Communicating Vs. Insulting
The difference between communicating about issues and insulting another person's character is as stark as night and day.
The communicator will say "I feel like you don't care about me when you do this~ " or "What was the reason you did or said this~" or "I feel very depressed and I don't know what to do" or "I would like us to communicate better by learning some skills from a professional" or "I am extremely sad or depressed"
The insulter will reply "You always feel like nobody cares about you! You need help!" or "I'm sick of you constantly asking me my reasons for things, I am what I am. You're too sensitive, and you're always complaining." or "YOU feel depressed! You have the easiest life I've ever seen, and all you do is complain!" or "Every guy/girl you were ever with, and ever will be with, you will badger with this 'communication' crap! You are the one who needs help!" or "You're just trying to get attention! Just get over it already! My God you are driving me crazy!"
Ironically, when the insulter speaks to the communicator, they are met with empathy, friendship, and help if needed. If the communicator finally gets fed up with the insulter and insults back, all hell breaks loose, and the insulter will accuse the communicator of being an abuser. So, the communicator is always the giver of empathy, and never the receiver of empathy. (Unless the insulter is in a certain mood). It will not change unless the insulter changes it, and they usually don't even know they're doing it; to them, they're just defending themselves in the way they learned, and they are often oblivious to the damage they do, or to the positive effects they experience from receiving empathy, friendship, and help.
Kimberly Barnes Goad
Skipping and tripping through life, that's a shame,
Ignoring the sages will douse out your flames.
How does it feel screaming silently to yourself?
...
No one to listen....no one to help.
Sabotage your dreams, you'll get what you sow.
How do I guide a lost soul? Who's to know?
Your pride is shaded under bountiful trees,
Disguised as happiness as you drop to your knees.
Life is huge, visions abound.
Rise up, ask your soul, it wants to be found.
Oh how I love you, the light in my eyes,
Watching you suffer, living the lies.
Revelations are waiting, dig deep, listen clear
Only you can unleash them and banish your fears.
~K.B.Goad
Male Power Runs The World? Try Common Schoolyard Bully
The reason males have been "running the world", overall, for so many centuries, is as simple as school yard thuggery. When people let bullies get control of anything, they control all the people too, and they do anything to keep their power. Good men become fearful about standing up for women against male bullies, so the women are left to stand up for themselves against all of the men. And we all know what bullies do when people stand up to them; they fight DIRTY. The only way to stop them is to take them out of any power position, and the only way to SEE it is to stand up for equality. Bullies hate equality, they will always fight to keep their "group" above any other group. Bullies do this with anything that will work on the people they are trying to control : race, sex, nationality, money, the lack of money, background, hair, height, education, lack of education, whether you own a motorcycle or not, have children or not, married or not, anything. People get conditioned very easily to believe "that's the way it is" and "don't rock the boat", to their own detriment.
When you stand for true equality, you expose the posers.
Would You Recognize God?
Our ego is the thing that tells us to listen to one person, and not to another;
to learn from one person, and not from another.
If God came down to Earth looking and sounding like the kind of person your ego wants to listen to, you will listen, at least casually and nod, and say "yes, that person is wise". But if God came down to Earth looking and sounding like the kind of person your ego usually thinks of as having nothing valuable to say, you will ignore God Himself, or Herself. (Depending on what form God chose that day.)
If you don't believe me, believe yourself. Just pay attention to your own reaction when you ask a question to a room full of people, like "what's the best way to get to the highway from here?" Or, "Where should I dispose of my used motor oil?" Or, "What do you think of these candidates?"
Who is it that you find yourself believing, and who is it that you find yourself ignoring? Keep asking random questions, and keep watching your own reaction, and how it feels when each different person gives you an answer. The feelings are from within you. They don't come from the other people. This is how con artists are able to be so successful. They know this game, they know how to act like your preconceived notions of who to believe.
The ego tells us that it knows who to listen to, who has experience, who has the Answers. Not the intellect.
to learn from one person, and not from another.
If God came down to Earth looking and sounding like the kind of person your ego wants to listen to, you will listen, at least casually and nod, and say "yes, that person is wise". But if God came down to Earth looking and sounding like the kind of person your ego usually thinks of as having nothing valuable to say, you will ignore God Himself, or Herself. (Depending on what form God chose that day.)
If you don't believe me, believe yourself. Just pay attention to your own reaction when you ask a question to a room full of people, like "what's the best way to get to the highway from here?" Or, "Where should I dispose of my used motor oil?" Or, "What do you think of these candidates?"
Who is it that you find yourself believing, and who is it that you find yourself ignoring? Keep asking random questions, and keep watching your own reaction, and how it feels when each different person gives you an answer. The feelings are from within you. They don't come from the other people. This is how con artists are able to be so successful. They know this game, they know how to act like your preconceived notions of who to believe.
The ego tells us that it knows who to listen to, who has experience, who has the Answers. Not the intellect.
It's not me, it's you~
Ever notice how you like a person, you hit it
off, they are really nice and they act like a real friend, they don't do
anything mean to you and they're funny and witty, and then you just
kind of don't really want to talk to them anymore, or hang out with
them, and you're not sure why?
If you know they have not done anything "bad" to make you wary of their motives, and you're not angry at them for doing something mean or inconsiderate, and it's just that your feeling of affinity for them has "gone away",
Then it's probably you, not them.
If you know they have not done anything "bad" to make you wary of their motives, and you're not angry at them for doing something mean or inconsiderate, and it's just that your feeling of affinity for them has "gone away",
Then it's probably you, not them.
Control And Power Not Just For BigWigs
It can be hard to understand how much effort a narcissistic person puts into controlling others. An N parent for instance will encourage their child to go in a certain direction, and then block that direction. "You're such a good musician" and then not let them practice in the house, or take lessons, or give them rides to performances, or show any support. If the child of an N person shows normal emoti...
onal display, the N parent will often try to shut them down, regardless if the emotional display is joyful or sad, excited or angry. If the child (youth or adult) of an N person is trying to recover from some kind of trauma, the N parent will frequently criticize them, interrupt them, chastise them for their "mood swings", or blame them for the event. They will deny them even the support that a casual friend would give, and in fact will often exacerbate the trauma and make recovery difficult or impossible. The N parent will often tell people that their child has mental issues in order to destroy their credibility, and take away any support network the child would have.
