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".
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.
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.
"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.
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?
Harry KruegerSorry
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 ConcidineInsecurity
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.)
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 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."
Gentle
Giant Syndrome: When a person feels superior toward anyone who is
smaller than they are. They equate physical size with intelligence,
experience, and status, and they actually believe that this measurement
is real. People with Gentle Giant Syndrome often feel as if they are
going out of their way just by treating someone smaller with normal
courtesy. They often believe that only those who are their height
or taller are as capable and intelligent as they are. They do things
such as ignore another person's personal space; talk to one person as if
they are a "fellow elite" and not to the smaller person standing right
next to them; talk through a person's head to another as if they aren't
even there; demand that a smaller person submit to their wishes;
condescend to smaller persons; deny "good business" practices to smaller
persons.
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.
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.
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" 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.
The difference between having good boundaries
and weak boundaries; between being self-confident and insecure; between
being independent and codependent, can look like this: Your friend
or acquaintance makes plans with you for Saturday afternoon, to go to
lunch. Saturday comes, and they are nowhere to be found. They message
you later and say "I'm sorry I forgot, and I had to work." They do the
same thing on Tuesday, and send you a similar message.
Do you: try to figure out why they don't like you; try to be more
interesting or cooler so they'll like you better; come up with revenge
tactics; decide they are a bad person; "unfriend" them on Facebook to
retaliate; try to get others to turn on them with creative gossip~ OR
Do you: simply make a mental note that for some reason unknown to you,
that this person is currently having a hard time keeping appointments,
and that if you want to remain in a friendship with them, you now know
that relying on this person will not be part of the relationship? (Which
for most people means the friendship can not become very deep, which is
fine and normal).
An underlying main cause of gender bias in modern culture is from a false belief: That males are resource providers, and females are resource takers.
The human brain learns what to believe from surrounding humans first and foremost, not from objective reality. If Dad believes that cutting the grass every Thursday is the "right way" to do it, then the child will believe that too, until he or she realizes otherwise, if he or she ever does. If Mom says there are rabid wolves in the woods at the end of the street, the child will believe that too, until he or she figures out otherwise, but may always remain fearful of those woods, and of wolves. The beliefs of those around us about things great and small are internalized in the child as "the way things are". Also, a child who refutes the beliefs of those around him or her will often receive consequences, as if the child is misbehaving; the child can then become confused between reality and belief, and begins to doubt his or her own perception. The child is taught that no matter what they really see, they should dismiss it and go by whatever those around him or her says is "real".
So when the perception of a child's family is "Men bring home what we need to survive,", and "Women use the resources that the Men bring home", that is what the child will internalize as "The way things are". Even if Mom or Grandmom has a full time job or career, and even if Mom or Grandmom actually makes more money, the beliefs of surrounding family members and of local society usually overrides the objective reality. Therefore no matter what is REALLY going on, the underlying belief is that "Men provide resources and therefore are more valuable, and therefore require first access to all resources, and preferential treatment, and extra support", and "Women need the resources that men provide, and they do not gather the resources for themselves, and they do not provide resources for anyone else, so they do not contribute anything from outside; they do not go out into the world and bring home resources. They only use them up." Also, within this same belief pattern is "Men are providers of resources, and therefore have knowledge and skill about procuring and maintaining what we need to survive", and "Women are receivers of these resources, and do not possess knowledge or skill about resource gaining and survival". Of course this belief pattern is far from reality, and lumps all female persons into one group and all male persons into another, but the human brain does that.
The human brain catalogues, categorizes and generalizes what it perceives in an effort to simplify and streamline perception, i.e. make it easier to understand the world and survive in it. Unfortunately the downside of this process is stereotyping, conditioning, assuming, and prejudice. It is in fact difficult for us to think in a truly conscious manner, as a species, and we frequently see others through our subconscious conditioned beliefs, not as individual persons. We like to see others as part of a group instead of as individuals, even though we want others to see us as an individual. We have a difficult time watching our own behavior, so we tend to see and treat others unfairly, according to the category and group our brain has put them in.
