINT OF VIEW. They believe that it's actually TRUE, objectively.

Taking things AWAY from a target without their knowledge, taking things away just so a target can't have or use them, is still not really gaslighting. It's possessiveness, and most N's have this issue.
~If the possession belongs to the Target, then it's technically "stealing", but N's usually have a hard time making that distinction; if they think something is rightfuly THEIRS, or even if it could KIND OF, MAYBE belong to them, or if it's "public property", or if it's left out, they don't think they're "stealing". "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a favorite Narcissist phrase, they often use it to justify keeping something that belongs to someone else (but of course they'll freak out if someone uses that on them).
They think that everything belongs to them (except for things they don't WANT), so if they see a Target using something or enjoying it, they might take it, or HIDE IT, so the Target can't use it anymore. Just like when a dog takes another dog's bone away, just because the dog wants to own and control BOTH bones, ALL the bones; he or she can't stand watching another dog enjoying a bone.

The behavior of Giving Things Away to others is about the N's image; they are being seen by others as a "Giver", as "generous", and as "kind". When they can give someone else's stuff away, that's an added benefit, because they aren't losing anything.
This is something that many children might do before they learn to respect other people's ownership of possessions, or understand that something they're giving away to a friend was very expensive or valuable. Like giving away a valuable antique bicycle that their parents "never use" to one of their friends; the child doesn't understand why it's wrong, he or she is just trying to do something "good", or be SEEN as doing something good. The loss that it causes the child's parents is not even in his or her mind; he or she simply hasn't learned about that yet. 
When an adult is still in this stage, they may do a lot of giving in order to maintain their "giving person" image, but they don't care WHO'S STUFF they give away, and if it's not THEIR STUFF, even better (for them).
~A person with serious "NPD" might do this behavior to an extreme degree, giving away anything that belongs to others, giving away other people's money, volunteering their children for service to others, (good service or BAD "service"), even giving away their own children in some cases. This is STILL not about their children, and that's part of the problem; nothing is, it's ALL about them.

Those with N. issues WITH "OCPD" (Obsessive Compulsive Pers. Disorder, not the same as "OCD") might move a person's stuff around, rearrange it, or throw it away.  Again, those with N. issues think that everything in their personal vicinity is under their ownership and jurisdiction, so they may go in another person's bedroom and rearrange everything, and feel entitled to throw things away.
Those who live with a person who has this kind of profile learn to never leave anything out that they want to keep, to hide things, to avoid drawing attention to themselves, and are not shocked (angry, but not shocked) when they notice something else missing.  (People with OCPD, esp. who have N. issues, are the ones who are constantly touching and rearranging other people's hair and clothing, trying to dictate and control their movements, criticizing them and their appearance, "correcting" everything they do, "advising" them about everything, and feeling entitled to know ALL of their personal business. ~ As if the person is one of their dolls or action figures.)
Their behavior is LIKE gaslighting, but if the intention is not to cause the target to feel like they're crazy, or make them look crazy to others, then it's not really gaslighting by definition.

PURPOSELY moving stuff around, removing things, or breaking things in order to sabotage a target's project, goal, or performance IS a form of "gaslighting", and it's usually done by those who do have the Narcissism disorder (if they're adults).
Purposely moving things, changing things, or taking them away in order to confuse a target IS DEFINITELY "gaslighting".
Lying about where things are in order to confuse a target is also "gaslighting".
"Gaslighting" is about doing things covertly with the INTENTION of confusing or humiliating the Target, and also with the INTENTION of making the Target LOOK "crazy" or "unstable" to others. 

Sabotage of any kind is commonly done by people who do have the Narcissism disorder, especially if they're adults.

Human Superiority Complex: Fascinating!

People who have superiority complexes, whether they were "taught" purposely during childhood, or whether they developed it from a lack of guidance, actually DO GET ANGRY when they are not being treated as a "superior" person.
Even enraged.
Even "outraged".
It's who they honestly think they are.
They will often attack those who don't treat them as if they really are Superior, who treat them with genuine respect as a normal equal, but not submissiveness like an "inferior" or "subordinate".

They will do this to their own boss and coworkers if they see the person as an "inferior" (usually sex, sometimes race, often size), to members of their own family (usually sex or size), and to members of their own community.
In many cases, "World Leaders", and more local government office holders will do this to other "Leaders", to other Politicians, and to citizens of any Party, even their own.

People who have superiority complexes will often openly display their issues online because they aren't afraid of consequences.

They will typically PROJECT their own superiority complex and motives onto those who are simply standing up for themselves against actual disrespect, because they tend to believe that EVERYONE sees people as either "inferior" or "superior", like they do.
So when a person stands up against actual disrespect, they see them as trying to dominate them and be superior (like they do on a regular basis).

Believing one's self to be ACTUALLY SUPERIOR to others means that one is emotionally invested in the belief, and that it's part of one's VERY IDENTITY. So when someone "fails to recognize" their "Natural Superiority", they feel PERSONALLY INSULTED, and they will even accuse the person of rebelling against the "natural order". .....For real.

It's such a severe identity issue that those who are afflicted will often try to use religious texts or even SCIENCE to back up their ardent wish for it to be true, and they will completely alter and twist actual religious teachings AND ALSO scientific discoveries in order to "back up" their claim to be "Naturally Superior".
It's truly amazing and fascinating to watch.


Insecurity And Safety In Numbers

Insecure, immature people NEED "safety in numbers", so they will often turn against a person who does not completely go along with all of the dynamics of the group they're in. Especially a person of the same sex.
Expectations are usually very high toward those of the same sex (same sex as a controller person) to go along with 'the group', and to obey the leadership and hierarchy of the group, no matter how small or informal.

A person who refuses to conform to the group will first be talked about behind their back in a negative way, with one member pleading a case about how "bad" (selfish/stuck-up/uncaring/crazy, etc.) the other member is, trying to get others to agree with them.
(They will say that they were 'venting', or 'just talking', but 'venting' does not result in a person being targeted for ostracism by the group. If the original person WAS actually seeking support, then it's another member of the group who twists it into an opportunity to launch a "dislike campaign" against the person being talked about. A healthy group would be supportive of both the "venter" and the person they were "venting" about).

~The motive is rarely about something serious the person has done, this kind of behavior is nearly always about a person deflecting blame off of themselves and trying to put it onto the person who they did something to, even if the thing was trivial. The 'trigger' is usually a feeling of embarrassment, shame, or resentment on the part of the person who is launching the 'attack'.

Then, when enough members of the group have been recruited, the targeted person will be "ganged up on" with social signals and social "punishments" in order to make them FEAR rejection, and re-think their refusal to conform.
If that doesn't work, the person will then be talked about MORE, and others will be recruited to join the campaign against them.
When members of the group feel secure enough, because they are being "backed up" by other members, they will then carry out the "Rejection" and "Ostracism" process.

Women do tend to do this more than men because of the very different ways they are socially conditioned and raised during childhood. HOWEVER! Women tend to socially manipulate and attack other women for not conforming to their group, or for refusing to be controlled or bullied by an individual woman;  but men ALSO socially manipulate and attack individual women, just because they've learned that it WORKS. It doesn't work NEARLY as well against MEN, because of the biased culture.

Both immature men and women are more likely to go along with smearing a woman than a man, and both men and women are more likely to defend a man against gossip.
That's because they have learned about the different CONSEQUENCES that they WILL or WILL NOT receive for "speaking against" or smearing women vs. smearing men.
Men tend more to directly bully and reject other men they've targeted, without creating a large smear campaign; not because they're "more moral", but because there are often consequences from others for smearing a man.
So both men and women who "smear" will do it to a woman much more often than they'll do it to a man, because they know they'll get away with it.

Which brings the subject back to immaturity, insecurity, and Narcissism. Those who ONLY STOP THEMSELVES from doing certain destructive, immoral behaviors (such as ostracism, slander, and bullying) because they FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES that might result are often seen doing many other kinds of destructive, manipulative, illegal or deceptive things. They gauge how far they can go, and what they can "get away with" when they're making decisions.


Going Along With The Crowd

Those with Narcissism, and also those who simply lack maturity, tend to judge people and things by how other people act, and what other people say.
So if they liked a new person at first, but later it looks like they person is not popular, they will usually reject the person.

It's about being accepted, liked, admired, or feared; most N's want to be associated with "popular" or powerful people, and so will reject and avoid "less popular" individuals in order to avoid being associated with them by the crowd.

One of the main reasons Narcissists will make up cruel rumors about a Target is to avoid being seen as a "popularity whore". They have to make up an excuse to COVER themselves for rejecting the person, so they try and spread it around that the person has 'bad character'.
(Of course, smear campaigns only work when there are other willing participants who eat the slander up like ice cream, who are too immature to stand up for the targeted person and have their back.) 