An N partner will set their partner up for failure constantly; they will build them up to believe they are in love with them, and then leave them hanging, blow off plans, criticize them, treat them like they're a "bother". When the partner expresses sadness or pain about any of this, the N partner criticizes them for that too. It is a constant lose lose. Many N partners will tell everyone that their partner is crazy or emotionally reactive, when the truth is the "emotional reactions" are about the N's treatment toward them. The N will always throw the relationship, and their partner, under the bus, in order to preserve their self-image and ego, and seem to be unaware that this is not what "happy couples" do with and to their partners. They seem to be very confused about why they can not find happiness with another person, but will not look at what they might be doing to contribute to this problem. They certainly will not listen to their partner talk about what they could do to make things better, or what they are doing that causes their partner sadness or pain; at this point they have deemed the partner unworthy and a lesser person. The NON-N does not let go of a relationship just to preserve their feeling of being right; love is their goal, not being right, or defending themselves to the detriment of the relationship. They WANT to know what they can do to help make it better, as a team, with their partner. They WANT to learn how to treat their partner better, as much as possible.
N "friends" do all of this too; and they often use people for "sidekicks". An N "friend" does things like make plans with a person for weeks, even plans that cost the other person significant money, and blow them off at the last second with zero consideration for the other person. They will invite their sidekick to an event only to treat them as if they "tagged along", as if they didn't really want them there. They will try to influence people's opinions of their sidekick, so they can appear like the good, smart, innocent, or strong one of the two by contrast. They may influence the person's children, try to gain favor and undermine the person's authority, turn the children against the parent in covert ways, give them candy and gifts outside of the parent's parameters, break rules that the person has set, lead the child to believe that their parent (the N's sidekick) has significant mental deficiencies ~ disguising this as being a peacemaker or a good listener, even give the person's children drugs.
The N's motivation is to gain and maintain control and power. Friendship, empathy, good will, integrity and love will not come before this.
There are people all around us who are dealing with one of these, or all three at the same time, or some other situation with an N person. When someone seems like they "can't get out of their own way", or like they're always depressed, or always having some kind of trouble, we should not assume that they are creating all of their own problems.
Is Narcissism Real? What's The Big Deal?
What is it like having Narcissists in your family?
Picture being chased by a Grizzly Bear for 5 miles, falling and breaking your ankle; you make it home, the bear close on your heels; you are pounding on the door, yelling "open the door"! The N parent, sibling, or partner takes their time shuffling across the room, looking out the window, looking through the peephole, saying "who is it?"... eventually opening the door, annoyed at your yelling. They criticize the mud on your shoes and call you lazy when you collapse in a chair. They call you paranoid when you tell them to bolt the door, and refuse to look out the window to see if there is a bear outside. When you try to explain what happened, they accuse you of antagonizing the bear. They offer no sympathy, help, or even water, and probably just go back to whatever they were doing. You need a drink of water, so you limp to the kitchen; you can't reach the glasses, so you ask for help; they get you a glass, but huff and puff and roll their eyes.. you are so pathetic. They say "you should not have been near the woods". When you tell them that you weren't near the woods, that it came out of nowhere, they say "Yeah right". When you cry out in pain from your ankle, they say "You're just trying to get attention." When you ask for a ride to the hospital, (no they have not offered), they are too busy helping their friend decide what color carpeting to put in their living room, you are interrupting their important discussion with their important friend. You have to call a cab and spend your last $20. They will not come and visit you at the hospital, even if you are kept for three days. They might call you to get information in case someone asks where you are. If they do end up going to the hospital, they will stay very briefly, not really talk to you, and might imply to the staff that you are crazy or "difficult". When you get home, they will not let you recuperate, they will constantly tell you to do something, or imply that you are being lazy for laying around, or that you should just GET OVER IT. If you try to talk to them about any of this they will become angry. Your ankle will take much longer to heal because you keep getting up to get the N's demands done, or leaving to try to avoid their wrath. If they do bring you anything to eat, or tend to you, it will not be what you requested or needed, but it will be what they felt like making or doing. If you wanted chicken soup, you will be getting meatball soup, the kind you hate. And if you don't like it, you're a spoiled brat. (They are only tending to you in order to be able to say that they did it.) You may lose your job because when you went to the hospital, your manager called your house; the N picked up and said they hadn't seen you, but you were probably just fine, and that they would have you call when you got in. The N told your friend the same thing when they called, not that you were at the hospital with a broken ankle. The N tells no one where you are, or what happened, unless they think the person already knows. When people see you limp, the N will start telling them that you have made up another crazy story to get attention, and you are making their lives even harder with your "ankle issue", OR they will change the entire story and make themselves the "hero" who saved you, and has been caring for you like Florence Nightingale.
Even if you were chased by a Grizzly Bear and survived, the story will STILL be all about the Narcissist.
Picture being chased by a Grizzly Bear for 5 miles, falling and breaking your ankle; you make it home, the bear close on your heels; you are pounding on the door, yelling "open the door"! The N parent, sibling, or partner takes their time shuffling across the room, looking out the window, looking through the peephole, saying "who is it?"... eventually opening the door, annoyed at your yelling. They criticize the mud on your shoes and call you lazy when you collapse in a chair. They call you paranoid when you tell them to bolt the door, and refuse to look out the window to see if there is a bear outside. When you try to explain what happened, they accuse you of antagonizing the bear. They offer no sympathy, help, or even water, and probably just go back to whatever they were doing. You need a drink of water, so you limp to the kitchen; you can't reach the glasses, so you ask for help; they get you a glass, but huff and puff and roll their eyes.. you are so pathetic. They say "you should not have been near the woods". When you tell them that you weren't near the woods, that it came out of nowhere, they say "Yeah right". When you cry out in pain from your ankle, they say "You're just trying to get attention." When you ask for a ride to the hospital, (no they have not offered), they are too busy helping their friend decide what color carpeting to put in their living room, you are interrupting their important discussion with their important friend. You have to call a cab and spend your last $20. They will not come and visit you at the hospital, even if you are kept for three days. They might call you to get information in case someone asks where you are. If they do end up going to the hospital, they will stay very briefly, not really talk to you, and might imply to the staff that you are crazy or "difficult". When you get home, they will not let you recuperate, they will constantly tell you to do something, or imply that you are being lazy for laying around, or that you should just GET OVER IT. If you try to talk to them about any of this they will become angry. Your ankle will take much longer to heal because you keep getting up to get the N's demands done, or leaving to try to avoid their wrath. If they do bring you anything to eat, or tend to you, it will not be what you requested or needed, but it will be what they felt like making or doing. If you wanted chicken soup, you will be getting meatball soup, the kind you hate. And if you don't like it, you're a spoiled brat. (They are only tending to you in order to be able to say that they did it.) You may lose your job because when you went to the hospital, your manager called your house; the N picked up and said they hadn't seen you, but you were probably just fine, and that they would have you call when you got in. The N told your friend the same thing when they called, not that you were at the hospital with a broken ankle. The N tells no one where you are, or what happened, unless they think the person already knows. When people see you limp, the N will start telling them that you have made up another crazy story to get attention, and you are making their lives even harder with your "ankle issue", OR they will change the entire story and make themselves the "hero" who saved you, and has been caring for you like Florence Nightingale.
