Envy And Fleas

When you refer to yourself, or I refer to myself.. 

When I talk about myself and use "I" and "me", or when you do the same thing,...
When you try to tell your story, or if I say your story reminds me of something in my own life...
When you share your observation, or when I share my opinion..
When I'm venting (so it's all about "me") or when you're venting (so it's all about "you")
When I'm overwhelmed or expressing a need, or when you are either or both~

 if a Narcissist is listening (or reading), they are thinking "Narcissist! You're so self centered! It's all about you, you, you! You want all the credit, you want to be the center of attention, you're always trying to get attention, praise, and sympathy! You always think you know everything...you're so self-righteous... you're so..."
~
Because Narcissists can't stand it when others are the subject or center of the conversation (unless it's negative.)
They can't stand it when someone else is talking about themselves for more than five seconds (that might be too long).
They resent it when someone else is getting attention, credit, or praise from others.
They hate it when someone else is celebrating or happy about anything that doesn't include (or FEATURE) them.
They don't like it when someone else seems to be doing well, or doing something well, or getting even a moment of recognition or reward for it.

If they were to time how long they talked about themselves, and how long you talked about yourself; how long they listened to you, and how long you listened to them, they might see a clearer picture. If they listened to the content of what they were talking about, and the content of your communication, they might get some more clarity. If they realized that they aren't thinking of you as a PERSON like themselves but only as a sounding board, a support, or an audience, without real emotions and needs of your own...

Focusing resentment, envy, and projection on a person who is actually in a leadership position by default is not uncommon, there's always at least one employee who resents the boss for having the "leader" position, band members who resent the front person and/or the songwriter, interest-group members who resent the person who founded the group (but don't leave), actors who resent the director (but don't want the job), recovery group, 12 step, and support group members who resent the group leader just because (but stay anyway). Students who resent the teachers. Martial Arts students who resent the Sensei.

~
This envy can also be found as "fleas" on targets of Narc. abuse, especially if the abuse took place during childhood. There was almost certainly comparing going on; this child is better than that child, why can't you be more like her, look how HE behaves, see how nice she looks, isn't SHE just beautiful, isn't HE so handsome, don't you wish you were as strong as he is...
There was most likely withholding of approval, acceptance, and praise for a variety of "reasons"; punishment, control, manipulation, "keeping her humble", keeping the spotlight on the Golden Child.
There was probably a lot of exclusion going on; "We're going to dinner, you stay here" "We're going on vacation, you're staying with so and so" "Stay in your room until the guests leave" "The wedding does not allow children"
There was probably consistent put-downs all around, "Give that here, you do it like THIS!" "You throw like a girl" "You look like a boy" "You're so lazy" "You're so slow" "You're not the beautiful type, you're more like a farm girl" "Girls don't like little boys who whine"

And there was probably a lot of spotlight-stealing, spotlight grabbing, spotlight hoarding, invalidation, getting knocked off the proverbial stage (by those who were supposed to support), and spotlight blocking. Grandstanding, pontificating, lecturing, and story-telling. Lots of "I, me, me, I, me, and then I, me, I, sometimes a we, we, and then we, and then I..."

So, in retrospect, it's understandable that a person who grew up dealing with Narcissistic behavior might pick up a few resentments, triggers, or "fleas".

It's not healthy to feed those fleas, they are parasitical and will bite at and suck at a person's spirit, and make healing more difficult. They can be picked off and the bite marks can be healed as soon as one starts looking for them and seeing them for what they are. It's not the same as self-deprecation; these fleas are not part of "who we are", they're side effects, little things we picked up and held on to. They may have helped us to cope in the environment at the time.

As Suzanne Wingrove said, "Send that which you want to get rid of, that which you want to throw away, that which you see as garbage to the Earth; She will turn it over into compost and create new life with it."

Above Reproach

When we begin to believe that we are one of those without arrogance, bigotry, or ego, we may want to count our resentments and annoyances toward others.

The Costs Of Beliefs, Stereotypes, Assumptions And Ego

The "Crazy-Making", Narcissistic, generally abusive behavior coming from men does LOOK different on the outside from abusive behavior from women, but when we look under the hood, it becomes clear that it's the same engine that drives the vehicle.
~
The reason the behaviors themselves are different is not some kind of scientific biological process, as so many would like to think. The REAL reason is simple:
Manipulators, abusers, and controllers TAILOR their behavior to what WORKS FOR THEM as an individual.
~
Even if they don't KNOW they're doing it, they learn by trial, error, and mimicry what other people will ALLOW them to get away with. They learn what other people EXPECT from girls and women, and from boys and men. It's not about who THEY REALLY ARE, it's about what OTHER PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE.
~
So if Sharon believes that all men are naturally good at fixing things, and women are NOT, she's already opening the door to the next male manipulator who's playing on that belief.
If Sharon believes that all (or most) women are natural caregivers and men are NOT, she's again already opening the door to the next female manipulator who's playing on that belief.
~
That looks like:
(Sharon is going to have a rough year~ good thing she's not real).

Sharon has an 8 year old daughter, Missy. Her mother is elderly and is thinking about going into a "home". A new neighbor, Mike, moves in nearby.

Sharon and her Mom visit several elderly-living places in the area. They speak to staff and take facility tours. They both agree on one of the places, the staff was very friendly to them, and seemed very caring.... After a couple of weeks there, Sharon's Mom begins to seem withdrawn. When Sharon speaks to staff, they assure her that everything is fine, that this is to be expected. Then Sharon's Mom starts to seem spacey, and is not caring for herself like she usually does. They assure her it's "age". Then Sharon notices a bruise on her Mom's arm, they assure her that her Mom did that to herself. One day Sharon comes in one day before visiting hours and finds her Mom tied to a chair all by herself, crying, calling for a nurse. She overhears staff complaining about her, "o.m.g. that whiny old lady, I wish she'd just SHUT UP!" "I KNOW! Did you give her an extra dose? If you didn't, I'm gonna. She pissed herself again, I'm not cleaning it up."
When they hear Sharon's footsteps, they both immediately stand up straight, smile sweetly and scurry around, pretending to be very concerned about Sharon's Mom's needs and comfort, and go on to Sharon about how "stubborn" she's been.