Controlling Narcissists Block Good Things

A common controller/narcissist behavior:
purposely NOT doing something, purposely NOT sharing information, purposely hiding something, purposely avoiding something that would PLEASE a Target.

For example, if a Target's favorite singer is having a concert nearby, the N. would purposely NOT tell the Target about it. They might honestly FORGET, because a component of Narcissism is being so self-centered that they tend to only remember things they want for themselves. But it shows itself to be on purpose when they are seen to remember OTHER things that might please someone they're trying to impress.

N.-Controllers will do this all the time, with all kinds of things. Anything that a Target shows interest in, or is pleased or excited by will be the very thing that gets avoided, changed, or nixed. In severe cases, destroyed.

It can be anything at all, from a Target's favorite cartoon character, to a Target's interest or hobby, to important opportunities for a Target's future or career. It can be a pair of shoes that the Target obviously likes, or a hairstyle, or a jacket.

It can be a PERSON who the Target apparently likes or has connected with, any person, including their own child, parent, partner, or a new friend or business associate.

It's one of the N/Controller's most common behaviors: BLOCKING a Target from anything (anything positive and not destructive) that pleases them, interests them, would be good for them, would be fun for them, would be a good opportunity, or would help them build their confidence.     

When children grow up around N/Controllers, either in their family or their community, they can develop the habit of blocking THEMSELVES, and avoiding, fearing, or resenting and rejecting positive things. (Some who end up developing N/Control do this to others instead of themselves, repeating the pattern).

Selective Compassion

Humans tend to sympathize selectively, not universally. Bias is usually about one's own identity, so people tend to have "compassion" and "understanding" for those who are more like themselves and those they like, but only have negative judgment and self-righteousness toward those who they view as "other", not like themselves, and those they feel resentment or envy toward.

This selective compassion is common for humans, but many are capable of maturing past this developmental block. Those who have Narcissism can not, because they are unable to admit that they have any "flaws", and they believe that their biases and prejudices are "correct".

When Is Rejecting and Despising Someone Okay?

Rejecting, ejecting, ostracizing, or "despising" a person for anything less than a very serious transgression is evidence of either immaturity in a young person, or some sort of emotional or mental illness in an adult. (Which type of emotional or mental illness would have to be determined by the person and a medical or psychiatric professional.)

What's a serious transgression when it might be appropriate to treat another human being with such harsh behavior?  (An adult human being, that is; it shouldn't be done at all to a child.)

~Physical violence
~Abuse, assault
~Purposeful vandalism to a person's property
~Abusing, threatening, endangering one's child
~Abusing, threatening, endangering one's partner, friend, or other relative
~Attempted murder, completed murder
~Purposeful Sabotage
~Stealing, robbing
~Holding a person against their will
~Slander (intentionally damaging a person's reputation by purposely spreading damaging rumors, usually fake)
~Purposely causing another person harm
~Abandoning a person who has been injured or is in harm's way
~Neglecting a person one is responsible for giving physical care and protection to (or mental health care)
~Inciting a group to turn on a person
~Inciting a person's child, partner, friend,  or relatives, coworkers or community to turn on a person
~Actual purposeful Betrayal with no remorse or amends
~Involving another person against their will or knowledge in criminal behavior or corruption

Of course there are more specific examples that can be added to this list. What they all have in common is that they are serious and actual "transgressions"; they are not TRIVIAL, nor are they about personality, ego, common conflicts, social status, or social interactions misinterpreted and gone awry.   

There should be a VERY SERIOUS, VERY REAL REASON when a person is subjected to harsh rejection behaviors by other people.

Making up fake "reasons" that didn't really happen, or wildly exaggerating things that did happen in order to justify one's "harsh" treatment toward another person is a behavior exhibited by those with the disorder known as Narcissism.

Those with certain mental or emotional illnesses will jump to these "harsh" behaviors because it gives them a sense of control and power. It's that feeling of power that they're seeking, either because they're reacting to anxiety and trying to make themselves feel safe again, or because they are looking for a "fix" they get from domination.
The person who they're doing it to is just "collateral damage", they used the person to get that feeling again.
An added benefit is when they're surrounded by others like themselves who go along with it, and may even give them encouragement and 'reward' for their bully behavior.

Humans, Domination Behavior, And Denial

As a function of self-preservation, Human Beings tend to adamantly deny traits about themselves that could be seen as flaws, or that expose their 'weaknesses'. We deny things about ourselves, but we also deny things about our entire species Homo Sapien. Accepting that the species itself has inherent flaws or weaknesses would mean that each of us probably have them too, so we tend to deny all of it categorically. 

One of the "flaws" that we as a species tend to deny about ourselves with great passion is that Humans have inherent Domination issues, along with a desire to create and live inside of hierarchies.

We have a hard time getting along with one another due to these very issues, whether we're talking about people in our home, at work, in school, in the community, or other countries.
The problem is not ONLY that we are born with the tendency to dominate and control other individuals, but also that we keep denying that we were.

The evidence is all around us, all day, every day, everywhere we look.
Humans have Domination compulsions.
Humans get a huge kick out of competing and winning.
Humans have negative emotional reactions when they DON'T WIN something; they call it "failure".
Humans are so obsessed with "winning" that they create actual awards and hold huge, ongoing contests and competitions, and think nothing of paying money to watch or participate in these contests.
It's considered a HUGE RECOGNITION to be the Winner of an Award, a competition, a contest, or a game, and the bigger the audience, the bigger the "importance" of the WIN.
Humans tend to desire higher status, superiority, and control over other humans.
Humans tend to look for "reasons" to be recognized as having more authority than others, and being considered "more worthy", "more capable", and "more valuable" than others.
Humans tend to look for "reasons" to judge another person as LESSER than themselves.

Humans get a "charge" out of controlling and dominating other human beings, and being SEEN AS A PERSON WHO "WINS", (who "dominates").

Humans tend to give very, very large amounts of "respect" (and also resources) to those who have WON something, regardless of anything else about the person.
They will often freely give Leadership positions to those who have received some kind of documented Award or Degree, regardless of anything else about the person, and regardless of actual experience or knowledge in anything else.   

Humans tend to automatically treat those who are larger or appear stronger than they are MUCH DIFFERENTLY than they treat other Humans who are smaller or appear less physically strong than themselves.
In fact, Humans tend to go to extremes with the way they assess other Humans by size, height, and appearance, judging each and every person they see for "status" in comparison to themselves, and for "status" in the larger group.

Humans do NOT assess and judge others by the person's actual behaviors, intelligence, ability, or the way the person treats others.
Obviously some do these superficial assessments more, and some do them less. It depends on the level of awareness and self-awareness that a person has, and their ability to think critically and abstractly, along with their capability for being objective (detached from their emotional reactions and ego issues).

The Human assessment and judgment of others is first about whether another person is a physical threat (think tribes, clans, and roving marauders of earlier times). Immediately after that, it's about placing where another person stands in comparison to themselves in "status" (again, think hierarchy in tribes, clans, and kingdoms), and how the rest of the group sees and treats the person. It's done mostly unconsciously, without much awareness, usually with no actual logic or conscious thought, and very quickly:

~"Is this person physically larger than me, or smaller?"

~"Is this person stronger than me, weaker, or similar in strength?"

~"How does the rest of the group see this person, do they think he or she is important?"

~"Is this person more 'important' than me, or less 'important' than me according to the group?"

~"Is this person the same sex as I am, or the opposite sex?"

~"How do others treat members of that person's sex, do they give them automatic higher status, or automatic lower status?"

~"What is this person's ancestry, and is it the same or different than my own?"

~"What is the accepted, common STEREOTYPE that matches this person's appearance, and are others treating the person that way? Can I get away with treating the person that way?"

~"How does this other person's size compare to the rest of the group? How does my own size compare to others in the group?"

~"Can I personally get away with treating this person as lower status?"

~"Would others join me in treating this person as lower status, or would they disapprove and give me consequences?"

~"Do others like this person or dislike this person?"

~"Do others listen to this person, ignore this person, or bully this person?"

~"Do others follow this person's lead, or not?"

~"What is this person's sexual orientation, and what status does that give them in the group?"

~"Do others seem to fear this person's reactions? Should I fear this person's reactions?"

~"Does it appear that I could physically overtake this person?"

~"Will there be consequences, and what would they be, if I were to try to dominate this person?"

~"Can I assert control over this person without getting seen or caught by others?"

~"Will anyone stand up for this person against my disrespect toward them, or against my domination or control over them?"

~"Does this person seem to have status in the group or community?"

~"Does this person appear to have financial wealth, or some kind of power in the community or group?"

~"Does this person have something I want?"

~"Do I find this person physically attractive?"

~"Do other people find this person physically attractive?"

~"How socially savvy does this person appear to be?"