Even if you were chased by a Grizzly Bear and survived, the story will STILL be all about the Narcissist.
Crazy Aunt Sally The Scapegoat
Codependent families do things like call each
other about another family member who they have labeled as "emotionally
or mentally ill", because they are "concerned" about them, but they will
not speak directly to that family member. That would be too real, and
too direct; and it would be something like treating that scapegoated
family member as if they were a Real Person.
They create the scapegoat in order to have someone in their group who is always lower status than they are, and to give that person real and direct support like they would give a "Real Family Member" would risk elevating the scapegoat's self-esteem and feeling of belonging, and that would upset the apple cart. The status quo in the family is created, and then carefully maintained, for years, no matter what it costs to whoever is elected "Scapegoat".
Often a person who is not even close to being mentally ill will be the person who is elected, only because they are the least likely to cause consequences. They are often the person who is easiest to paint "crazy", because of their gender, demeanor, birth order, appearance, or occupation. Often a high IQ, attractive looks, or looks that are "different" make a person a target of jealousy and who seek to push the person down. Cousin Sally who has a quiet or happy demeanor, who would rather sing in a band then go watch the men play softball with everyone else, is much easier to scapegoat than Uncle Frank, who is an electrician and plays softball on the town league. Everyone disregards Sally's actual reality, they simply delete it and replace it with their own; Sally has owned three businesses, is a composer and songwriter, an accomplished artist, worked with special needs children, is a good mother, does not go near illegal drugs, has a clean driving record, and has helped many people through the years. And yet they paint Sally as an irresponsible whackjob who "probably does drugs" (although no one has ever seen her do them), and promiscuous because THEY find her attractive; not even close to the truth. Frank, however, has cheated on his wife several times, has received 2 DUI's, has blown off his own child's school functions to play softball with "the boys", would rather go bowling and drinking with his male friends than do anything with his wife, and is still labeled a "Great, Stable Guy".
They create the scapegoat in order to have someone in their group who is always lower status than they are, and to give that person real and direct support like they would give a "Real Family Member" would risk elevating the scapegoat's self-esteem and feeling of belonging, and that would upset the apple cart. The status quo in the family is created, and then carefully maintained, for years, no matter what it costs to whoever is elected "Scapegoat".
Often a person who is not even close to being mentally ill will be the person who is elected, only because they are the least likely to cause consequences. They are often the person who is easiest to paint "crazy", because of their gender, demeanor, birth order, appearance, or occupation. Often a high IQ, attractive looks, or looks that are "different" make a person a target of jealousy and who seek to push the person down. Cousin Sally who has a quiet or happy demeanor, who would rather sing in a band then go watch the men play softball with everyone else, is much easier to scapegoat than Uncle Frank, who is an electrician and plays softball on the town league. Everyone disregards Sally's actual reality, they simply delete it and replace it with their own; Sally has owned three businesses, is a composer and songwriter, an accomplished artist, worked with special needs children, is a good mother, does not go near illegal drugs, has a clean driving record, and has helped many people through the years. And yet they paint Sally as an irresponsible whackjob who "probably does drugs" (although no one has ever seen her do them), and promiscuous because THEY find her attractive; not even close to the truth. Frank, however, has cheated on his wife several times, has received 2 DUI's, has blown off his own child's school functions to play softball with "the boys", would rather go bowling and drinking with his male friends than do anything with his wife, and is still labeled a "Great, Stable Guy".
Reputations are often simply a facade created by families and
communities, in order to maintain their illusion that makes them feel
safe and feel like they are part of the "Good People Crowd". There has
to be an outsider in order for there to be insiders.
Parenting Today
Yeah so how are good parents supposed to keep
it together when everyone around them is pulling their kids apart?
There's only one or two people a kid has for parents. If both are not in
it with both feet, as in spiritually, mentally, emotionally, not just
financially, and support each other; if one undermines the other and
wants to gain power and respect over the other one by diminishing the
other..parent in the child's eyes, then you don't even have one full parent.The disrespectful one is the one who tries to turn the kid against the
other one; now the kid has no one he or she can respect.
So then what? Who does the kid listen to then? There is a whole globe of humans who hate, hate, hate, and they are the loudest monkeys, the ones who the kids will hear first and most often. The ones who the kids will learn from. The kid is not going to hear the polite, intelligent teacher who respects both genders equally and lives life with integrity. The kid is going to hear the disrespectful jerk teacher who favors certain kids over others, and blatantly makes harmful gestures and noises to the kids he harbors prejudice against. Or the teacher who makes light of doing drugs or committing crime. Or the coach who trashes the opposite sex in order to "motivate" the players. Or the cop who acts and talks like a street thug. Or the "cool Aunt/Uncle/Friend" who GIVES a kid alcohol or drugs. Or the pastor who incites people to hate and attack instead of seek peace. Or the community leader who treats people like they are stupid.