Yes, Sharon gets her out of there and brings her home, but she had no concern before that about how her Mom was being treated. Her conditioned belief in gender stereotypes "Females Are Naturally Compassionate Caregivers" had her TRUSTING them, ASSUMING that they were what she expected them to be. She also bought into the "Super-Responsible-Capable" act that certain staff members put on. When they acted friendly and kind, it solidified her TRUST in them personally. When they flattered her, she trusted them MORE. When they acted BRUSQUE , "VERY BUSY" and RUDE , she believed it conveyed CAPABILITY, EXPERIENCE and EXPERTISE. She actually had passed over the facility that would have treated her Mom very well because they didn't behave in this manner, they were very polite and genuinely kind, not bossy or condescending, which Sharon misinterpreted as lack of experience and capability.
~
Sharon needs a babysitter for her 8 year old daughter. She looks around to area families to hire a young person for the job. She decides on a 15 year old girl from the neighborhood. Sharon doesn't realize it, but she chose this girl because she appears older than another friend's daughter, not for any other reason. Also, she chose a girl instead of a boy, because of her gender beliefs (like in the nursing home.) In reality, outside of Sharon's presumptions based on superficial appearance, the friend's daughter with the younger appearance is actually MUCH more responsible than the girl she chose, and much better with kids. Her other friend's son, who also wanted the job, is a very responsible boy who babysits his own little sister, very well.

Again, Sharon made the decision based on nothing other than her own stereotypes and assumptions. Sharon calls it her "gut feeling", so she thinks she's accurate. Unfortunately, the girl Sharon hired wants the money so she can buy marijuana... from the kids she invites to Sharon's house while she's babysitting... who all smoke in the bathroom out the window and ignore the child... in order to keep her secret, she threatens Sharon's daughter...

Sharon's daughter tells her Mom that she doesn't like the babysitter, but Sharon's response to her is "You'll just have to get used to it." The babysitter reports to Sharon that her daughter "acts up" and doesn't want to follow the rules... Sharon believes the babysitter, and keeps her on for another year. In the meantime, Sharon's daughter shows changes in her behavior, acting out and seeming despondent, to which Sharon blames on her daughter's "moody personality". Luckily, the babysitter gets a job at a fast food restaurant and can no longer babysit. But damage has been done.
~
Sharon needs some household repairs done. Her friend Molly has been doing carpentry and remodeling for years, so she asks her advice about the repair work. Molly offers to do it for free if Sharon buys the material. Oddly, Sharon does not say "great, thank you!". Instead, she implies that she doesn't want to do it "right now", maybe next month, and she doesn't thank Molly for the offer, either, she just changes the subject.
Sharon met her new neighbor Mike a week ago, and invited him in for coffee. Mike works as a sales rep. at an electronics store, but also works for his male friend doing remodeling. Sharon asks Mike about the repairs she needs done around her home. He doesn't really know how to do them, but he pretends he does to save face, kind of making guesses and using appropriate words and phrases. Sharon falls for his smoke screen because of her conditioned belief that men automatically know about such things, and know better than women. She asks Mike to schedule the repair work with his friend's business.
***
Mike says "Oh sure, we'll TAKE GOOD CARE OF YOU." This is a phrase he learned many years ago that he knows most people, especially women, tend to respond to, especially coming from men. (Men respond well to it also, especially coming from women. It invokes a cradling, care-taking feeling, sincerity notwithstanding.)
***
Sharon feels a little excited at the prospect of having men in her home doing repair work. She really doesn't want Molly to do it because she's secretly envious of her and doesn't want Molly to get the credit for it. Also, she was conditioned as a child that men are naturally good at carpentry and repair, and women are not, and she has built this belief into her OWN identity and life, as well as projecting it onto others.

In other words, she TRUSTS MIKE AND HIS MALE FRIEND, and she wants to trust them. Not because she has any REAL reason to trust them, she has never dealt with either of them before, she doesn't know them well personally, or in business. She has no real reason to trust them, and yet she does, because of her own conditioned beliefs, assumptions, and emotions.

Mike and his friend charge Sharon full price but tell her they're giving her a discount... because she's a friend... which she believes and does not check up on... not only because she TRUSTS them, but because she LIKES trusting them. While Mike is in her house, he takes a few things he thinks she won't notice missing. She doesn't pay attention because she likes trusting them. Mike's friend tells Sharon she also needs some other work done, most of which she immediately agrees to even though it's a strain on her budget. Mike's friend "cuts corners" and "takes shortcuts" on much of the work, but Sharon doesn't pay attention, or even notice. One of the repairs isn't even done, it's just covered over.


The jobs take several weeks, because Mike's friend has put Sharon low on the priority list. Her behavior has shown him that she's easy to manipulate, she'll believe whatever he tells her.


Part of Sharon's gender belief conditioning was also "Do Not Question Men" and "Ignore My Suspicions About The Motives And Actions Of Others". Her subconscious fears consequences that she might get if she questions their prices, the time they're taking, and even the missing items in her home, so she just DOESN'T question them.

In the meantime, Mike has ensconced himself into Sharon's personal life, and is slowly finding out more and more about her and her finances.

Sharon no longer calls Molly, she feels shame about the way she treated her but can't let go of her ego enough to admit it and apologize. She's still envious of Molly and doesn't like that Molly does things that she herself can't do. If she had simply treated her friend with respect, she would have saved not only a huge amount of money, but the repairs would have all been done correctly and well. There would not have been an opportunity for Mike to get so close to her personally or steal things, the friendship with Molly would have grown stronger instead of getting ruined. It would have also helped Molly's business reputation, which would have improved both of their lives materially.

So Sharon's beliefs, conditioning, and ego cost her quite a bit, in many ways, and also cost Molly.

Avoiding all mistakes is not actually possible, we can't know what we don't know, and manipulators purposely hide things from our view, and purposely present their 'best face'. But we do have control over our own beliefs and assumptions about people, both ourselves and others, and how quickly we "let others in" before we get to know them for real. We also have the ability to observe our own ego-driven behaviors (like rejecting and diminishing others due to our own resentment or envy) from the privacy of our own eyes and ears. 

No one else has to know we're watching others, or watching ourselves.

Malala

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-this-incredible-young-woman-render-jon-stewart-speechless?c=ufb1

Malala on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, please do click the link ^

Authority, Fuzzy Boundaries, and Narcissism

Misunderstanding the difference between legitimate authority and made-up social hierarchy is one of the traits that's common in those with injured, weakened, or fuzzy boundaries, and also in those with Narcissism.
~
So Susan doesn't want to recognize Jim's authority, even though he's the teacher in the class, because she doesn't like him personally. She won't sit still, refuses to remain silent when he's speaking, and rebels against his instruction. Susan thinks she is innately superior to Jim, and does not think she should "have to listen" to him. She is not able to GRASP the simple fact that Jim DOES have assigned authority over her, as the Teacher of that class. He also has basic authority as a faculty member of the school.