~"How do others seem to treat this person in comparison to the way they treat me?"

~"Does this person accept me?"

~"Does this group accept this person, or me, as 'One Of Them', or as LESS important, or as MORE important?"

~"Am I being treated with more positive attention than others nearby? How is this other person being treated by the other members of the group?"

This is a very basic short list of questions and assessments that run very quickly through the average person's unconscious mind when they meet or see another person. There are more, many more, and they do vary according to the individual person's motives and mental health.

"CAN I DOMINATE THIS PERSON, OR CAN THEY DOMINATE ME" is the bottom line; all the other assessments are built upon that.

Those who have more Domination compulsions and issues of course will assess and judge others within that context, and tend to assign "status" to others and to themselves regularly in their minds.
They also tend to be reactive when another person does not seem to accept the "status" that they've projected onto them (they get upset when others stand up for themselves, or when others don't seem to take "being important" or "hierarchy" seriously).

Those who have few Domination issues tend to compare themselves and others less; tend to be able to assess others by their actual "person" (the way they treat others and their strengths and abilities), NOT by their appearance; tend NOT to feel threatened by the assets, talent, abilities, or looks of others; and also tend to take their OWN integrity, behaviors, and actions (the way they treat other people) very seriously.
Because of the Domination issues and behaviors of other people, many Humans tend to feel FREE when they "get out from under" by achieving financial wealth or fame. They feel FREE because they feel that they are ON TOP, and therefore can't be so easily dominated or controlled by the other Humans around them. They feel FREE because they have enough resources and "status" to have more control over their own lives, and be much less subject to the control and domination issues of others.

Whether a person has more or fewer Domination compulsions and Status issues appears to be directly related to their self-awareness, their level of objectivity, and their level of actual integrity. 


Those who were not guided about what "respect" means often believe that it's the same as fear, or the same as admiration. They are prone to treating other people who they DON'T FEAR or ADMIRE with a lack of basic civility, courtesy, manners, or professionalism.

They will do this regularly in personal and social situations, but they will ALSO do this in any kind of BUSINESS situations.

This means that they will pay a hired person whom they "respect" on time, but they often will NOT pay a person whom they do NOT "respect" on time, or even at all.

It means that they will treat one customer with proper service, but they will treat another customer with IMPROPER service, speaking to them in a disrespectful, condescending, or absent manner, or even not doing their job, or worse yet, purposely "screwing" the person out of money.

It means that if they're in healthcare (or mental healthcare), they will treat one patient well, and another patient with disdain. It doesn't matter if they're a physician, a nurse, a therapist, an aid, or a caregiver.

It means that if they're a teacher or instructor, they will treat one student well, and treat another as if they're incapable, unwanted, or invisible.

It means that they won't respect the position of their manager, supervisor, or boss if the person doesn't align with their prejudices and biases; they are likely to "rebel" against them like a teen rebelling against a parent.

It means that they will treat one employee well, and another unfairly and with disdain.

It means that if they're still a youth, they see only certain adults (whom they either FEAR or ADMIRE) as having "real" authority, and that they "don't have to listen to" other adults, including other parents, teachers, store owners or employees, officers, adult relatives, etc. (They're usually following along with the bias issues of the adults in their lives).


A lot of people have the meaning of "respect" backwards, and it may actually be due to specific events and "ideals" that came out of the sixties era.

For example one of the "ideals" that was circulated was about allowing children to "Lead" adults.

Allowing children to find their own strengths, interests, and talents seems to be an important part of responsible parenting and teaching. Telling a child that they "should" or "shouldn't" be interested in a particular hobby, activity, or career because of their sex or ancestry would be control, and punishing a child for a parent or teacher's own emotional reactions, instead of for actually breaking a rule or law, is also control.

HOWEVER, simply NOT giving a child rules or consequences, and giving them whatever they want, allowing them to do whatever they feel like doing, and only giving them praise but no disapproval for breaking rules or for inappropriate behavior is simply teaching them Entitlement.  Which leads straight to having Control issues, Superiority issues, Domination issues, and even Narcissism.

The child is being denied guidance in developing the ability to see, care about, or respect other people, or other people's boundaries.
The child is being taught to expect others to cater to their wants and emotions.

Often, the child is NOT being taught that biases such as racism, sexism, or classism are the least bit wrong, and that whatever "type" of person the child is (the child's sex, ancestry, rich or poor, etc) is SUPERIOR to other "types" of humans.


Respect is not fearing another person, or admiring them.
It's not about another person having authority over others, or being "greater" or "better" or "tougher" than others.
When we are respectful, we recognize another person (or animal, or plant, or anything outside of ourselves) AS REAL AND VALID, just as they are, all by themselves.
It means we do NOT try to CONTROL, scare, hurt, provoke, boss around, or dominate another person (or animal).

When we RESPECT a Grizzly Bear, for example, we accept the bear for what it is, just as it exists in the world. That's not because of the size and strength of the bear, it's because WE are CAPABLE of seeing the bear as VALID and REAL, without OUR input or opinion.  We don't try to SHAME the bear for doing what it does, and we don't try to MAKE the bear change, and act like a different animal.
If the Grizzly Bear chased us and tried to harm us, then we would have every right to defend ourselves. But when the bear is just being a bear, and isn't attacking us, then if we respect the bear, we accept it for who and what it is.
~It's not trying to dominate us, and we're not trying to dominate, judge, boss, hurt, or shame the bear. That's "respect".

If a human being is capable of respect, then he or she would be able to apply that SAME respect for the Grizzly Bear to a wild Rabbit in their back yard.
If they're capable of respect, they will treat the tall man in a suit who comes into their store the same way they treat the small elderly lady, or the young man with tattoos, or the young woman with purple hair. And if those customers are capable of respect, they will all treat the store clerk the same way they would treat the owner of that store, and the police officer in the parking lot, and all of the other customers.

Judging another person about whether they "deserve" my respectful treatment and manners or not means that I'm judging them based on my own biases, assumptions, and emotions, and that I'm putting the responsiblity of MY ACTIONS and MY "VALUES" onto other people, instead of on MYSELF, where it belongs.

If one of those store customers suddenly started treating me or someone else with disrespect, speaking or acting rudely, then my opinion of them will probably take a nosedive. But it won't change my overall manner, and it definitely won't change my values. That person would LOSE my respect for them, but if they hadn't behaved DISrespectfully toward another person, that wouldn't have even been a thought.
(And if that person is a youth, I won't lose "respect" for them, I'll probably just feel bad for them that they haven't been taught how to treat other people and conduct themselves.)

A person can LOSE REAL respect from another by treating other people with contempt or condescension.  But "not respecting" them in the first place for superficial things about them is just being judgmental and superior.

Rage Trigger: Neutrality And The Absence Of Overt Sweetness

Rage trigger:

Someone showing any annoyance or anger toward them can trigger a person with certain emotional illnesses to a defensive "rage" response, even to the point of feeling contempt or hatred toward the person.
Even just an absence of overtly pleasant or accommodating treatment toward them is a common trigger for intense emotional reactivity in those with certain disorders.
(which can include trauma).

They can be triggered to defensiveness, anger, or even sometimes rage or hatred when another person does not display a blatantly friendly, obviously pleasant manner toward them. Another person simply acting or speaking in a neutral, polite manner, with no negative or hostile tones, can trigger them.

They apparently interpret the absence of overly friendly or submissive tones as "hostility", "bossiness", "rudeness", or even "arrogance".

They are especially prone to being triggered when they don't receive an overtly friendly, sweet, or submissive response from a person whom they were EXPECTING IT from.

So if some "tough-looking" male, for instance, treats them rudely, right to their face, they might barely flinch. But if another person who has perhaps a "motherly" appearance, or who they find "attractive"  simply does not act super-polite toward them, they can experience an immediate, intense emotional reaction.

If a person who they know always acts like a jerk treats them with blatant disrespect, they might get a little annoyed, but that's all.
~ But if a person who they feel SUPERIOR TO simply states their own opinion or observations in a neutral or confident manner, or especially if the so-called "inferior" person stands up for themselves against disrespectful language or behavior, they can fly into a meltdown, rejecting or raging on the person.

~note to critics: sometimes redundancy is done for a purpose~

Regulating Emotions And Behaviors: Recovery

A lack of regulating one's emotional reactions and behaviors is one of the main problems often found in those with untreated, unhealed childhood trauma.
Regulating emotions and reactions can be compared to a hose nozzle. When we need to water delicate plants, we turn on a trickle. If we want to water the lawn, we turn it onto a gentle spray. When we're washing the car, we turn the nozzle to a harder, stronger spray. We don't use the strong blast setting unless it's absolutely necessary, like to blast dirt off of something like the driveway.
Using an inappropriate nozzle setting will either not get the job done, or it will destroy what we're aiming at.