Kids are children, they learn from every single person they come across, and they don't know why adults do what they do, they just know that they are being accepted as adults anyway for whatever they do, even if it's ridiculously wrong. So if that's what you do to be a "man", learn to walk and talk like a thug or a politician, act superior to women, make fun of people, don't take anything seriously except for thug stuff; avoid doing anything at all that wrecks you Tough guy image; or if that's what you do to be a "woman", be mean to other women and try to hurt them, act submissive and dumb to men and try to get their attention and approval, learn to walk and talk like either a thug or a valley girl, don't take anything seriously except for "chick" stuff, make yourself into Mother Superior toward other women as another way to dominate them, avoid doing anything at all that wrecks your Girl Image, well then that's what they will probably do, because they learned it all by watching.
So then what? Who does the kid listen to then? There is a whole globe of humans who hate, hate, hate, and they are the loudest monkeys, the ones who the kids will hear first and most often. The ones who the kids will learn from. The kid is not going to hear the polite, intelligent teacher who respects both genders equally and lives life with integrity. The kid is going to hear the disrespectful jerk teacher who favors certain kids over others, and blatantly makes harmful gestures and noises to the kids he harbors prejudice against. Or the teacher who makes light of doing drugs or committing crime. Or the coach who trashes the opposite sex in order to "motivate" the players. Or the cop who acts and talks like a street thug. Or the "cool Aunt/Uncle/Friend" who GIVES a kid alcohol or drugs. Or the pastor who incites people to hate and attack instead of seek peace. Or the community leader who treats people like they are stupid.
Kids are children, they learn from every single person they come across, and they don't know why adults do what they do, they just know that they are being accepted as adults anyway for whatever they do, even if it's ridiculously wrong. So if that's what you do to be a "man", learn to walk and talk like a thug or a politician, act superior to women, make fun of people, don't take anything seriously except for thug stuff; avoid doing anything at all that wrecks you Tough guy image; or if that's what you do to be a "woman", be mean to other women and try to hurt them, act submissive and dumb to men and try to get their attention and approval, learn to walk and talk like either a thug or a valley girl, don't take anything seriously except for "chick" stuff, make yourself into Mother Superior toward other women as another way to dominate them, avoid doing anything at all that wrecks your Girl Image, well then that's what they will probably do, because they learned it all by watching.
Bully Entitlement?
Being unkind to the "pretty girl" isn't any different than being unkind to the "ugly girl".
Being unkind, rude, dismissive, hostile, mean to the
"Poor Person"
"Fat Girl or Boy"
"Physically Disabled Person"
"Special Needs Kid"
"Short Person"
"Tall Person"
...
Being unkind, rude, dismissive, hostile, mean to the
"Poor Person"
"Fat Girl or Boy"
"Physically Disabled Person"
"Special Needs Kid"
"Short Person"
"Tall Person"
...
"Blond or Red Haired Person"
"Rich Person"
"Dark Skinned Person"
"Light Skinned Person"
"Female Person"
"Male Person"
"Dumb Person"
"Smart Person"
"Mentally Ill Person"
"Homosexual Person"
"Heterosexual Person"
"Ugly Person"
"Beautiful Person"
"Large Chested Woman"
"Small Chested Woman"
etc, etc, etc,
reflects what is inside of US, not them.
It is all the same behavior, and it all comes from US, not THEM.
No matter what we have JUDGED the other person to be, in order to make ourselves feel better, the fact remains that we choose how we treat others. The labels we put on others are not what drives our behavior toward them. WE are choosing our behavior, attempting to control others with the way we treat them.
The important part of the sentence is not "disabled person" or "beautiful woman".
It is "Being unkind, rude, dismissive, hostile, mean to the"...
Replace it with "Being kind, courteous, respectful, honestly fair and polite to the"...
When we practice this all the time, to everyone we interact with, then we can finally get to know others as the real human beings they are.
"Rich Person"
"Dark Skinned Person"
"Light Skinned Person"
"Female Person"
"Male Person"
"Dumb Person"
"Smart Person"
"Mentally Ill Person"
"Homosexual Person"
"Heterosexual Person"
"Ugly Person"
"Beautiful Person"
"Large Chested Woman"
"Small Chested Woman"
etc, etc, etc,
reflects what is inside of US, not them.
It is all the same behavior, and it all comes from US, not THEM.
No matter what we have JUDGED the other person to be, in order to make ourselves feel better, the fact remains that we choose how we treat others. The labels we put on others are not what drives our behavior toward them. WE are choosing our behavior, attempting to control others with the way we treat them.
The important part of the sentence is not "disabled person" or "beautiful woman".
It is "Being unkind, rude, dismissive, hostile, mean to the"...
Replace it with "Being kind, courteous, respectful, honestly fair and polite to the"...
When we practice this all the time, to everyone we interact with, then we can finally get to know others as the real human beings they are.
Lisa's Question
Both
men and women have emotions and express them. However I learned that
there have been studies that show that a woman's voice affects the
emotional part of a man's brain. This causes men to think that women
are so emotional when they speak. If this is the case, how would men
even know how to discern communication with a woman about an issue
without feeling emotional triggers? Whether you are a man or a woman,
do you find this to be true for you or not?
- You like this.
Harry Krueger Sorry to say, communication, especially of feelings, is a vanishing skill among men. Parents feel more threatened by each other, don't know how to both honestly give and receive emotions, and all too often tend to focus on the "excesses" of their partners, not because of the uniqueness of their brain function, but because of their own insecurity. Sorry to say, this gets passed on to young men and women by example... and becomes a strengthened norm of behavior when they enter into relationships.
Lisa Concidine Insecurity does get thrown into the mix. Having a healthy relationship by being able to nurture it is an important skill most people have not seen in practice.
To answer your question, I find it to be true for women as well. I noticed this in myself when I was about 12; in middle school I became aware that the teachers were being seen and treated more according to gender stereotypes than their actual personality traits, by almost all of the kids, not just the boys, and pretty equally among the kids; and then I looked around to see that this was pretty common, and no one was teaching the kids anything about it at all. I had to learn by myself to hear and see closer to reality than what my conditioning wanted me to hear and see, but I was lucky to have had the influence of some relatives who were good examples of objectivity and less bias, that might be why I caught it at all. I also noticed that the ADULT male teachers were by FAR the most gender biased, as a group. The male exceptions stood out like sore thumbs, but seemed to have given up railing against this crappy paradigm. (They treated everyone with respect, but seemed very leary of standing up for those who were disrespected due to gender bias, as if they had been bitten before.)