Susan resents Jim's authority, and believes that his belief in his authority is just because he's a man. She resents him personally, and sees this "hierarchy" as a sham, and also thinks she should be the Leader of this class instead, since she believes she can do a better job.

It does NOT cross her mind that Jim's position is a hired position, that he's not "taking" or assigning himself more authority than he "deserves". It does NOT cross her mind that Jim went to college in order to get this job, and that if he had not purposely gone through the actions to get his degree, that he wouldn't have been hired.
It does NOT cross her mind that if SHE acquired the same degree as Jim, she would qualify for the same position.
~
Mark was hired by Mary, who owns an Autobody shop. After the second week, Mark began subtly ignoring Mary's instructions and rebelling against her rules and policies. The third week, Mark was talking over Mary to customers, interrupting her, and condescending to her. The fourth week he was invading her office space, answering her phone, going on her computer. The fifth week he was rearranging her garage without her approval.
The sixth week, Mary spoke to him for the tenth time about his behavior, and told him she couldn't keep him on if he didn't stop. The seventh week, Mark stole several tools out of Mary's shop to "SHOW HER". (Show her what, exactly...?) The eighth week, Mary had to get a restraining order against him, and hired a security company for both her shop and her home. In the meantime, Mark went about smearing Mary's name and her shop to everyone he could in the area.

Why did Mark pull all this crap? Because Mark honestly believes that anytime he is in any kind of relationship dynamic with a female, whether it's personal or business, HE gets to be the Boss. He perceives Mary's not allowing him to be the Boss over her as HER being a Control Freak. He also thinks that she can't run the shop without his expertise and authority. (It doesn't seem to occur to him that Mary is the owner of the shop, with or without him).

Unfortunately Mark was inadvertently taught that men are innately entitled to supremacy over women, and since it seemed so normal as he grew up, he doesn't know that it's not real. (Just like children in racist communities and families are taught that it's normal to believe their race is innately superior, children in sexist communities and families are taught that it's normal to believe that one sex is superior to the other.)

So wherever Mark goes in life, he is going to have the same problem, over and over. The only places he will not get himself in this kind of trouble with this issue are in male-only groups and businesses (works well for male Narc. Controllers, Mark will never listen to a female, even his mother or sister, warning him about how a male Narc. is using him). So for Mark, his potential for finding a happy relationship is nil, and he has no real idea why that is. (He's told by the same people he grew up around that it's because women are all crazy or bad, and of course he believes it, because those people are his loved ones, and they all basically believe it (more or less) as well.)
~
The failure to recognize the difference between ACTUAL LEGITIMATE assigned authority and hierarchy can be seen on the "boss" side as well, just as much. The teacher with Narcissism believes the authority that goes with her position is actually INNATE authority because she is a superior being, and that she carries it with her internally. In her mind, her students are students because they're inferior beings.
The CEO with Narcissism believes he is hired because he is innately superior to the rest of the employees in the company, and he believes that all of his achievements reflect his supremacy, and that those who have not achieved the same "level" of material success or recognition are just inferior beings.
The Narcissistic parent believes that he or she is innately superior as a human being to their children, and that's why they have authority in the household over them.
The Narcissistic partner believes that the reason their partner is being polite and helpful is because he or she is displaying ADULATION, recognizing their "authority" and supremacy, and showing submissive subservience.
~
Specific examples can be seen quite readily in support/recovery groups and forums, and in any kind of classroom setting. Narcissism on the part of an instructor or group leader reveals itself as condescension and invalidation when certain members or students speak; bad grades as passive-aggressive dominance (not on merit); creating factions; blocking certain members and students from resources; discouragement, rejection, and blatant lack of respect and support toward certain students and members; displaying prejudice and biases in the group. (A coach who disparages the opposite sex or other races, for example "You throw like a girl" or "You're clumsy as a boy"; Teachers who disparage a political party or another race; Recovery group leaders who habitually imply that certain addictions or disorders are "worse than others" or "evil", or that their life experiences "outrank" everyone else's).
On the part of students and members, Narcissism reveals itself in many ways, such as habitually countering the instructor/leader, creating factions within the group, trying to insert one's self as the "real Leader" of the group, smearing others in the group or the instructor or leader, openly attacking/humiliating and trying to dominate the instructor/leader or others in the group.

~ Students, group members, and employees with Narcissism traits often desire the "Leader Position" (or "assistant to the Leader") within someone else's group, class, or business that has already been established. The same thing can be seen in government. The main goals of most Narcissists are recognition as "superior", control over everything and everyone in their lives, and to be the center of attention. That's why it doesn't MATTER what the actual task, job, or subject is, they're not actually interested in LEARNING, DOING, or RESOLVING, so much as they're interested in being The BOSS and being recognized as Better Than You at whatever it is.~

Paradigm Shifts

It's normal to feel uncomfortable and even ill when faced with evidence that we've been living with false assumptions and beliefs our whole lives. Especially when those beliefs are about ourselves and the people around us; who we are as persons, who others are, and how we fit in the world. If we've been taught that we were born with certain qualities and privileges that others don't have, we tend to base our identity and security on those things. Finding out it wasn't really true may be so difficult to take that we may become angry, defensive, or flat out deny that it's possible. It's really a shame that so many children are raised being taught false beliefs about themselves and others, since learning the truth after years of having internalized those beliefs can actually be traumatic.

Changing How People Treat You

Yes, you CAN change how others generally treat you by changing your own behavior and appearance. But that's definitely NOT the whole picture, it's only a small piece of it.

If you're a woman, or a smaller man, you are not going to walk into the average Carpenter's Union office and be treated with the same respect as a large man, no matter how "confident" you appear, how friendly or dominant you act, or what outfit you're wearing.

The bias and bad manners of other people are NOT dependent on YOU, the way you hold yourself, or your character as a person. A majority of humans are generally judgmental of others in very superficial and petty ways, and generally don't stop to doubt their snap judgments and assumptions.