You would never blast a patch of garden with the hard stream, unless you intended to destroy it.

We respond to external events with appropriate levels of emotion and reaction when we have good emotional health, and we are able to control our behavior, including the things we say to other people, and how we say them.

The smaller the event, the smaller our emotional reaction. Someone stepping on my foot at the grocery store by accident does NOT give me some kind of "right" to blast them with anger and shame, that's ridiculous. If anything, I would assure them that it's "all good". Now if they stepped on my foot on purpose, or if they stepped on it and then acted like it was MY FAULT, I still wouldn't "blast" them,  I would still have control over my behavior and my words; I would probably say something like "Don't do that again."
(If they did it again, and they were over the age of 11, I would walk to the manager and get security, because the person is obviously unstable and apparently dangerous to others, that's not normal behavior.)

So while we might experience a feeling of intense anger when we walk in on our spouse cheating on us, and may lose our temper and yell, probably cry, probably leave, that is NOT the same as walking in on a person trying to HURT or KILL someone.
When someone didn't return an RSVP to an invitation, that is NOT the same as "betrayal".
When someone doesn't follow our lead, or do what we say, or agree with us completely, or praise us profusely, that's not the same thing as "disrespect".
When someone stands us up because they forgot, that is NOT the same as "backstabbing".

When someone is happy, or doing something they love or are good at, that is NOT AGAINST US in any way, it's not them trying to "outshine us" or "rub it in our face".

When someone is working or concentrating, that's not the same thing as them "ignoring us".
When someone says something that makes us feel uncomfortable, or hurts our feelings, that is NOT the same as them ATTACKING us, it's not appropriate to go into FULL DEFENSIVE MODE.
When our partner gets flirted WITH by someone else, that's NOT the same as our partner CHEATING or BETRAYING US, nor does it have anything to do with our partner doing something "wrong".
When our partner initiates flirting with someone else, it's still not appropriate to fly into some kind of RAGE (but annoyance or even some expression of anger may be appropriate, especially if it's not a part of our accepted and agreed upon relationship parameters).
When a child or young person behaves rebelliously or inappropriately, that is NOT the same as one of our PEERS behaving "disrespectfully" toward us.

And when ANY of these things happen, whether it was really something "against us" or not, we are completely accountable for our own actions and behaviors, no matter what we may be FEELING.
There is NO THING that another person can do that takes away our responsibility for our own behaviors.

So when someone else seems to be behaving badly, it's not suddenly "okay" for us to treat them badly or abusively in reaction to them.

It's not okay to open the hose valve all the way every time our feelings get hurt, or we feel upset, or we feel accused, embarrassed, or when we feel annoyed or angry.
Nor is it okay to retaliate against real or imagined things that others may (or may not) have done.
Retaliation is all about dominance and drama-addiction, it's not about "justice" or "fairness".
Further, those who don't govern their own behavior and do "retaliations" are KNOWN for making up fake or exaggerated 'reasons' in order to give themselves an EXCUSE to carry out retaliations, because they're getting an adrenaline RUSH from it. They are adrenaline addicts, trying to get their next fix.

What other people do is what they do, and what we do is what we do. One does not justify the other, no matter how much one wants it to be so.
If a person truly seeks peace, happiness, and/or "recovery", then the first thing they need to do is get used to looking at their own behaviors, actions, and emotional reactions on a regular basis, and let go of the desire to always be right, or always feel righteous and justified.

Recovery, Childhood Trauma, Neglect, Abuse~

Growing up in unstable conditions has a direct effect on a person, regardless of what caused the instability. When neglect or abuse was present, a child's perception of self and of others is directly affected. Therefore, those (male or female) who grew up in an unpredictable, chaotic environment, and those who were subject to abuse or neglect, or both, will be affected in more ways than they realize.

Reactionary behavior is common in adults who have lived through traumatic or chaotic childhoods, whether it was due to abuse or neglect, or if it was situational, outside of the control of adults, such as someone's chronic illness, having to move several times, work, community, other family, etc.

Instability during childhood, and childhood neglect and abuse affects the person's actual perceptions and emotional reactions. Recovery is not the same as it would be for an adult who had a very stable childhood and met with a traumatic experience later. It's not the same as a single event, or even a relationship that happened after one had reached maturity.

Recovery for a person who grew up with one or more abusive or neglectful adults (or older children) around them requires more than getting past traumatic events. It requires the healing of one's core beliefs, the restoration of one's original mental and emotional health that one was born with. It often requires relearning how to perceive the world, how to perceive others, and how to perceive one's self.

For example: Learning, or re-learning, not to react to one's emotions is part of this process. Emotions do not govern the actions or speech of a person who has recovered their emotional and mental health. It is not "stable behavior" to DO or SAY something in retaliation when a person feels a 'negative' feeling.
Our emotions do not represent actual objective reality.
When we feel hurt or offended, it doesn't mean that we actually know what really happened, what another person really did, or what their intentions were.

When we are "reactive", we FEEL something, and we immediately REACT according to that feeling.
We don't remove ourselves from the situation and THINK logically.
We assume that our emotions are telling us exactly what's going on.
It doesn't occur to us that we might be over-reacting, or even completely misinterpreting what is going on.
NOR does it occur to us to think about the way WE are behaving.

When we are emotionally reactive, we tend to JUSTIFY whatever we say and do, and avoid accountability, and we tend to place blame on others but not on ourselves.

Placing blame whenever we feel any 'negative' emotion is actually a form of Dominance behavior, and Dominance behaviors are common in people who are emotionally reactive.

When we have emotional reactiveness, we often have a tendency to react with hostility to ANY 'negative' feelings, and we tend to take things personally that aren't personal.
We may need to relearn the difference between our own emotions and the external world, and the difference between ourselves and others.

We often need to relearn about how much control we have a "right" to, and how much we actually even have.

We often need to relearn the difference between self-confidence and arrogance, the difference between healthy pride and false pride, and the difference between a legitimate position of authority or leadership and a superiority/inferiority complex.

Neutral feedback from neutral people is important for this process.
Many who experience childhood neglect or abuse picked up reactive behaviors and perceptions from those around them, so they often seek other reactive people to give them "feedback" and companionship, and may actually see neutral or positive feedback as "control", or "fake", or even as a "threat".
It's normal for a child to adapt the beliefs and behaviors of the adults around them, regardless of whether an adult is modeling maturity and groundedness, or emotional reactivity.
So learning what neutrality and objectivity look and feel like may be a new experience.

Recovery and healing is possible for those who have suffered trauma or even those who have developed "disorders" from neglect or abuse.

Equality, Respect, Recognition, Women and Men

Women are often perplexed by the lack of respect and fairness they receive in many areas of life, and tend to become very frustrated by the obvious lack of equal treatment.

Women are also often confused by the lack of compassion, care, and recognition of the issue by both men and other women in their lives.

But there is something important that seems to be overlooked by most everyone involved:

MEN don't treat EACH OTHER with "equality", "fairness", or "genuine respect".
Men don't recognize other men for who they are and what they really do, for the most part.

Most men tend to judge one another based on superficial things like height, or shoulder width, or vocal sounds, body gestures, the kind of car they drive, their haircut, their LOOKS, their academic degree, or even how proficient their skills are at certain learned tasks (like juggling, driving, making money, or dealing craps).
Very few of them were ever told that those things DO NOT indicate character, wisdom, or leadership ability.

The larger proportion of boys were TAUGHT to make little "hierarchies" everywhere they go based on really superficial traits about other people (like how good someone is at baseball, or how strong they seem to be), and they were ALSO taught NOT to INCLUDE girls and women in these little hierarchies. So when the men in a group seem to ignore the women when they talk, it's because they were conditioned to believe that it's perfectly normal. But they are doing the SAME THING to OTHER MEN in that group as well; not as obviously, but if you pay attention, you'll see it.
And it's also true that a large number of women don't recognize men for who they really are, either.

Why don't people talk about this?
Probably because it's so normalized, they just think it's "the way things are", as if God created the world that way, or if the Big Bang made humans evolve that way.

The brainwashing of children to believe in and accept the illusion of "Social Hierarchy" has been going on for literally thousands of years, and it's not some kind of deliberate conspiracy.
Well it may have been generations ago, but now, people just pass on what they "learned" as children to the next generation, and so on, and so on, and so on,... and so on...

It's all about being very, very close genetically to the other Great Apes. Social Hierarchy is not based on character, intelligence, wisdom, or ability. It's based on size and social manipulation. A "leader" will not be appointed or accepted as a "leader" unless OTHER PEOPLE (or other apes) agree, and allow them to be. It's a group consensus.