Three female teachers come to mind, all very high intelligence, and one in particular had a very objective personality. Most of the male teachers were highly emotional in their manner, and seemed completely unaware of it. The really fascinating and disturbing thing was how most of the kids and adults as well had it backwards; they rated the female teachers as MORE emotional, and the male teachers as LESS emotional, and it was very clearly quite the opposite. Most of the emotional displays from the female teachers were limited to happiness and frustration with being treated with blatant disrespect, however the emotional displays from the male teachers ran the entire spectrum on a daily basis. It illustrated that the female teachers were much more aware of their behavior and vocalizations reflecting their emotional states, and controlled this much more, and that the male teachers were unaware of their emotional states being reflected in their behavior and vocalizations, and didn't seem to bother trying to control it. Which illustrated, on a cultural level, that the female teachers were EXPECTED by others to behave non emotionally, and tried harder to control their behavior, obviously due to consequences if they did not, and the male teachers were NOT under scrutiny for this, but apparently felt so comfortable with their emotional displays that they were not even aware of them.
Both males and females tend to "hear" a male voice as informative, and a female voice as emotional. Varying from person to person of course; it's still mostly socialized from birth, and passed on, like Harry said. Mother does most of the caretaking of an infant, and the child is listening to her voice all day long, and the voices of other women as well when they go to daycare or when female relatives and friends are there;
From the baby's POV, Women surround me, care for me, clean me, feed me, hold me, clean me, are constantly responding to my emotional displays, constantly making noises and gestures that signal emotion from themselves, and are continually controlling my movements. They are also the ones who make me do things I do not want to do, and they often try to manipulate my emotions with all kinds of words, tones, and gestures.
For example when a baby does not want a bath, or does not want to eat vegetables, but we make them anyway. Women often tend to try to manipulate the baby by trying to convince her to feel happy about the event or to "like" the food, even if they hate it. Men do not do this nearly as much, they often resort to force by making their voice sound threatening. They also give up trying to force the baby to do things the baby is protesting much more quickly.
Both men and women often feel personally offended when they cannot seem to "make" the baby do what they want, and often blame the baby for not responding to their personal methods. The baby doesn't get convinced that they want a bath; a woman may say "She is fussy" or "She doesn't like me" or even "She's not normal". And when the baby does not stop protesting when a man tries the "authority" voice, he may say "She doesn't listen" or "She is insolent" or "She's a spoiled brat".
If you break this down further, the gender of the BABY is just as important of a factor as the gender of the parent, as far as the parent's gender bias behavior~ MOST parents whether male of female, are much more tolerant of male babies' and children's behavior, and much more micro-managing of girl babies' and children's behavior, right from birth. They seem to view a boy who does not respond to control and discipline cues as feisty, independent, and strong, and do little to change it; and a girl with IDENTICAL behavior in a very negative light, and punish them for it. (Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the most common reaction.)
So, girls end up being hyper vigilant and self conscious of their behavior and emotional displays; there are only a couple of emotional expressions that they are "allowed", and so they often channel all their emotional expressions to these. It is why women often express anger with tears, that doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much as a little girl expressing anger with a confident vocalization. Boys tend to be very self conscious ONLY of emotional displays that could be labeled feminine, and therefore channel any of these into a masculine display, or hide them. Both genders end up with various interpersonal problems because of this.
Then fast forward from babyhood through childhood and adolescence; by now kids have internalized all the facades being paraded around by adults, who internalized the same, or similar, facades when they were children. The plumber is a man, he comes to the house and TELLS Mom what is going on and how he is going to fix it. He does not display much emotion, because he is not being challenged. Mom, however, is doing the habit of submissive listening, which women often learn to do growing up in order to avoid being challenged and bullied. So the child sees: Plumber Man is confident and knowledgable, and Mom has no idea about anything having to do with plumbing, and is deferring all authority to the Plumber Man. The Plumber Man is only displaying skill and knowledge, while Mom is displaying zero skill or knowledge, and only displaying appeasement, which shows as emotional. If Dad comes home during this exchange, then Plumber Man will divert his attention to Dad, and blow Mom off. Dad and Plumber Man will then probably have a discussion that sounds like knowledge about the subject, and they will leave Mom out, as if she is not "one of them" (a real adult). Dad does not do anything to change this, he is probably enjoying the display of being spoken to as a "Man" by another "Man" who "Knows About Man Things", and enjoying feeling superior to his wife.
The child watches all of this.
Mom might show frustration, annoyance, chagrin, humiliation, even anger, but will try to cover it up, and the men will probably not notice at all. She was most likely punished or ridiculed for showing those emotions as a youth, and also knows that if the men notice, they will not say "Oh I'm sorry for treating you so disrespectfully! Please join in on the discussion with us! We want you to be a part of this!" They will do the childish/superiority complex thing and say "Calm down, what are you all upset for?! What do you want to talk about this stuff anyway, this is Man Talk". She will probably hide it from the men, but the child will see it, being extremely tuned in to Mom's social signals. Thus, the child again sees "Men are knowledgeable and informative and skilled, and Mom is not. Men speak with confident tones and pleasantries toward each other, and Mom is mysteriously emotional for no discernible reason." It can also look to the child, when Mom leaves the room, that the Men are being socially polite, and Mom is not, and therefore that is why she is not included in the conversation.
This scenario happens all the time in this culture, over and over, reinforcing itself. The child might realize what was going on if Mom's SISTER was a Plumber, and it was known that she was very knowledgeable and skilled, and this was a normalized part of the child's life. If she came over and the men treated HER in this way as well, then the child might get a glimmer of something beinTo answer your question, I find it to be true for women as well. I noticed this in myself when I was about 12; in middle school I became aware that the teachers were being seen and treated more according to gender stereotypes than their actual personality traits, by almost all of the kids, not just the boys, and pretty equally among the kids; and then I looked around to see that this was pretty common, and no one was teaching the kids anything about it at all. I had to learn by myself to hear and see closer to reality than what my conditioning wanted me to hear and see, but I was lucky to have had the influence of some relatives who were good examples of objectivity and less bias, that might be why I caught it at all. I also noticed that the ADULT male teachers were by FAR the most gender biased, as a group. The male exceptions stood out like sore thumbs, but seemed to have given up railing against this crappy paradigm. (They treated everyone with respect, but seemed very leary of standing up for those who were disrespected due to gender bias, as if they had been bitten before.)