If you're a tall, relatively athletic looking man wearing a certain kind of suit, MOST humans will assume that you are smart, successful, and capable in all kinds of things, with absolutely zero evidence. Other humans will assume that you are a "stuffed suit" and/or a slick politician, again with zero evidence. If you take that suit off, muss up your hair and change into overalls and boots, they'll probably peg you for a laborer or a farmer. Since you're a tall man, they'll probably STILL treat you like you know what you're doing in whatever field they think you're in, even with your hair mussed up. Your sister standing right next to you with a business suit on and well-groomed hair will be assumed to be only capable of certain business tasks (that you are in charge of), but not the actual hands-on labor; again, with zero evidence of any of it.

Generally, humans ASSUME and JUDGE, based on silly, superficial, nonsensical visuals. Humans treat others BASED ON these "assessments". BELIEVE IT, it's absolutely true. And even when they see for themselves that their assumptions were wrong, they will STILL often try to "make" their original judgment be real by behaving as if it IS real~ they don't just suddenly start treating a person with more respect when they see they were wrong, and in fact might start treating them with LESS respect, trying to "knock them down".

You can IMPROVE the way others react to you and treat you by changing the way you dress and do your hair, the way you hold yourself, the way you feel about yourself, and the way you treat THEM. But you are NOT going to get them to change their senseless biases and assumptions based on your general body type.

If you're a small woman who's a master craftsman, and you apply for a position with your brother who's also a master craftsman, guess who probably going to get the job? It doesn't matter HOW you come across to the employer, the odds of your brother being hired and NOT you are already stacked before you walk in the door. The only way you're going to get it INSTEAD of your brother is if the person hiring is actually aware enough to do a real assessment of each of you as potential hirees, OR if they have a specific reason why they would rather hire a woman, or you specifically.

Does it mean you should GIVE UP what you love to do and what you're good at just because other people can't handle it or don't want to recognize that you're capable? Absolutely not! But don't beat yourself up about the reasons why people don't treat you with the same respect that they treat others. It's good to present ourselves in a good light, and "show up respectably" and confidently. And.... that will IMPROVE the way people treat us. But it won't make them do a 180. Many, perhaps most humans are generally very biased and presumptuous in a very superficial, cartoonish way. (That's the reason changing your appearance even works in the first place).

Testing this is EASY!
 You can stand back and WATCH how others treat different people, like in a big box store or a fast food restaurant, for example. Watch how the clerks and other workers interact with each different customer. Who do they smile at, who do they "help" more, who do they make eye contact with? Who do they display "respect" to, and who do they treat poorly, or with a lack of friendliness or respect? 
When you go on a date, or go out somewhere with someone, watch how staff at the places you go to treat each of you differently. A person who has a lot of biases will usually treat one of you with more respect and friendliness than the other (bad for business). (If YOU or your friend is behaving with hostility and rudeness, then this experiment is moot, you aren't doing it right. In order for it to work, you both have to behave with the same well-mannered demeanor or it's pointless.) 

Watch your OWN biases. Go in a store and look around to see who you assume would know more about the products, who is the boss, and who you would not ask for help because they "look" like they wouldn't be knowledgeable. Look at the businesses in your area, do you buy into the gender stereotypes of "what men are naturally better at" and "what women are naturally good at"? Where do you think those beliefs come from, and if they're "natural", then why are these assumptions different in different regions? If you ask about fixing a leak, who do you assume will know about it, and what's your basis for this assumption? Do you really believe that you "CAN'T" learn how to do certain things because of your gender? Do you place this belief on others? What about race, how do you see individuals of different races, what are your assumptions? When you go to a gas station, do you think you know all about each of the other individuals there, based on their vehicle their sex, and their appearance?

Too Smart

Narcissists DO commonly treat those who they get a "smart/intelligent" vibe from with disrespect and condescension. By the time they're adults, they've been doing it for at least 10 years straight. They do it for the obvious reasons of ego, control, and their domination issues. They also don't want to get caught; if you're too smart, not only are you going to be hard to manipulate, but you're going to see through the smoke.

Bias

Bias is basically when I'm supportive and interested in one kind of person, but bored with and non-supportive toward another kind of person.
~
So when tall, dark haired Leslie starts to speak, before she even finishes a syllable I'm quiet and paying attention so I can hear what she says, and I'm engaged and focused; I'm listening for the message she's conveying, and I display responses to her social signals; I laugh at her humor signals.
But when average height, soft spoken, light haired Lisa starts to speak, I barely pause to even acknowledge her. I might stop for a moment just to appear polite, but I really am not interested in what she has to say. When Lisa is finished speaking (or gives up because she's being ignored), I don't give her acknowledgment or respond to her humor, but I do argue with something she said.
~
In reality, Lisa is quite experienced on the subject we are talking about, and has some interesting things to say that I could really learn from. Leslie has a little experience, but not nearly as much as Lisa. Also, Lisa is actually a kinder person than Leslie, and much more polite. While Leslie interrupts people when they speak, counters them, and talks over them, Lisa is quite receptive to others' points of view, a very good listener, and a polite conversationalist.
~
So why am I listening to Leslie, but being quite rude and ignoring Lisa?
The harsh reality is not about them, but about ME. I'm simply not very aware of my own behavior, which is pretty rude, and is driven by my own bias.