So when the tall, loud guy with the big teeth gets elected for political office, even though it's glaringly obvious that the shorter guy would have been much better at the job, and your sister would have been much better than both of them put together, you can blame Monkey Status Politics.
Most of the people in the group (troupe) voted for the Larger Male, regardless of his lack of life experience, his criminal history, and the silly things he said during the campaign, and they ignored the Smaller Male and the Female.

Men don't treat WOMEN with equality because they don't treat OTHER MEN with equality in the first place. They're raised that way. And so are the majority of women. They're conditioned to believe that it's perfectly okay and normal to treat other people with either EXTRA respect, based on trivial things, and others with a lack of respect.


Status Monkey

Are you a Status Monkey?

Do you judge what other people do and say according to whether you like them or not?
According to whether you think they're important or not?
According to their appearance, their race, or their sex?
According to their fame, title, or job position?

Status Monkeys interpret everything one person says as "intellectual" or "logical thought", and everything another person says as "emotional" or "personal".

Status Monkeys interpret everything one person does as "for a valid reason" and "purposeful", and everything another person does as "trying to keep up" or "trying to fit in".

Status Monkeys create little hierarchies in any group they're a part of, and will join in and perpetuate big hierarchies that other people created.
This means that they want some people to be MORE important, and others to be LESS important, and still others to be not important at all.

Status Monkeys only listen to the opinions of certain people, and will often go along with anything they say. But when others share an opinion, an educated observation, or solution to a problem, they will ignore them or even try to shut them down.

Status Monkeys typically go along with the belief that certain people were born superior to others because of their ancestry or gender.

Status Monkeys will usually try to dominate and bully a person who does not agree with them, or who doesn't go along with their beliefs and agendas.

Status Monkeys care much, much more about being right, being seen as right, and being in control than about the well-being of other people around them. They will never care more about another person's well-being or feelings than they care about themselves being "right" or "wrong".

Status Monkeys have their own Social Status and their own feelings as their priority in life, well above caring about other people; any relationship that could threaten their Social Status for any reason will be rejected, even if that relationship is with a family member, a romantic partner, or a close friend.

Hypocrisy And ABORTION

HYPOCRISY: Judging those who get pregnant out of wedlock as "bad", REFUSING to BE SUPPORTIVE or AT LEAST NOT NASTY to those in one's OWN FAMILY and COMMUNITY who get pregnant and have children out of wedlock, and then turning around and JUDGING people as "bad"who support pro-choice.
People who are biased against girls and women, who treat them like they're less worthy and "deserve" to be treated with disrespect, are the ones who FUEL the increase in abortions.


You can't be ANTI-FEMALE, male-biased, and PRO-LIFE AT THE SAME TIME.

Red Flag: My Friends or Family Members Don't Like My Partner

Red Flag that a friend, family member, or coworker may have Narcissism, or other emotional illness:

~They act strangely, coldly, or negatively toward your other friends, family members, or your romantic partner.

~They look for excuses to 'dislike' and reject the person, but NOT for reasons to accept, welcome, include, or tolerate them.

~They may treat your partner, friend, or family member BETTER than they treat you.

~They may show a negative mood change whenever you spend time with your partner, other friend or family member, or when you talk about the other person in a positive way.

~They may visibly show a lack of friendly manner, courtesy, or respect toward your partner, family member or friend.

~They may display dominance behavior or blatant disrespect toward your partner, friend, or family member.

~They try to get your attention, time, energy and resources away from your partner, other friend, or other family member.

~These behaviors occur in the absence of aggressive, threatening, or disrespectful and cliquey behavior toward them on the part of yourself or your family member, friend, or partner.

~They stay connected and tolerant of people who are hostile toward others, who are bigoted, who are disloyal toward others (cheating, lying), who gossip and slander, who are abusive toward humans or animals, or who do criminal activity including corruption or drugs, BUT they are judgmental and rejecting toward your partner, friend, or family member.

These behaviors show that the person is lacking in several areas that are important for healthy, positive human relationships and connectivity, such as good will, respect for others, and respect for others' relationships. It also shows that the person's behavior is governed by intense moods, emotional reactions, insecurity, possessiveness, and control, not by values, ethics, or integrity.

This can be very difficult to come to terms with. When a person realizes that their friends or family members are not mature enough to deal with their own feelings of resentment, jealousy, envy, prejudice, and insecurity, they often don't know where to turn or what to do. It puts a person in a "double bind", meaning a "lose/lose" situation that's not of their own making. Having a positive relationship with one person means that others are going to react with negativity, rejection, and mood swings. So in order to avoid their negative reactions and behaviors and keep "peace", one must reject or diminish the other positive relationship, which means rejecting that person. 

Treating a person's partner, or other friend or family member poorly is a control tactic. 
"Reject that person, or we'll reject YOU."

Only those with Control Issues act in this manner.Giving in to these Control Tactics means one thing: LOSING the positive relationship.

The "relationships" that one has with Controllers are not genuine, they are conditional, based solely on the beliefs, whims, wants, and emotional reactions of the Controllers, not on MUTUAL respect or friendship. In other words, if you don't fit in with them, if you change or grow, if you do or say anything they don't agree with or that makes them uncomfortable in any way (like if you become more successful, if you don't agree with their politics, if you don't go along with their agendas, or if you don't tiptoe around their egos), they are going to reject you anyway. Regardless of your other relationships.

So rejecting the POSITIVE, HEALTHY relationship in order to avoid rejection from Controllers means rejecting a GOOD situation in order to keep a negative situation. 

Male Point Of View And Mr. Peabody

For those who are interested in the subject of cultural conditioning and how sex/gender roles are subtly conveyed to children, the movie "Mr. Peabody and Sherman" is a good current example. The movie was brilliantly done, a wonderful combination of artistry and science resulting in a very entertaining piece of animated cinematography, imho, I enjoyed it very much. Based on the cartoons from the 1950s and 60s that ran with Rocky and Bullwinkle (Ted Key, Jay Ward), Mr. Peabody is a Beagle who happens to be the smartest being ever, he's highly accomplished in any field he's interested in. He adopts a human child named Sherman, and invents a time travel machine called the "Wabac Machine", and teaches Sherman History lessons by actually going to various places and events in History. Sherman's friend Peggy is part of the cast of characters. The cartoon and the movie mix teaching and mentoring with fun, humor, and interesting entertainment. 

Mr. Peabody and Sherman is such an excellent show that the male-bias-point of view can be difficult to notice if one is not paying attention, because it's aligned with stereotyping, behavior, and language that most people are USED TO. They use normalized gender stereotypes and normalized male-bias behavior and language, so it's not so noticeable to most people. It's not some kind of blatant "war on women", no one is waving a torch or attacking females, it's much more innocuous and subtle, and therefore much more effective.
In other words, people might notice if Mr. Peabody and Sherman attacked Peggy or called her terrible names, but they won't notice when she gets ignored, condescended to, or excluded.
This is how it's done.

The first thing a person might notice is their own defensiveness when reading this post.
"Give me a break! Seriously? Mr. Peabody and Sherman is sexist? That's just ridiculous! FemNazi!"
That kind of defensive reaction is a signal that something quite real is going on, and the person's SUBCONSCIOUS KNOWS IT, even if their conscious mind is trying to pretend it isn't.

Making it about Feminism, Politics, and Radicalism is another signal that the subconscious DOES have awareness about the male bias.

It's just science.

Emotional attachment will cause a person to either become defensive or protective about any subject.
If one is objective, they won't be either one.
If they "feel" something, it will just be curiosity or boredom.
It won't be about taking sides or being defensive, and it certainly won't include hostility.

Humans insert BIAS into things all the time, it's nothing new.
Getting worked up and defensive means that a person is emotionally attached to a certain Bias, and does not want anyone to talk about it, point it out, or expose it.

In the movie Mr. Peabody and Sherman, there are many examples of "male-only" or "male-biased point of view" in the otherwise wonderful film, such as the low number of female characters altogether.

Why does it matter whether it's male biased or not? Because no one is SAYING that it's a male-bias-point of view, and it's being presented as a "general audience" kid's movie. That's misrepresentation, but that's ALSO so normalized in Western culture that most people don't even notice it when it's happening right in front of them, even to their own kids, or to themselves.

The female characters that are portrayed are either weak (Peggy's mother), self-centered and bullying (Peggy and the control freak DCF worker, Mrs. Grunyon), or dimwitted and self-centered (Marie Antoinette). Peabody and Sherman visited only male "geniuses" from History. There were no positive, smart, strong female characters, but plenty of male ones. Even Mona Lisa, Da Vinci's portrait subject, was depicted as "disagreeable" and argumentative. There were also plenty of subtle (or not so subtle) jokes making references to anti-female innuendos.