Three female teachers come to mind, all very high intelligence, and one in particular had a very objective personality. Most of the male teachers were highly emotional in their manner, and seemed completely unaware of it. The really fascinating and disturbing thing was how most of the kids and adults as well had it backwards; they rated the female teachers as MORE emotional, and the male teachers as LESS emotional, and it was very clearly quite the opposite. Most of the emotional displays from the female teachers were limited to happiness and frustration with being treated with blatant disrespect, however the emotional displays from the male teachers ran the entire spectrum on a daily basis. It illustrated that the female teachers were much more aware of their behavior and vocalizations reflecting their emotional states, and controlled this much more, and that the male teachers were unaware of their emotional states being reflected in their behavior and vocalizations, and didn't seem to bother trying to control it. Which illustrated, on a cultural level, that the female teachers were EXPECTED by others to behave non emotionally, and tried harder to control their behavior, obviously due to consequences if they did not, and the male teachers were NOT under scrutiny for this, but apparently felt so comfortable with their emotional displays that they were not even aware of them.
Both males and females tend to "hear" a male voice as informative, and a female voice as emotional. Varying from person to person of course; it's still mostly socialized from birth, and passed on, like Harry said. Mother does most of the caretaking of an infant, and the child is listening to her voice all day long, and the voices of other women as well when they go to daycare or when female relatives and friends are there;
From the baby's POV, Women surround me, care for me, clean me, feed me, hold me, clean me, are constantly responding to my emotional displays, constantly making noises and gestures that signal emotion from themselves, and are continually controlling my movements. They are also the ones who make me do things I do not want to do, and they often try to manipulate my emotions with all kinds of words, tones, and gestures.
For example when a baby does not want a bath, or does not want to eat vegetables, but we make them anyway. Women often tend to try to manipulate the baby by trying to convince her to feel happy about the event or to "like" the food, even if they hate it. Men do not do this nearly as much, they often resort to force by making their voice sound threatening. They also give up trying to force the baby to do things the baby is protesting much more quickly.
Both men and women often feel personally offended when they cannot seem to "make" the baby do what they want, and often blame the baby for not responding to their personal methods. The baby doesn't get convinced that they want a bath; a woman may say "She is fussy" or "She doesn't like me" or even "She's not normal". And when the baby does not stop protesting when a man tries the "authority" voice, he may say "She doesn't listen" or "She is insolent" or "She's a spoiled brat".
If you break this down further, the gender of the BABY is just as important of a factor as the gender of the parent, as far as the parent's gender bias behavior~ MOST parents whether male of female, are much more tolerant of male babies' and children's behavior, and much more micro-managing of girl babies' and children's behavior, right from birth. They seem to view a boy who does not respond to control and discipline cues as feisty, independent, and strong, and do little to change it; and a girl with IDENTICAL behavior in a very negative light, and punish them for it. (Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the most common reaction.)
So, girls end up being hyper vigilant and self conscious of their behavior and emotional displays; there are only a couple of emotional expressions that they are "allowed", and so they often channel all their emotional expressions to these. It is why women often express anger with tears, that doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much as a little girl expressing anger with a confident vocalization. Boys tend to be very self conscious ONLY of emotional displays that could be labeled feminine, and therefore channel any of these into a masculine display, or hide them. Both genders end up with various interpersonal problems because of this.
Then fast forward from babyhood through childhood and adolescence; by now kids have internalized all the facades being paraded around by adults, who internalized the same, or similar, facades when they were children. The plumber is a man, he comes to the house and TELLS Mom what is going on and how he is going to fix it. He does not display much emotion, because he is not being challenged. Mom, however, is doing the habit of submissive listening, which women often learn to do growing up in order to avoid being challenged and bullied. So the child sees: Plumber Man is confident and knowledgable, and Mom has no idea about anything having to do with plumbing, and is deferring all authority to the Plumber Man. The Plumber Man is only displaying skill and knowledge, while Mom is displaying zero skill or knowledge, and only displaying appeasement, which shows as emotional. If Dad comes home during this exchange, then Plumber Man will divert his attention to Dad, and blow Mom off. Dad and Plumber Man will then probably have a discussion that sounds like knowledge about the subject, and they will leave Mom out, as if she is not "one of them" (a real adult). Dad does not do anything to change this, he is probably enjoying the display of being spoken to as a "Man" by another "Man" who "Knows About Man Things", and enjoying feeling superior to his wife.
The child watches all of this.
Mom might show frustration, annoyance, chagrin, humiliation, even anger, but will try to cover it up, and the men will probably not notice at all. She was most likely punished or ridiculed for showing those emotions as a youth, and also knows that if the men notice, they will not say "Oh I'm sorry for treating you so disrespectfully! Please join in on the discussion with us! We want you to be a part of this!" They will do the childish/superiority complex thing and say "Calm down, what are you all upset for?! What do you want to talk about this stuff anyway, this is Man Talk". She will probably hide it from the men, but the child will see it, being extremely tuned in to Mom's social signals. Thus, the child again sees "Men are knowledgeable and informative and skilled, and Mom is not. Men speak with confident tones and pleasantries toward each other, and Mom is mysteriously emotional for no discernible reason." It can also look to the child, when Mom leaves the room, that the Men are being socially polite, and Mom is not, and therefore that is why she is not included in the conversation.
This scenario happens all the time in this culture, over and over, reinforcing itself. The child might realize what was going on if Mom's SISTER was a Plumber, and it was known that she was very knowledgeable and skilled, and this was a normalized part of the child's life. If she came over and the men treated HER in this way as well, then the child might get a glimmer of something being amiss. However, a male child might get less of a glimmer, because he may be fantasizing about the day he grows up and gets to be a member of the "MEN who are allowed to boss women around" club. A female child, however, may ALSO be fantasizing about the day she grows up and gets to be a member of the SAME CLUB, not realizing that she will be on the receiving end of the bossing because of her gender, and that she will NOT be "seen" as an individual who is "more worthy" than the rest of the women.