Leslie's appearance catches my interest, and her manner reminds me of someone I like. Also, she's tall, and that kicks in a certain assumption that is often found in primates; following larger individuals. Her complexion and "coloring" is similar to my own, and my family's, so that feels comfortable. She seems popular, everyone else seems to pay attention to her, so my subconscious is reinforced to "pay attention to Leslie" because that's what "we" do. Her appearance, vocal tone and her body language convey dominance and a lack of manners, which I mistake for confidence and experience.
~
Lisa is smaller than Leslie, and me, so that kicks in a similar primate assumption: assigning smaller individuals "lower status". That's the biggest factor in my anti-Lisa bias, especially since she's sitting near Leslie, who I'm automatically comparing her to. Second, I get the feeling she's very intelligent, which threatens my ego, especially since she's smaller than me, and female. (I don't want to be told something I don't know by a "lower status" individual.) Third, her hair is light colored, which reminds me of a young person, which signals my subconscious again to lower her "status", and so I "don't have to pay attention to her". Fourth, her polite manner and soft voice signal to me that I will not receive serious CONSEQUENCES for ignoring her; she's probably not going to humiliate or attack me for being rude to her, because she's well-mannered. (Leslie probably would.)
Last but definitely NOT least, she reminds me of a classmate I grew up with who I was jealous of.
When no one else sends social signals that say "Hey! Pay attention to Lisa when she is speaking!", I just go along with my inclination to ignore her rudely, because I don't feel that there will be any real repercussions for doing so.
~
Our bias tells us who to pay attention to, who to engage with, who to treat with respect and friendliness, and who to listen to, believe, and follow.
It is NOT an accurate assessment of other people, although we often believe that's exactly what it is. Most of the time our biases are blanket assumptions and emotional associations that we developed in childhood, based on the very small, limited, tiny corner of the world we were experiencing, with a very small number of human beings in it. Of course we all think we're quite worldly and know "how people are", and believe we are pretty good at assessing people with very little information. We also tend to think that people are the same everywhere, that all cultures reflect the same stereotypes, and everything has been the way it is, basically, throughout history.
We think our biases are RIGHT, mostly.
So even when we're confronted with direct evidence that we are as "off" as we could possibly be, we usually deal with it by ignoring this evidence, and digging into our biases like a tick holding onto a dog's back.
~
Bias is one of the larger problems in our world, and one of the most difficult to change, only because WE don't want to change our OWN, mostly. We want to KEEP our biases, because they feel like Linus's blanket to our egos.
~
How do we change our biases? Simple~ by paying attention to our behavior; really paying attention.




  By M.M.Black ©2013

On The Same Page

Narcissists only "like" you when you are on the same page as they are.
But it's not just the same page, it's the same paragraph, the same font, the same paper grade, the same book, the same volume, the same series, and it's the ONLY PAGE you're interested in reading, and you agree with every word on that page. If you even breathe a word that's not on that page, you're WRONG, rebellious, dramatic,... and argumentative. If you want them to read YOUR PAGE, you're being SELF-CENTERED, needy, demanding, and attention-seeking. Reading YOUR page means they would have to stop reading THEIR page for a little while, and that's not fun or comfortable!
~Besides, what were you doing writing your OWN PAGE, when all of your attention should have been focused on THEIRS?! (Now you've done it!) ... ... ...

How Do Controllers Stay In Their Control Positions?