But there were also some subtle, or not-so-subtle, ancestral innuendos that also aligned with normalized stereotypes that targeted male characters, however that still did NOT depict those targeted males as "weak" or "completely incapable". The only person who was targeted as completely negative was the female DCF worker, everyone else was given a couple of positive little nods in their direction, including Peggy.

~~~Giving a negatively portrayed character a little positive "nod" is actually part of the process, it's like a gossip saying about a coworker "She's such a slut, look at those shoes, and I heard that she treats her husband like crap, he's whipped - well I don't really know, that's just what I heard... I'm not saying she's a BAD PERSON, I mean, I don't really know her." 
~~ "I'm not saying she's a BAD PERSON"... after they just called her a slut and said she treats her husband badly... that's about them trying to cover up being a  Gossip and a backstabber.

All in all, the film had the appearance of not being PURPOSELY male-biased, at first glance, or even second. Most people won't even think twice about the fact that Peggy was not included in the "work" on Leonardo Da Vinci's machine, or realize that anti-female-stereotype "jokes" are not appropriate in a children's film, nor are ancestral innuendos. They might not even notice the stereotype reference to "A Dog's Best Friend" being a BOY, and not a CHILD, who could be either male or female.
The give-away that the male-bias POV was, indeed, on purpose, was one particular scene where Peggy and Sherman crashed Leonard Da Vinci's "Flying Machine". It was Peggy who flew the machine. It was completely her idea to do it in the first place, Sherman was very resistant, afraid he'd get in trouble. Peggy jumped in and hit the lever that launched it, took the controls and flew the machine with Sherman hanging on for dear life. After flying around for some time, thoroughly enjoying flying the machine, she forced Sherman into taking over the controls in an attempt to make him realize his self-confidence. Then, Mr. Peabody TOLD Sherman that he doesn't know how to fly, so Sherman suddenly crashed the Flying Machine. Da Vinci is very excited to see that the machine WORKED, and runs over to greet them.

Da Vinci exclaims that Sherman is the "first man to fly"!
Here's where it gets interesting.
(People who are defensive will say "oh stop making a big deal, it's nothing..." but it actually IS "something", this is important).

Da Vinci does not say "person", or even "boy", he says "MAN". Remember, adults wrote the script. Da Vinci isn't a real person, they wrote that line, the actor performed that line, and a huge number of adults edited and processed the movie. Scripts for films is a BIG DEAL, if they didn't want it there, it wouldn't be there.

Sherman does NOT say "Actually, Peggy is the one who flew the plane!" OR, "Peggy actually flew it first!" OR "It was Peggy's idea!"
He doesn't say any of these things.
Again, the script was written that way.

Now, if Sherman had a twin brother with him instead of Peggy, a girl, and his brother flew the plane first, what would the script sound like then?

NOR DID Peggy say a single word about it. (Would Sherman's twin brother have kept silent when Sherman was praised for "being the first Man to fly"? Is that how the script would have gone? Probably not...)

That one scene gave confirmation that the male-bias-point-of-view was indeed on purpose.
It is very possible, of course, that the filmmakers were keeping with the original spirit of the cartoon from the 50s and 60s, but what if the original bias on the cartoon was between whites and blacks? Would it be okay then? 
Probably not...
Humans generally accept any bias that they grew up with as "normal", as "the way things are", but if they didn't grow up with it, they'll notice it and say it's wrong.
They also don't tend to think it's so "okay" and "normal" if the bias is obviously against themselves.
Funny how that works.

Bias is modeled to children on a regular basis in our various human cultures.
Whatever group feels the most entitled to control and power is usually the group making the most insulting "jokes" about other groups, and trying the hardest to imply that THEIR group is actually the most deserving of "power" and control because they are the "best and the brightest", and the "most innocent" as well.

It's otherwise a really great movie.

Annoyed At Babies And Children, Control And Narcissism

When a baby is born, we immediately see if the baby can make noise and respond to external stimuli. When the baby responds, we can tell that her/his boundaries are intact. Babies make noise when they feel hungry or uncomfortable, which is the only way they have to communicate that they need to be cleaned, fed, helped with pain or illness, and generally cared for.

Babies who make noise in order to get the attention of an adult are doing what they're SUPPOSED TO DO.

Adults who have Narcissism often get annoyed when babies make noise instead of feeling the normal empathy response to find out what the baby is trying to communicate, what the baby needs, or how to meet that needs.
They may also respond to the baby's noises in another "caregiving" way, such as ASSUMING that they already know why the baby is making noise, which is about their image of being a "good caregiver", or an "expert", not about actually caring for the baby.

Narcissistic adults typically feel either no compulsion to care for an infant, no empathy, care, or personal respect toward the baby or child or their well-being, OR they may feel ownership toward the child, and entitlement to that ownership. This can be seen in Narcissistic adults who ARE the parents of a child, but also who are NOT the parents of a child.
(Both are often seen, and noticeable, in N. adults who's job entails working with babies and children.)

Adults who have Narcissism may completely neglect a baby or child, or "discipline" a baby for making normal communicative noises. They are often ANNOYED by the child's noises and behaviors, and they are ALSO often annoyed that the child is not fitting into their expectations.

As babies get older and grow, they are often treated worse and worse by the Narcissistic adults around them, in their family or community. The more normal, healthy autonomy and genuine self-esteem they show, and the less they go along with the "Status Quo" (SOCIAL hierarchy of who is supposed to be treated like they're 'wonderful', and who is supposed to be treated like a 'shadow'), the more the Controllers around them will target them.

Children who don't act exactly like a Narcissistic adult wants them to act will often be labeled as "WEIRD" or "BAD", or even "CRAZY". Unfortunately since humans tend to follow along with others so easily. other people often go right along with targeting a CHILD for this kind of labeling and slander instead of standing against it and protecting the child from it. So instead of just one Narcissistic adult targeting a child with terrible labels and slander, there often ends up being a whole group of people scapegoating the child, and continuing it as the child grows.

In nearly all cases, when scapegoating exists in a group, favoritism also exists. If there is a scapegoat, there is nearly always also a "Golden Child" or a "Hero-adult" (or several).

It does not matter whether the EXPECTATIONS projected onto a child by Narcissistic adults are like a "perfect little lady or gentleman", OR like a "little bad-ass", or like a "jock", or even a "green pacifist" or a "religious zealot".
All that matters to Narcissistic adults is whether the child FITS THEIR OWN IMAGE and EXPECTATIONS or not. A child who does not appear COMPLETELY COMPLIANT is a THREAT to a Narcissistic adult's IMAGE (perfect father/mother, intimidating authoritarian, bad-ass coach, perfect or beloved teacher, etc.)

In other words, they treat the children in their group the same way they treat adults: If you don't FIT IN with what we want from you, and how we want you to BE, you're NOT WELCOME, YOU'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH, YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US, WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU'RE INFERIOR.

So if a child fits in their CLIQUE and follows their expectations, fits in with their version of reality, makes them FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES, they'll often put the child on a pedestal. If a child DOES NOT fit in, or does not feed their ego for whatever reasons, they'll often scapegoat the child.
Just like they do with adults. Of course it's much more damaging to children, because children are relying on these adults for their very survival, as well as their healthy growth as human beings.
~Narcissistic adults often treat children and young people according to their SIZE and APPEARANCE, not their actual AGE. So they'll treat a tall 15-year-old like an adult, and a small 15-year-old like a younger child. They may treat a young adult who LOOKS older like they are more capable and responsible than another of the same age who has a more child-like appearance.
They often treat adolescent children who's bodies have the appearance of sexual maturity like PEERS, like they're the same age as themselves, instead of KIDS.

Embracing Sexism: People Who Want Gender Roles And Stereotypes To Be Real

It's no big mystery why so many boys willingly embrace believing when they're told that males are superior to females. Being superior means that one is ENTITLED to control and authority over others, so of course they would want it to be true. The less mature a person is, the more they want to be in charge of others for no reason other than they feel powerful being "the boss". In human beings, whoever is given the Royal Scepter of entitlement and authority is usually loathe to give it up.

It's also no big mystery why so many women go right along with cultural stereotypes and gender "roles". One's beliefs are tied to one's IDENTITY, one's sense of "self", who we are in relation to others, how we fit into the world, and WHY.

A MAN wouldn't want a GIRL to be able to fix cars, build houses, be a math or science expert, be a master musician or artist, be physically strong, or LACK FEAR  because it contradicts his feeling of automatic superiority... boys were often TOLD that many tasks and even FEELINGS are "male only", that girls and women aren't ABLE to do certain tasks or learn them, understand them, or feel certain emotions because they just aren't "equipped". They were told and shown that they were superior to females when they were children, so of course they want it to be true.

But why would a WOMAN also not want a GIRL to be able to do those things? Because... she may have bought into the stereotypes when she was growing up too. MANY women were told or SHOWN over and over while they were growing up that the REASON they were being treated with LESS RESPECT than their male relatives and friends was because females are UNABLE to learn and do certain things.
These beliefs became internalized, part of their IDENTITY.