Because the children witness the males treating Mom with disrespect, they become confused over and over about Mom's actual authority, does she deserve to have the respect of an authority figure? (If the MEN don't think so, then why do I have to listen to her? She obviously doesn't know what she's talking about anyway half the time, at least that's how the men treat her, so it must be true, since they are skilled and knowledgeable. All she does is do trivial and emotional things, not Real and Serious things like the Men. And all women are similar to Mom, and all men are similar to Dad.)
This child is being conditioned to hear and see males as skilled, knowledgeable, and emotionally confident, and females as unskilled, less knowledgeable, inexperienced, submissive, dramatic, and UNDESERVING of the full array of Respect and Displays of Respect, Integrity, and Courtesy that are given to men.
(All it would take for this to change is for one single generation to wake up and raise their children without gender bias, but I personally don't think humans as a species are capable of it.)g amiss. However, a male child might get less of a glimmer, because he may be fantasizing about the day he grows up and gets to be a member of the "MEN who are allowed to boss women around" club.
This child is being conditioned to hear and see males as skilled, knowledgeable, and emotionally confident, and females as unskilled, less knowledgeable, inexperienced, submissive, dramatic, and undeserving of the full array of Respect and Displays of Respect and Courtesy that are given to men.
(All it would take for this to change is for one single generation to wake up and raise their children without gender bias, but I personally don't think humans as a species are capable of it.)
Huh??? So Conan IS Qualified To Be A TV Talk Show Host, WHY???
This is really a hilarious rant, and I am personally taken aback and pissed off that Conan turned out to be One Of Them. The BODYSNATCHER INVASION IS AMONG US, FOLKS!
If anyone wants to explain to me how Elisabeth Hasselback is NOT "qualified" to ask the president a question on the show she is a HOST on, please try, I'll be waiting to laugh my ass off at you. In the meantime, I think CONAN needs to run all of his questions for any of his hosts by the someone who is WAY MORE QUALIFIED in some way than he is. What would you suggest, a PhD in Journalism and Political Science, along with a career of about 45 years as an ambassador? (Last I checked, this is the USA, one of the most precious freedoms that CONAN of ALL PEOPLE should be highly protective of, is freedom of speech, and for citizens to have full access to asking government officials ANYTHING THEY WANT TO KNOW, umm... especially if the President has VOLUNTEERED to be on YOUR TALK SHOW... Are you writing this down, Conan?)
What is it about her that you think makes her LESS QUALIFIED than YOU? Her HAIR? Maybe it's the way she has boobies... that always changes the STATUS LEVEL of a human, and what about that CUTE LITTLE POUT! How DARE she act like a real citizen who is doing the job she was hired for! Like, Oh My God! Gag me with a spoon!
I DON'T THINK HIS HAIR IS THE RIGHT COLOR, FRANKLY!
If anyone wants to explain to me how Elisabeth Hasselback is NOT "qualified" to ask the president a question on the show she is a HOST on, please try, I'll be waiting to laugh my ass off at you. In the meantime, I think CONAN needs to run all of his questions for any of his hosts by the someone who is WAY MORE QUALIFIED in some way than he is. What would you suggest, a PhD in Journalism and Political Science, along with a career of about 45 years as an ambassador? (Last I checked, this is the USA, one of the most precious freedoms that CONAN of ALL PEOPLE should be highly protective of, is freedom of speech, and for citizens to have full access to asking government officials ANYTHING THEY WANT TO KNOW, umm... especially if the President has VOLUNTEERED to be on YOUR TALK SHOW... Are you writing this down, Conan?)
What is it about her that you think makes her LESS QUALIFIED than YOU? Her HAIR? Maybe it's the way she has boobies... that always changes the STATUS LEVEL of a human, and what about that CUTE LITTLE POUT! How DARE she act like a real citizen who is doing the job she was hired for! Like, Oh My God! Gag me with a spoon!
I DON'T THINK HIS HAIR IS THE RIGHT COLOR, FRANKLY!
Click here:
Manifesting Money
Some guidance on manifesting money, from Steve Pavlina. CLICKhttp://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-manifest-money/ THIS LINK TO READ IT
"If you want to manifest money, but you believe that money is its own power source, then deep down you’re giving money the power to say no to you. If money has power, then it can refuse to show up."
"If you want to manifest money, but you believe that money is its own power source, then deep down you’re giving money the power to say no to you. If money has power, then it can refuse to show up."
Narcissism Revealed
Basically, an adult Narcissist is just a person who grew up but did not go through what others go through as far as learning how to interact with others, and why. Either for external or internal reasons, or both, a person with Narcissism did not learn WHY it is better for everyone if we behave a certain way, or do certain things, or have AWARENESS. They may never even have been shown or taught that there is Life outside their personal realm at all.
We have all known children who did not treat others with respect, or manners; who wanted what they wanted, no matter what, and would throw a fit if they didn't get it. Children who did not say "thank you" when given gifts, and who did not say "Please" when asking for something, or who didn't even ask at all, as if others were paid help.
Many of us forget that the reason we learned these lessons is because we were TAUGHT, purposely, and usually by more than by just one parent.
All of the people around us teach us by example, constantly.
If we are surrounded by negative, controlling, pessimistic, scarcity minded, narcissistic or abusive people, then that is the mindset we learn to have, even if we fight it. Even if we can see it while we're growing up, it still makes a huge mark on the way we see the world; it forges lenses for us to see our selves, our lives, and our worlds through. If no one teaches us how or why to NOT be Narcissistic, then there's a good chance we will become that way too, and not even know why, or that we are.
Basically Narcissism can be seen as a kind of internalized childishness, a lack of awareness that one did not go through certain growth and learning stages. Like a permanent 6th or 7th grader who has not learned about humility yet, who seeks all the rewards of adulthood without understanding anything about adulthood. It's really more like a disability, and renders the sufferer very much alone inside, without knowing why.