How do they (Controllers, Narcissists, Bullies) STAY in that "leader" position like they do? Even though you can see clearly how disrespectful and condescending they are?
~~~ That IS how they stay in that position, by being condescending, disrespectful, and invalidating.
 
That's their tool kit.
 
They are constantly signaling things like "I know what I'm talking about" and "I know what I'm doing",... which sound like healthy confidence... BUT! With Controllers and Narcissists, those signals are not all by themselves.
They are ACCOMPANIED BY signals such as:
"You aren't as capable",
"Don't listen to HER",
"He doesn't know what he's doing",
"She's crazy",
"He's a loser",
"WE don't like her",
"WE don't care what he or she says",
"We don't need to listen to him",
"Your ideas and opinions are weird/silly/dumb"
"She doesn't fit in".
~
Those signals are usually subtle, but since humans are group creatures, our brains are finely tuned to pick up on subtle social signals. This is a REALLY IMPORTANT fact regarding human behavior and control. Remember that experiment where one person looks up, so everyone else does too? Instantly? That's how attuned we are. When one person treats someone with disdain, disrespect, or invalidation, that's a signal to everyone else that says "look everyone, this person isn't as good as we are."

THIS is why everyone just goes along with the way people are treating a person. If everyone seems to think a person is "cool" or "knowledgeable" for any random reason, then the human brain tends to just BELIEVE and follow the signals from other people.

If no one is paying attention to the small band playing on the corner, then the crowd walks past. If a group of three or more people stops to listen, a crowd gathers behind them.

This is VERY well known in the entertainment industry, in marketing, in business, but for some... reason... we seem to want to deny that it's no different in social interactions.

We are TOLD by the Controller that they're the "boss". Those around him or her who are following along with the Controller's social signals will back them up, because they believe it's true. When the Controller IGNORES something you said, you might feel like you said something "wrong" or silly. When others witness the Controller IGNORING YOU, they will tend to GO ALONG WITH the social signal, INSTEAD OF standing up for you. The more the Controller sends this "IGNORE HER" signal, the more people will buy into believing that you are less worthy and less significant, and the higher the Controller's level of "Boss" will rise (in their minds). You may buy into it as well if you don't realize what's going on (often because you like or trust the person).

Politicians use this all the time, every day, on purpose. Buying into the belief that everyone in one Party is "good" and the other is "bad" is now very common, and shows just how good they are at this social signaling game.

MOST Controllers do social signaling pretty well, from small social groups to large governments, and it's literally how they are able to stay in a Control position no matter how corrupt, how disrespectful, and how unfair they really are. It even works on Facebook.

On an observational note, Controllers often reveal themselves when they feel threatened that someone sees through the social signal manipulation. They may target the person for social manipulation, either trying to turn everyone against them in a hostility campaign, or trying to get everyone to shun them (exclude them, leave them out, ignore them). Amazingly, since many humans are so easily influenced by social signaling, they often go right along with the Controller's agenda without stopping to think for themselves.

Abnormal...

Personal vent creep-out:
People who don't think women are, can, or should be: funny, confident, smart, experienced, skilled, strong, or wise.

Gives me major heebie-jeebies...
unnatural and abnormal...

The Cool Kids, The In Crowd (After High School)

Birds Of A Feather Flock Together~

One of the more visible developmental delays that can occur in those who have been groomed as a "Golden Child", and also those who have experienced trauma, abuse, and/or neglect in childhood including those who display certain personality disorder traits is a tendency to "flock" with others who are like themselves in very specific ways.

Exclusively gathering and interacting with ONLY those they feel comfortable with, and rejecting those who don't "fit in" with their crowd and group is a process that children go through in their development. When they go all the way through this process, they learn how to accept that others can be different from themselves but are still "okay", and that those who are not extremely similar to them are just as real, valid, and deserving of respect and civility.

They're learning how to interact and get along on their own in larger peer groups without adult supervision, and learning how to choose their own associates OUTSIDE the parameters that adults set for them, such as school, family, and neighborhoods.

IF they have not developed strong, healthy boundaries due to a lack of safe haven, a chaotic household, lack of healthy adult guidance, Golden Child treatment, or trauma beyond their family's control, a young person is likely to seek out other youths who "match" their own emotional profile more than they would have "normally", because it feels safe. They seek out those who may have similar emotional/psychological injuries and boundary weaknesses, because they feel like they "get" each other. Again, this is a normal developmental stage, but because of traumatic or abnormal experiences, it becomes exaggerated, magnified, and "stuck". Much of the time youths who gather for these reasons will help one another develop "shells" to protect themselves from the harsh world they live in. Since they're children, they are unlikely to know the difference between a "boundary" and a "shell", or a "wall".

When these youths grow to adulthood without healing their wounded and weakened boundaries (which is very common), they tend to stay in this developmental period, and don't process all the way through it to the other side. So they don't develop the ability to make acquaintances and friends with varying interests, different personalities, different backgrounds, or different points of view.

They tend to stay in the adolescent growth period where they only listened to certain music and connected with only people who also listened to that certain music. Or only people who played SPORTS, or who played the same sport, or who were "into" Major League sports. They might have only hung out with people who were into the same social groups, or were in a similar wealth or poverty position. They might have only gathered with people who dressed the same, or had a similar body type. Many kids go through this stage including only the same sex in their group, and excluding the opposite sex, as if they are different tribes or even species.

Adults who remain in this stage remain in the "Us vs. Them" period. "We" are the good ones, the cool ones, the strong ones, the ones who get it, and "They" are the others; anyone who doesn't fit in with "us".

Unfortunately, this "Us" crowd often involves destructive behaviors and unhealthy beliefs and intentions. Members of a group may be "bonding" on things such as hostility toward others, self-righteousness over others, privilege over others, entitlement, racial or gender supremacy, crime, corruption, and oppression. 
They may be bonding on things such as shame, guilt, emotional injury, rejection, ostracism, but instead of helping one another heal, they may instead "help" each other self-destruct, or cause harm to others.

This developmental stage is when we are learning to interact with others civilly and productively, and find our own companions without adult supervision and parameters. If a person has not grown and processed through this stage, then they're still in it, and have not finished learning what they would have learned. It also means that their boundaries are probably not strong enough to interact with others who don't "match" them closely enough. So the 40 year-old "jock" does not know how to interact with those who are not also "jocks", and feels uncomfortable around those who aren't "jocks". The 55 year-old "punk rocker" will feel uncomfortable around those who aren't also "punks". Many who are stuck in this stage only think of those of the same sex as being "real" or "like me", and don't actually have real platonic friends/buddies of the opposite sex. They may be stuck in racial prejudices. They may feel very uncomfortable any time they're "out of their element", even when others around them are quite polite and kind. They often "don't like" those who seem too "different" from them, just like kids of Junior and Senior High School age who are going through this stage.

Processing through this stage as an adult can be difficult, because it often means maturing past the level that many of the people in one's "crowd" are at. However once one becomes aware of this developmental delay in one's self, it's natural to grow and mature through it. It's a matter of becoming "unstuck"; once the growth begins again, the person can really flourish, and will be very uncomfortable if someone is trying to hold them back. 


 By M.M.Black ©2013

Self-Preservation vs. Narcissism; Three Tales Of Three Brothers

Why is one behavior self-preservation, and another "Narcissism"?

Since humans are born with built-in survival mechanisms, like all life forms, we all have self-serving behaviors automatically if we have "normally" functioning self-preservation and self-care. Making sure we breathe, eat, sleep, and protect ourselves from the elements and from harm are embedded in our normal and healthy brains when we're born.

Self-preservation is normal and healthy, but Narcissism is detrimental to the species. The difference between them shows in our interaction with others.
~
So between a group of 3 brothers, there is one loaf of bread, a half pound of ham, and one pint of milk. If all 3 brothers share the bread, ham, and milk equally, then all 3 get enough nourishment to go about their day. Their goal for the day is acquiring more resources. All 3 of them go to town and build a stone wall together, for which all 3 are paid. The bread, ham and milk gave them the strength to do this task, and now they have combined money enough to get more food, pay their rent, and buy more tools. They share the home comfortably because they treat one another with respect, and respect one another's space, privacy, preferences, stuff, and basic  needs.
(No one invades the other's room, takes their stuff, or interrupts their sleep or concentration. No one belittles or demeans anyone else. When someone is sad or angry, they are supported, not rejected. When someone has an idea or an observation, the others hear them out with interest and courtesy. When someone needs something, the others share willingly.)
The brothers also share a mutual love for music, humor, and wildlife. They sing and play together all the time, and hike and swim in the lake whenever they get the chance.

With a safe and sound place to live and sleep, food to nourish them, and more tools, they work together cooperatively and build a stone Church, for which they are paid well. Now they're also building their reputation, because people saw them working, listened to their polite manner, and are talking well about them.

With the money they were paid from the Church, they pay their rent, buy more food, and build a shed to store their tools.

As time goes by, their work improves, their reputation grows, and their business prospers. Each of them speaks highly of the other two publicly, never disparaging or implying negativity, so their reputation keeps expanding. In private, they treat each other well, even when they're in disagreement. They treat others with the same ethics and fairness as one another, so they don't have conflict regarding "ethical decisions" or financial decisions. They simply do their best, treating others the way they would want to be treated.

When one brother is insulted and disparaged by a mutual acquaintance, the other two don't hesitate to stand up for him; the targeted brother feels safe and secure - "backed up", and the gossip is shut down before it spreads.

When one brother falls in love, the other two are welcoming to her and supportive of their union, and consider her another member of the family when they marry. They respect her as a person the same as they respect one another, and don't ever treat her like she's "other" or "not one of them".

When there are children, they are welcomed with joy and celebration, and are treated always as "belonging" to the clan. They grow up in this respectful atmosphere, learning courtesy, civility, respect, empathy, caring, cooperation and supportiveness. by watching the adults around them, and being treated this way. The brothers' business grows, and the children who are interested learn the skills, joining the business. The adults don't try to "assign" certain skills to certain children; they teach all the children the skills, regardless of their sex or their size. The children themselves reveal their interest and ability while they're all being taught equally.

~~~   ~~~   ~~~

In another place, there are 3 brothers who have one loaf of bread, a half pound of ham, and one pint of milk between them. One of the brothers decides that he needs more nourishment because he's slightly larger, and that the smallest brother needs less. So, he consumes half of everything, leaving the other half for the two brothers to split. The middle brother decides he needs more than the smallest brother, so he takes more than half of what's left, leaving the smallest brother with a very small portion.