For example, a woman who has received a certified education as an auto mechanic will be regarded as an "anomaly" by most people, even a "freak" by some, even by members of her own family (regardless of how cruel and malicious toward her this is). She is, in fact, an anomaly, not because she was able to learn to be an auto mechanic, but because she did something outside of the belief pattern of those around her. Her brother who received the same certification is seen as just another male who chose automechanics as a profession, and no one doubts his ability to carry out his job. At home, family members treat Sister as a typical female who happens to know a little bit about automechanics, who may or may not have a future in the field, and Brother as an Expert AutoTechnician and provider. Sister is still expected to have clean hands and face and perform all tasks that women are expected to perform in the home, even after a long day of work, and Brother, who has the same job, is given respect for his dirty hands (shows he worked) and is frequently consulted for his expertise. He is not expected to do domestic tasks for the family, and the reason is because he has worked long hours. When he does contribute by performing extra tasks around the house, he is rewarded with praise for going above and beyond, while Sister is punished for NOT performing extra tasks on a regular basis, regardless of how much she worked. Her work is literally seen as "extra curricular", like a hobby, an unnecessary elective that does not really benefit anyone. She is only treated as a contributing member of the household when she performs "woman tasks", and only if her performance of those tasks meets the standards of the rest of the family. His work is seen as important for the family's survival, and for the future survival of his future wife and children, and as contributing to the community at large. It is important to understand that neither brother nor sister set this belief system up; they didn't invent it. Neither did Dad or Mom. They are simply living inside the walls of a belief system that has been passed down, passed over, and absorbed during the childhoods of all the people in the family and/or society. If no one teaches their children any differently, then the belief system conditioning will remain, generation after generation.
It is also important to understand that children of both sexes are taught the same belief patterns; if a group's belief is that men can't cook, then both the girl children and the boy children are taught that men can't cook. Then, the girls may or may not be taught to cook as they grow up, but the boys will be shown that even if they want to learn, they will be refused instruction, and that they would not be able to learn how anyway. The denial of instruction makes the stereotype come true. And the girls in that system are being fed the same belief, that there is no reason to think a boy would be able to cook, or learn how to cook; it is a woman's "natural" ability, and boys don't inherit it.
The point of the above example is that no matter what people are ACTUALLY doing, the subconscious belief pattern is how they are seen, and how they are treated.
The stereotype that Men are providers of resources and Women are users of men's provided resources is obviously false. But the subconscious stamp of that belief, learned as children, can remain stubbornly throughout our lives, just like any other false belief about the world around us.
On an author's note of observation, if one wants to find out what beliefs are internalized within their family system, just asking questions can reveal quite a lot. For example, "Aunt Maggie, what do you think of woman truck drivers?" Or "Dad, what do you think of stay-at-home fathers?" When a person has internalized beliefs about gender roles and value, they will have stronger opinions about who should be doing what, and they will have a list of reasons "why". It's a fascinating experiment if one can stay calm and nondefensive when listening to others talk about gender roles, expectations, and values. If you are a female asking the questions, it may be very difficult to remain non-defensive when a family member or friend reveals that they think less of women than of men, or that they have been judging you all along on how much you conform to their expectations of gender roles. And of course vice versa if you are a man asking the questions. But in order to get their real answers, you have to remain "unsurprised", and non-defensive, just listen. Difficult, but very revealing. You can of course find out a lot about why a person has been treating your opposite-sex sibling or other family members with prejudice and criticism for years, if that's the case, by listening objectively. (Then you will be in a position to help them deal with it better, you can more effectively have their back.)
Thanks for reading,
Marianne Black
Dear Love. I am writing you this letter because people confuse me. They are too busy for you, and they are scared of you. They refuse to show you within themselves. Thanks for listening to me love. I needed to vent. Love.
Massimo.
~ Massimo Rossetti
(copyright M.Rossetti 2012)
See without judgment the information another is pointing to, be it regarding darkness or light. All of the pieces of a puzzle are needed to complete a picture. Judging one piece as less important than
another is senseless; if some pieces are discarded, the puzzle is no longer complete, and the remaining pieces will not fit.
Remember that some, when constructing a difficult puzzle, need to begin with the bright pieces and build from there. Some need to begin with the simplest place in the picture, and work out from that spot. Some must make sense of the dark places in order to begin to find where any other pieces go, and still others must start at the corners and the edges.
No puzzle piece is less essential than another; some are harder to find, and some are harder to look at. Hold a new puzzle piece in your hand, turn it this way and that, see how it glints in the sunlight, and glows or fades in the moon shadow.
The bearer of the information, of the puzzle piece, is simply a messenger, like all other messengers, no more or less important. It is only the bias of one’s ego that accepts or rejects a piece of information based on the bearer of the message; of the piece of the puzzle.
You know how you're supposed to take the "bad" with the "good" when you have a friendship? That's about personality stuff. What someone likes or doesn't like, whether they're shy or outgoing, if they like sushi and you hate it, if they love snakes and spiders and you can't stand them. If they like all kinds of music and you only like rock, or you only like rap, or you only like classical. If they would rather hike than bike, and you would rather bike than hike. It's NOT about how they treat you, or how you treat them. It is NOT a part of being a "friend" to accept ill and callous or self-centered treatment, and it's especially not being a friend if you expect another person to accept it from you.