So when Dad taught their BROTHER how to fix the car, but not THEM, they BELIEVED IT when Mom and Dad said that it was because "boys are naturally good at fixing cars and girls are not", or that "girls are not strong enough to fix cars, but boys are".
(As if all boys have the same strength and ability, and all girls have the same lack of either.)

They BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE, so they made it part of their REALITY.

Giving those kinds of beliefs up means DISMANTLING THEIR ENTIRE BELIEF SYSTEM, about who they are, and about the world itself. And it would also mean that they would have to face the fact that they were taught less than true things by the people they cared the most for, their own family. It would likely feel like a terrible betrayal, or like the floor is falling out from under one's feet, and that's too much for many people to deal with, understandably.

BUT ALSO~~~ Women who KNOW that the gender roles and stereotypes are not really REAL often USE THEM to gain and keep control over BOTH women and men.
Controller/Narcissist MEN often do the same thing, and have been doing it for CENTURIES.

A Controller/Narcissist KNOWS that other people are emotionally invested in stereotypes, gender roles and expectations, so they can easily use them to HURT others, to control others, to hurt the reputations of others, to sabotage them in business and in any other goals they may have, and even to destroy their social ties.
For example, it's EASY for a Narcissist to get others to turn against a woman who is an automechanic, or a man who cares for children, because those are NOT culturally stereotyped "gender roles".

They are not within the parameters of the stereotypes.

It's NOT NEARLY AS EASY for a Narcissist to get others to turn against a woman who is a Registered Nurse, or a man who is a Contractor, because those jobs are WITHIN the cultural stereotypes.
People will BELIEVE that a person is "GOOD" just because the person does a job that fits with the stereotype of their sex, and they EASILY turn on those who are doing something that does NOT FIT the stereotype of their sex.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PERSON doing the task, the job, or having the interest, it's about PEOPLE'S BELIEFS that are TIED TO THEIR OWN IDENTITIES AND EGOS

"Desperately Seeking Targets": What Narcissists Want

What do Narcissists seek in a romantic partner, business partner, employee, or friend?

Cross the word "Partner" out first. Narcissists are not interested in being "equal" with anyone. Everyone else, to them, is either "above" or "below", either a Leader or a Follower, either a Boss or a Subordinate, either the Star of the show or the Star's assistant, either the Main Attraction or an audience member.
SINCE in their minds everyone is either The Leader or The Follower, the Diva or the Groupie, the Expert or the Novice, they usually prefer to be one rather than the other.

That being said, what, again, do Narcissists seek in others?

~Willingness to play second-fiddle (or third, or fourth, just never first) at all times, in every situation.

~Willingness to be treated as an unimportant, less valuable person.

~Willingness to give up one's own aspirations, goals, and plans in order to be the Narcissist's assistant, support system, tool-fetcher, caregiver or audience member.

~Willingness to drop whatever one is doing at any time in order to fulfill someone else's requests.

~Willingness to feign a lack of knowledge, experience, and ability in order to allow the Narcissist, and/or someone else connected to them, to always feel superior.

~Willingness to be left behind, left out, ignored, unacknowledged, invalidated on a regular basis, diminished as a person.

~Willingness to pretend to believe bold-faced lies and obvious b.s.

~Willingness to put up with insulting, inconsiderate, impolite, rude, crude, or even cruel behavior and speech, either on a regular basis, or sporadically.

~Willingness to risk losing everything, including one's remaining self-esteem, confidence, health, and dignity, for someone else's continued comfort.

~Willingness to go along with anything and everything another person wants or says.

~Willingness to give up one's autonomy and personal liberty, regardless of what one may or may not receive in return.

~Willingness to dissolve any genuine connections that one may have with others.

~Willingness to pretend that any wrongdoing that someone else has done didn't really happen, or go along with justifying that there was a good reason for whatever they did or didn't do.

~Willingness to accept betrayal, and pretend it didn't happen.

~Willingness to never disagree, never speak one's own mind, never express annoyance, anger, or frustration, and never stand up for one's self or another against disrespect, unfairness, or abuse.

Sign That You May Be Dealing WIth A Narcissist

A sign that you MIGHT be dealing with a person who has Narcissism in a personal relationship:

You feel like you have to coax them to pay attention to you, to notice positive things that you do, to remember important things about you, and to acknowledge what you do and say.

They seem oblivious to your actual ability, accomplishments, capability, and experience, but are always ready and willing to "correct" you or give you unsolicited, unasked for "advice".

They don't seem to WANT to remember your strengths and positive attributes; they don't acknowledge real things you DO or things you SAY.

They may even attribute "positive" things you do or say to OTHER PEOPLE, or to themselves! ~In order to maintain their "lesser status" image of you that they carry in their imagination.

They may also project negative traits or weaknesses onto you that have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, that you DON'T HAVE - again, in order to maintain their delusional "lesser status" image of you that they've created in their mind.

People who have Narcissism don't live in reality, they create their own, and "re-create" other people to fit into their created illusion. Because of this, they don't even try to learn real things about other people; not even those in their own family, or those that they're in romantic relationships with. They will only learn something "new" about someone (or about themselves) that's outside of their illusion when they absolutely have to in order to alleviate pain, fear, or discomfort, and often not even then.

Right Or Wrong And What's Important

Forget about who's right and who's wrong about minutia, technicalities, and morality. If they don't understand what's so important about how they treat others, then they're missing one of the main essential pieces in any and all topics of discussion on this planet. If they're missing that, then they're not going to be able to complete any puzzle they're presented with. They may think they've completed it when they've found some kind of resolution, or made something work, but they haven't, they've just made an incomplete model that will eventually fall apart or cause other problems. They're missing the most important piece: the reason the puzzle exists in the first place. That reason is the surface that's needed to construct the puzzle on.
Don't argue with them when they say 'One doesn't need a surface to construct a puzzle'; they're telling you that they don't understand what you're talking about, and probably never will.

Just Me A 'DONM' by Amanda Seal

Just me a 'DONM'
By Amanda Seal.

She's not in my life but still here in disguises,
Dressed in her 'narc' black cloak,
She creeps up behind me, when life tries to find me to tell me that I am a joke.

All those years I believed her,
Her cold words they cut deeper,
She engraved a vast space in my heart,
She lives there most days and slowly plays games till I shut myself off in the dark.

I'm a daughter, A DAUGHTER, a narcissists daughter! "Its all my own fault don't you know?!
I am crazy and angry and weird and I'm lazy,
Im useless, not worthy of love"
Thats called 'Gaslighting'
So cruel when your fighting
Just for your own mothers love.

..AND Her screaming silence,
Was worse than pure violence,
Which would happen most days, thats alot.
And these emotions berate me,
They come back just to break me,
and tell me I'm something I'm not.

So I MUST be stronger,
Im a lady, a soldier,
To be distant,
use my gift and pray,

.... Amanda I love you,
There's no one above you,
Behold this creation you've made.

Amanda Seal by Amanda Seal

Controllers Look For Social Signals

Controllers, especially those with Narcissism, are looking for social signals from others. They look for body language, facial expressions, speech patterns, tones, and actual words that convey messages such as:

"I believe what you say",
"I think you're wonderful",
"I look up to you",
"I can't wait to follow your lead",
"I see you as an Expert, as extremely experienced"
"I see you as very strong, stronger than me"
"You intimidate me"
"I admire you"

(The classic Narcissist's favorite social signals look or sound something like):
"I am awed by your: star-quality...talent...beauty...skill...physique...knowledge...wisdom...saintliness...abilities... goodness...leadership...etc"

There are levels to this. They may say or do things to see how a person will react if they don't show the signals right away.
Once they see the first signals, they look for more and more as time goes by, such as:

"I will willingly follow and believe you without question or doubt"
"I value your opinion, your wants and needs ABOVE MY OWN"
"I accept you as my superior, and I see myself as your inferior"
"Please LET ME BE SUPPORTIVE OF YOU...you don't have to be supportive of me in return, or treat me with genuine respect"
"I don't have any expectations of you, but I don't mind that you have many expectations and rules for me"

and also, a person's apparent 'values' and beliefs:
"I think being a GOOD PERSON is to serve others before caring for my own health and well being"
"I think it's BAD to think of one's own needs and goals"
"I think being a GOOD person is making up excuses for other people's actions, 'sticking up for them' at ALL TIMES regardless of what they did, and helping them to cover up all of their mistakes, including abusing other people and committing crimes."

When a person does NOT give these types of submissive or admiring social signals from the start, a Controller may feel like the person is not worth targeting, so they don't keep expending effort or energy. They may try to diminish the person with direct insults, or with obvious ignoring and impolite, uncivil behaviors. They may "drop" the person, reject the person, and often try to ostracize them from any mutual business or social circles.

When a Controller had their sights set on a specific person, but the person is not showing the "correct" submissive or admiring social signals, many Controllers may feel challenged and try HARDER.