The three of them go to town together where they see a sign "help wanted". All three enter the building and approach the manager, who says "I need a stone wall built out front."
One brother says "Oh I can do that no problem! I'll start this afternoon!" The second brother says "Oh hell I'll start right now, if you have the tools!"
The third brother says "I'll help either one of you, let's get started~" but the manager says "You're too small to do this job, let your brothers do it."

Now, instead of the other brothers standing up for their smaller brother, they laugh and go along with the manager's arrogant put-down.
The smallest brother leaves, going to look for another place to work. The other two stay, and argue over who gets to be "the boss" while they try to build the stone wall.
Since they didn't really know how to build the wall, they lose the job after a few days. The smallest brother was the only one with masonry experience, but they apparently forgot about that in their ego tripping with the manager.

In the meantime, the smallest brother found a job cleaning in a local hotel. His pay isn't very good, but at least he can buy food.
Since the other two wasted three days trying to fake being stone masons, they don't have any food or money. They see that their smaller brother has a job, so they plead with him to help them out. He feels badly for them and hands them his hard-earned money, forgetting that he doesn't get paid again for a week. Now he has to scrape by. When he runs out of food, he goes to his brothers and asks for help; they make fun of him, call him a "loser", and throw him a crust of bread. He makes it through to the next paycheck, but when he goes to cash it, his brothers are back, begging for more.

This pattern continues until one of the other brothers gets a job at a local bar. When he realizes he is getting paid more than the smallest brother, he returns to his habit of treating him like a "loser". The second brother notices this, and tries to create a faction with the smallest brother in order to get him to continue to support him.

In the meantime, they are behind on their rent and are falling behind on their bills. The smallest brother tries to pick up the slack, but can't actually afford to support all three of them on his  paycheck. The one with the job at the bar buys his own food, but refuses to share, and seems to always need help with his share of the rent, even though he makes more money.

The second brother finds a job at local restaurant. Now the three of them each have a job, but they are barely making enough to cover their expenses, and after being exploited and demeaned, even the smallest brother is wary of sharing.

The smallest brother tries to get a second job to take up the slack, but strangely, no one seems interested in hiring him, even though he has an excellent work record. He can't figure it out! Until one day he overhears his brothers talking in town to a group of acquaintances, putting him down, making fun of his smaller stature, implying to everyone that he's not only inept, has no common sense, but is also a weakling with "short man's syndrome". With disparagement like that, of course no one will hire him!

When no one is home, each of the two older brothers go through the others' possessions, looking for things to steal and sell. Several times the youngest brother finds that something he had acquired was missing, costing him the money he had paid for it  every time. One time is was a set of stone masonry tools for the brothers to start their own business again, another time it was an antique chair he had gotten for a very good price that he had planned on selling for a good return, another time it was a rare coin collection that he had acquired, that was worth a great deal of money (that he had planned on using to open a restaurant). Little things always go missing as well, and no one ever seems to have any knowledge about it. Thousands simply "disappear" this way, along with the plans and goals for each missing item.

Years go by, and the three brothers still have the same jobs and still struggle. The two brothers still scapegoat and diminish the third brother, and still talk him into paying any extra bills.
When the third and smallest brother meets a lovely and very kind woman, the other two make it a point to treat her with disrespect to "show her" how tough and self-righteous they are, until she finally can't take anymore and moves far away.

More years go by and nothing really changes, because when one brother gains something, another one takes it away or sabotages him. The smallest brother wants to leave and improve his life, but can't seem to get past his fear of change and fear of failure in the world.