We have all known children who did not treat others with respect, or manners; who wanted what they wanted, no matter what, and would throw a fit if they didn't get it. Children who did not say "thank you" when given gifts, and who did not say "Please" when asking for something, or who didn't even ask at all, as if others were paid help.
Many of us forget that the reason we learned these lessons is because we were TAUGHT, purposely, and usually by more than by just one parent.
All of the people around us teach us by example, constantly.
If we are surrounded by negative, controlling, pessimistic, scarcity minded, narcissistic or abusive people, then that is the mindset we learn to have, even if we fight it. Even if we can see it while we're growing up, it still makes a huge mark on the way we see the world; it forges lenses for us to see our selves, our lives, and our worlds through. If no one teaches us how or why to NOT be Narcissistic, then there's a good chance we will become that way too, and not even know why, or that we are.
Basically Narcissism can be seen as a kind of internalized childishness, a lack of awareness that one did not go through certain growth and learning stages. Like a permanent 6th or 7th grader who has not learned about humility yet, who seeks all the rewards of adulthood without understanding anything about adulthood. It's really more like a disability, and renders the sufferer very much alone inside, without knowing why.
Stupid Blogs About Psychology
sOn behalf of human behavior/psychology nerds who post and discuss the subject:
Think of it as collecting rocks, and talking about it.
Geologists are interested in what's already there, they're not creating anything new in order to have something to study.
Exactly the same as people who observe and study human behavior and psychology. Discussing what exists right in front of us does not "create trouble", except for people who have a vested, personal interest in keeping it hidden.
Why would someone NOT want someone else to study and discuss human behavior? Why do they want it to be hidden, mysterious, undercover? Why would they take something that we all experience every day as a personal attack? To someone who studies humans, that's akin to pretending the weather is "sunny and clear" every day, because they can't stand talking about the rain.
People who don't collect rocks often don't get why anyone would enjoy that, but they don't get all freaked out when a Rock Collector posts and discusses their subject of interest. Even if they have arrogance issues and think that rock hounding and being a geologist means a person is "weird", they still don't take it personally, usually, as if geologists are doing something "wrong" to them by studying rocks. (There's rocks in their yard, what about them?)
All human interaction dynamics fall under relationship-based interaction, so anything people write or discuss about human behavior and conditioning can always be seen as relationship-based. The how's and why's, and where it comes from, that's what we study; some humans do certain things more, some less, but all are affected in one way or another.
People who study this subject are often misunderstood by those around them who don't share their focus of interest, and because the subject is HUMAN behavior, lots of people can't understand that it's not personally about THEM specifically, or about the PERSON who is discussing or posting specifically.
Lots of things will apply to anyone reading the post, AND to the person posting, because of the fact that they are HUMANS, and the subject is human behavior and psychology.
If it helps to understand, think of it as studying Canine behavior and psychology, instead of it being "personal". People who own dogs, love dogs, hate dogs or work with dogs will take anything about dogs more personally than people who don't have any personal interest in dogs, and will feel emotional reaction about posts regarding dogs. Those who don't pay attention to dogs don't even know who Cesar Millan IS, but people who do have an emotional reaction to him, and about him.
OR, just ignore it altogether. No one says you have to be interested in the same things as anyone else. AND no one says that anyone has to stop their OWN interests just because you don't like them.
Think of it as collecting rocks, and talking about it.
Geologists are interested in what's already there, they're not creating anything new in order to have something to study.
Exactly the same as people who observe and study human behavior and psychology. Discussing what exists right in front of us does not "create trouble", except for people who have a vested, personal interest in keeping it hidden.
Why would someone NOT want someone else to study and discuss human behavior? Why do they want it to be hidden, mysterious, undercover? Why would they take something that we all experience every day as a personal attack? To someone who studies humans, that's akin to pretending the weather is "sunny and clear" every day, because they can't stand talking about the rain.
People who don't collect rocks often don't get why anyone would enjoy that, but they don't get all freaked out when a Rock Collector posts and discusses their subject of interest. Even if they have arrogance issues and think that rock hounding and being a geologist means a person is "weird", they still don't take it personally, usually, as if geologists are doing something "wrong" to them by studying rocks. (There's rocks in their yard, what about them?)
All human interaction dynamics fall under relationship-based interaction, so anything people write or discuss about human behavior and conditioning can always be seen as relationship-based. The how's and why's, and where it comes from, that's what we study; some humans do certain things more, some less, but all are affected in one way or another.
People who study this subject are often misunderstood by those around them who don't share their focus of interest, and because the subject is HUMAN behavior, lots of people can't understand that it's not personally about THEM specifically, or about the PERSON who is discussing or posting specifically.
Lots of things will apply to anyone reading the post, AND to the person posting, because of the fact that they are HUMANS, and the subject is human behavior and psychology.
If it helps to understand, think of it as studying Canine behavior and psychology, instead of it being "personal". People who own dogs, love dogs, hate dogs or work with dogs will take anything about dogs more personally than people who don't have any personal interest in dogs, and will feel emotional reaction about posts regarding dogs. Those who don't pay attention to dogs don't even know who Cesar Millan IS, but people who do have an emotional reaction to him, and about him.
OR, just ignore it altogether. No one says you have to be interested in the same things as anyone else. AND no one says that anyone has to stop their OWN interests just because you don't like them.
Writers
Writers write. Don't assume you know what they
think about what they write, or about themselves, or about anything at
all. Unless you enjoy finding out that your assumptions were wrong. Just
read it, or don't; either way, it's not going to stop them from
writing, anymore than their judgment of your breath is going to stop you
from breathing.
Peace
"Peace" is not when others let us get away with anything and everything we do and say to them no matter how rude, irresponsible, or inconsiderate, and not defend their boundaries, or express their emotions. It can only be achieved when we consciously don't do those things in the first place, and take responsibility for the times we slip. It can only be achieved with continual open, clear, and highly respectful communication. It can only be achieved when 'Peace' is the true objective.
In other words, if all in the household seek peace to be given to them by another, but do not make it their focus to give peace, then peace will fail. But if all in the household seek to GIVE peace to each and all of the others, then it will succeed.
In other words, if all in the household seek peace to be given to them by another, but do not make it their focus to give peace, then peace will fail. But if all in the household seek to GIVE peace to each and all of the others, then it will succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)