One of the best weapons in the arsenal of a
controlling person is anything they can use to hold over your head. If
you tell them in confidence that you did something in your past that you
feel guilty about, that can be turned into a weapon to use against you.
"Having something on you", like blackmailers on TV, is a very easy way
to exert control. Because you don't want your private things to be spread
all over the place, even if you fear that only on a
subconscious level, you can easily fall prey to walking on eggshells
around them, making sure you don't upset them, because you are afraid of
what they'll do. Those with high morals and good conscience are the
easiest targets for a controller, because they truly feel remorse for
past mistakes, AND because the controller is not afraid of retaliation;
persons with high morals are loathe to hurt another person, even if they
are abusive.
EVEN IF you didn't actually do anything that you
feel seriously remorseful about, they will still try this with things
they think you MIGHT feel bad about, or things they think you would not
want exposed, or things they make up in their own imagination, pure
fiction. If the controller is a habitual gossiper, they have probably
already told all of your secrets, and made up some more, just to keep
the attention of whoever is listening.
If you are not ashamed of
anything you have done, or when you have LET GO of shame attached to
things you have done, (guilt is not shame), then they will not be able
to hold things over your head in order to make you do their bidding. Facing your guilt, remorse, and shame head on, and making amends to those you have hurt in an open and direct way. is the path to finding redemption and letting go of shame. Even if the recipient of your apology and amends does not accept, or is very angry, giving them the apology and attempting amends anyway is still the route to redemption. If that's not possible because the person is unavailable for any reason, or because they are dangerous, then the next best thing is to tell someone else what you did, and make amends in another way; but ONLY if the person is honestly unreachable or dangerous.
Remember that every single human on the Earth makes all kinds of
mistakes, and has all kind of "flaws" and "faults". If someone is
holding something over your head, or trying to use something you have
done or do to make you look bad, or treating you as if you are not as
"good" or as "worthy" and therefore don't deserve the same normal
courteous treatment as anyone else, they are a controller.
The Narcissist is the "friend" who changes
plans on you constantly in order to accommodate their schedule,
regardless of yours, who desires the attention of anyone you are
interested in, who invites you to a party and then treats you like you
don't really belong, who's problems are always a crisis in need of your
help, no matter how small, but who treats your problems as if they are
due to your incompetence and are
petty, no matter how large;
The coworker who constantly tries to take
credit for your work and make you look bad;
The doctor who rushes
through your exam to get out of there to go play squash;
The landlord
who demands timely rent payments but won't fix anything;
The roommate
who treats you as if you are in their way when you're home, and your
stuff is a nuisance, even though you pay half, or more than half the
rent;
The wife who acts as if her family is better and more important
than her husband's, who acts as if the sun rises and sets on her side of the family, but that his are just low-class peasants and don't deserve the time of day;
The clergy who act like they are "Holy" and you are
not;
The atheist who believes that anyone who does not believe the same as they do is "stupid", and doesn't hesitate to tell them so;
The teacher who only helps his favored students and treats the rest
as if they aren't able to learn, a waste of time;
The husband who is
judgmental, self-important, and bossy toward his wife,who honestly feels that he is superior to her, and makes a habit of criticizing her, judging her, and ordering her around, but can't stand to be bothered with anything she wants, needs, or wants to talk about;
The sibling who
believes they are a better human being and deserve to be favored;
The
adult child who only keeps in contact to get money and stuff;
The boss
who thinks of himself as a superior being who should be catered to and
served, and his employees as inferior creatures who should put him
before anyone else;
The employee who thinks they are far superior to
their boss, and believes they would run the company much better, and
deserves the position without going through promotions or school that
everyone else would go through, and without just starting their own
company;
The musician or artist who accepts your accolades for his or her work with or without a show of gratitude, but lets you know that your musicianship or artwork is not deserving of attention or respect, or even encouragement. Either with passive aggressive behavior, or with direct insult.
The parent who can't be bothered with their child's needs, and
denies the child's wants, as if the child's existence is a burden;
The significant other who expects their animal-loving partner to give up his or her interests in animals, and not have any pets, because they don't like them;
The
animal welfare worker who believes they have a gift with animals that
you couldn't possibly have.
They aren't just politicians and cult
leaders, they can be found anywhere there are humans.
What happens if you are walking along with your metal detector, and you find a meteorite about the size of a football, and it's filled with gold and platinum?