They may also have a reaction of despisement toward the targeted person, and try to dominate them as if the person is an ENEMY who did something terrible to them.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: A person can SHOW these apparent signals without actually MEANING "submission" or "admiration". Controllers and Narcissists OFTEN MISTAKE courtesy, friendliness, politeness, kindness, and encouragement for submissiveness or adulation, because they're hoping for it.
They also often misinterpret simple cultural and regional body language patterns, speech patterns, and facial expressions.
ALSO, many Controllers and Narcissists have serious problems with assumption, so they will assume that a person is automatically expressing submissiveness, or even admiration toward them, just because of the way the person happens to physically LOOK.

For a Narcissist, not getting the social signals they want from another person DOES feel like they've been "humiliated" or even "attacked". They behave defensively toward people who don't seem to recognize their "higher status", as if not treating them like Authority, Royalty, a Martyr, the Messiah, the Ultimate Expert or a Star is the same as treating them like a "servant", a "serf" or a "peasant".

This behavior can be found in normally developing children and youths. When there's a lack of mature guidance, when there's a chaotic atmosphere (can be caused by any external source including media, school, and community), or when there's an adult who's encouraging this behavior, even in an otherwise healthy atmosphere and family, young people can and do get stuck in this stage, especially since it feels like "power" and "mastery". They can and do get stuck, and they can bring it into their adulthood without growing out of it.

Controlling Others With Language Habits

Controllers don't need to consciously plan out what they're going to do or say in order to establish or re-establish control over another person. They have behavioral habits that become second-nature.

Such as: When a Target brings up a topic, Controllers nearly always divert the conversation away from that topic, no matter what it is.

So if Jim says "Did you see those fire engines out front earlier?" Steve, the Controller, might reply "You should have seen the accident on I-95 yesterday! There was like 5 police cars and..."
Instead of staying on the topic that Jim brought up, Steve simply changes it to HIS topic.

Another tactic is invalidation. So if Jim says "Did you see those fire engines..?" Steve the Controller might say, "What fire engines? I didn't see any, I was here all day. If there was anything major going on we would have heard about it, anyway."

Another one is invalidation with INSULT, so Steve's reply might sound like "What fire engines? I didn't see any. Don't get your panties in a knot. You should have seen the accident on the highway, that was serious..."

Insulting a Target in front of others humiliates the Target, but that's not the primary goal. The real goal is for the Controller to appear to OTHERS as "more powerful" and "higher status" than the Target.
(Same goal as Chimpanzee power/status displays.)

Humans use language as an added tactic to Chimpanzee 'power' displays; successfully humiliating a Target means that the display has worked, especially if others laugh or scoff. Language displays are often used by those who feel insecure in their 'status position' in their social hierarchy. Making fun of people, insulting them, and calling them names either to their face or behind their backs are a substitute for physical displays.

That's why if YOU stand up for the person who's being insulted or trashed, YOU GET TURNED ON by the insulter (and by other equally primitive/immature onlookers), because you're "challenging" the status display, and you're 'wrecking' the intended outcome.

Narcissist Or Non-Narcissist

Narcissists are happy when they get what they want and when they feel like they're in control, regardless of how others around them are feeling, even if they were the cause of another's distress; often, they feel happy BECAUSE they caused another distress, and therefore feel "superior" or "vindicated". Non-narcissists don't desire control over others, and are not happy when those around them are feeling badly; especially those close to them, and especially if they were the cause of it, whether it was intended or completely unintended.

Narcissists are much more concerned about defending themselves and deflecting blame than they are about another person's welfare; non-narcissists are much more concerned about another person's welfare than "who's to blame".

Narcissists will attack another person when they feel any hint of challenge, embarrassment, or criticism, and feel perfectly entitled and justified in their aggression and hostility toward another human being- they feel justified in "using a cannon to swat a mosquito" and will not stop defending their actions. Non-narcissists will only "attack" in defense, and only after they've been put under enough duress that they've lost their tolerance, or they feel literally threatened, and they'll feel remorse for losing their temper in most cases (not all) regardless of the events that took place.
In other words, a Narcissist will feel perfectly justified in verbally and emotionally attacking a person who didn't agree with them about something big OR small; they don't seem to realize that verbal and emotional attacks are simply wrong, period, no matter what, no matter the situation, and no matter who's "right" or "wrong". A non-narcissist, however, will usually feel remorse for losing their temper and attacking someone even when the person did or said something terrible to them.

Narcissists try to justify everything they do with excuses about what other people do or say. They don't feel remorse or guilt, they feel entitlement, vindication, and justification. Non-narcissists simply don't do that (usually); they know they're responsible for their own actions no matter what other people do or say. When they do slip up and try to justify wrong or mean actions, they feel remorse for THAT, and try to make amends.

Narcissists are concerned about being right, being in control, feeling vindicated, and feeling dominant, regardless of other people's welfare, well-being, and feelings.
Non-narcissists are more concerned about the welfare, well-being, and feelings of others (and themselves) than being "right" or "wrong", who's the boss, whether anyone gets to be in charge, defending themselves, or "vindication".

Obsession With Dominance

Those who have dominance issues often target the same people, whether they're male or female.
Dominance issues and behaviors are very common in humans. They're used for social ranking, for control of situations and outcomes, and for control over other individuals.

If a person's displays of dominance are convincing enough, others around them will buy into it and give them higher social status, allowing them to be a "Leader", regardless of their actual experience, knowledge, or ability.
Having "dominance issues" is more like having a need to feel dominant, which translates to both a compulsion to be dominant over others (specific individuals or animals), and to avoid feeling submissive or subordinate, especially to those whom one seeks to feel dominant over.

Many humans, both male and female, for example, feel an entitlement of domination (control and superiority) toward any person smaller than they are, and also toward most (or all) females.
Even if they will willingly FOLLOW the lead of certain people, they feel entitled to automatically be the Leader toward other certain people, at all times, and regardless of the situation.

Entitlement to Dominance toward another person means entitlement to NEVER "have to" do anything that implies equal cooperation, respect, following, consideration, or assisting them without being 'in charge'.
Entitlement to Dominance over another person means they feel that they NEVER "have to" listen to them, cooperate with them, or do anything they say or ask, and that choosing to do that is going far out of their way, as if it's an imposition.
Also, that the other person is somehow innately bound to allow them to Lead, to be the Dominant one, and to always be seen as "right" in any situation, no matter what is happening.

If a person who feels entitled to Domination over another person is not being given full "cooperation" (subordination) by the other person, they will quite often experience rage. The actual situation, and "who's right" or "who's wrong" is almost always given as an excuse for the meltdown, but the real reason is simply that they felt CHALLENGED by an apparent "subordinate".

It occurs often that a person who has dominance issues does not display any signs of it with another person for a long time, often because the person has not actually done anything to "challenge" their "authority" (dominance). A meltdown can seem to occur out of the blue, but really, it just hadn't come up yet. There was nothing that felt like a challenge, nothing that felt like they were not being obeyed, or allowed to lead, or allowed to be "right".

It's common for those who have dominance issues to also stack others into hierarchy positions. So they will put one person "over" another person in this hierarchy; for example they may put their own father "over" their mother, or their mother "over" their spouse, or one friend "over" another friend, etc.  Whoever they "follow", they expect others to "follow" also, in a subordinate manner.

A flag for this is the level of anger or upset a person shows when they feel "challenged" in any way. Are they slightly disappointed or frustrated, or are they actually mad, angry, extremely upset, or in a rage? Do they reject or rage at some people who don't agree with them, or who don't allow them to always be the leader? Do they seem to hate those or wish harm on those who "challenge" them?
What is the level of their reaction to not being allowed to always lead, or to be right?
How do they react to someone else being a Leader, either in formal situations, or even in conversation ~ especially when the person is smaller, or is female, or is of a different ancestry, or is a romantic partner?

Those with Dominance entitlement or compulsion will have no problem trying to publicly humiliate, raging at, or rejecting a person who refuses to allow them to dominate them; even a person who simply seeks an equanimous relationship, regardless of what the relationship is. They don't want a cooperative, equal relationship, they want entitlement to dominance over the other person; they want the other person to be their subordinate.

Since it's an internal issue, not a consciously planned action, they will do it in a business setting as well as social situations, and in personal relationships.

Dominance issues can of course be worked on, but the person would have to actually want to do it. Most people who have them mistake it for confidence and leadership, so they think it's an asset. They may fear that without it, they'll lose their leadership abilities, which of course is not true, but they don't know that.
Many others believe that they deserve to feel that way (dominant) because they believe they're "right", or that they're actually superior.