One of them finally meets a woman who has children, and moves in with her. She supports him in the same way the smallest brother supported him, and in return he doesn't help her very much at all, and treats her children with contempt. She puts up with it anyway, convinced that she's better off with any man than being single.
The other two brothers stay where they were, and don't really see the other brother much, or the children.
The children grow up and repeat a similar pattern as their mother and stepfather.
That's pretty much all there is, they all just grow old and eventually pass away, believing that they had been dealt a "losing hand".

~~~    ~~~   ~~~

In another town, 3 more brothers have a loaf of bread, a half pound of ham, and a pint of milk between them. One of the brothers steals all of it while the others are asleep, and consumes it all. He finds a wealthy man in another town and befriends him, and never mentions his brothers. With his learned deception, he fools the man into believing he is trustworthy and has a lot of experience. The man hires him. He kisses up to the wealthy man so much that the man falls for the flattery and promotes him to a high position in the company, paying him a large salary. The wealthy man never catches on that this man has manipulated him in so many ways; he doesn't even know about the embezzling or the selling of insider information because he trusts him so much. Wealthy and powerful, he lives in a beautiful home with a wife (whom he married because he thinks tall, thin women are "trophies", not because he likes her as a best friend or loves her) and three cats. He sends his brothers Christmas cards every year with a picture of the house on the cover. They have asked his assistance a couple of times but stopped after his third rant, berating them and calling them "losers".

In the meantime, the two other brothers struggled for a long time, finally landing low paying jobs in a mill. Their brother's betrayal and the destruction of their family traumatized them more than they realize, and they feel inside like they're incapable, unwanted and not belonging in the world. They keep trying to make something of their lives through the years, unaware of the real reason they can't seem to make things "work out"; their hearts are broken and they have bought into their brothers' cruel (and completely false) assessment of them as "losers". 

They both eventually find love, and have children, and create pretty decent lives for themselves, but they don't ever feel "complete" or genuinely happy; there's always something missing. They don't reach their dreams, and they decide that life is just counting the years going by, making the best of it until your days are done. The children pick up on this of course, and also have a hard time  finding fulfillment or like they really belong, or deserve success. Since this is what their parents believe, their parents don't try to convince them otherwise, or help or encourage them to fulfill their dreams.

And so the stories continue...

By M.M.Black ©2013

Freedom Fighters, Control Freaks, Patriarchy, Matriarchy

Trying to "knock someone off their high-horse" is a common behavior in a narcissism-infused community or group.
The behavior is fueled mostly by fear of rejection and disfavor, desire for approval and acceptance,  self-righteousness, envy, and the desire to dominate.
~
Women and girls are targeted more than men IF a narcissistic community is Patriarchal, because Controllers are dependent on the false hierarchy already created in their region to maintain their control. This goes for both male and female Controllers.

(Football plays don't work very well in a baseball game, so if the game that you're good at is Football, you're going to want everyone to keep playing Football. Female Controllers don't want other females to gain confidence and therefore esteem and power; they want things to stay the way they are so they can use the tools they've learned within the game that's already in play. Female Controllers HELP male Controllers oppress females; that takes half the population out of the "competition" for recognition and resources. and therefore power and privilege, which is the Controller's main focus, whether it's in a small local group, or a large organization, business or government.)

If the community was Matriarchal and narcissistic, then men would be targeted more often in order to keep THAT hierarchy intact.
The same thing occurs in regions where one race holds power over another; Controllers of all races tend to "play the system" the way it's already set up, they don't want it to change, because they know how to play it the way it is.
~
The exception to this rule is when a Controller desires the TOP power positions, then they will often create a cult to help them carry out their agenda to topple the current hierarchy, and replace it with their OWN.
These kind of Controllers will play the "race card" or "freedom card" right to the moment they "win", but as soon as they achieve the power position they were seeking, they implement the exact same oppressive hierarchy that they pretended to be against. They didn't actually WANT "freedom and respect for everyone", their real goal was to REPLACE the King or Queen, and gain power and privilege for themselves. They will often turn the tables once they achieve the position, rallying hatred and oppression toward other groups, or they may keep the oppression just the way it was.
~
Genuine "freedom fighters" and "peace warriors" don't seek the position of power as a general rule, they seek to spread awareness and peace, and to uncover the dynamics of Narcissism (control, corruption, oppression, crime, bullying). Since their focus is not trying to amass a cult, posse, or army of hostile bullies like Controllers do (because they are genuinely about PEACE), there is a long trail of persecution against them throughout human history; they are usually targeted by Narcissists and their followers who don't want them to spread awareness, be an example for others to see, or teach true peace.

~M. Black

Judging A Book By Its Cover

If people didn't judge others on superficial appearances, and make assumptions about them based on the way they look, then half the business world would shut down. There would be no booming market for clothing, hair, shiny new cars and trucks, nails, shoes, "beauty" products, make up, plastic surgery, dental cosmetics, or jewelry. There would be no huge market for home improvement or landscaping. There would be no big market for "body art", or shows about "style", and hardly any magazines at all. There would be no sexism, racism, weightism, or heightism.
Denying that it's all over the place just reveals that one does it even more than average, and is trying to hide it.
Just because it's common doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it. Judging others based on their superficial appearance and then treating them according to these assumptions (which are not based in fact, but in one's own emotions and prejudices) is the single most common form of bullying and discrimination.

From Star Struck to Devaluation

Being stuck in the preadolescent stage of being "star struck" is part of the mystery behind devaluation. (Devaluation is when a person seems to suddenly decide that a person they admired or held in high esteem is now unattractive, less worthy, or holds no "value" as a person.)

The person who is stuck in this stage only sees those who are in some kind of limelight or position of authority as "Worthy" or "Knowledgeable". They tend to admire those they don't know well, or don't know at all, who seem beyond reach.

People they know personally are usually categorized (in their minds) as "just regular people" with no expertise or experience beyond their own. For example if their brother is a Neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, he's "just a doctor", but if that brother's coworker, another Neurosurgeon, was being recognized at a ceremony or on TV, then THAT guy "knows what he's talking about". They will probably even advise their brother to "listen to that guy, he knows his stuff". Or ask their "just a doctor" brother what it's like to work near such a SMART MAN.

When a person stuck in this stage sees or meets a new person, they immediately assess whether the person has some kind of fame or authority (even on a local level), or is "just a regular person". They will automatically admire, follow, seek approval from, or pursue a personal relationship with the person if they have assessed them as having authority or popularity. If they've assessed the person as "just Regular", they will often be dismissive and even disrespectful toward the person. In their minds, anyone who holds some kind of authority or popularity automatically "deserves" their extra respect, and anyone who doesn't is not worthy of genuine respect, and should not expect it.
~
When those who are stuck in this stage find a new person whom they assess as having authority or popularity, they will often pursue a relationship with them (platonic or romantic). Eventually they will, of course, find out that the person is "Just a Regular Person", because that's just reality~ there is no other kind of human being, every person is a "Regular Person" regardless of their level of fame or position of authority. When they see that this "Great Person" is just a "Regular Person", they will often become very disappointed, like a kid who finds out that Superman was a "Regular Person" in a costume, or that the Tooth Fairy was their Mom or Dad, or that Alice Cooper is more of a history and science nerd who plays golf than a "Rock Star".

However, unlike adults who get to know the person better on a more intimate level, building friendship and trust, and become genuine friends with them, they instead BLAME the person for NOT actually being Superman, or Santa, or a permanent Super Model, or a Rock Star. They will REJECT the person, and treat them with blatant disrespect, as if they are suddenly unworthy of even common courtesy and civility. It appears that the Star Struck person's sudden disdain toward the target person can be likened to a feeling of betrayal, as if the object of their fantasy had PURPOSELY "tricked" them into believing they were something that they were not.

For a person to fulfill the Star Struck person's fantasy version of themselves, they would have to be one-dimensional, and ONLY EVER BE this image of whatever the Star Struck person holds in their head. Fulfilling this image is not even in the realm of possibility. ALL human beings are "Regular People" with real personalities, needs, quirks, shortsightedness, and ups and downs. Only those who are purposely faking their personality, or who are literally insane, don't show other facets of themselves.

The Star Struck also are easy prey for Political Leaders, Sports Franchises, Religious Cults, and Media Franchises, because they so adulate those with any kind of fame or authority, and therefore will follow and believe them easily.

They can not really be loyal, faithful, or trustworthy, either as partners, friends, or in business, because their "loyalty" is based on their idealization of a person. Once they see someone as a "Regular Person", they are no longer enamored with them, and become bored very quickly. They will then find a NEW person to follow or pursue, a new person whom they see as having "authority", or some level of "fame", popularity, or power.
If the "old" person appears to gain popularity, wealth, or authority, the Star Struck person will often contact them again, seeking to "re-connect" with them, trying to make them believe they had always cared about them and have good intentions toward them.

Do More Men Cheat?

It's no big mystery about why there are more men who cheat regularly than women who cheat. Boys are TAUGHT by men around them and by this current society at large that it's some kind of "male privilege" to act out their sexual impulses, and that it's perfectly okay to lie to women, that females are LESSER CREATURES, therefore they really "don't need" to be loyal or practice genuine integrity toward them... they are instructed that it's only required to FAKE IT, and then all will be well, and the ditzy little females will never know (because they're so dumb)... 

Men who can think for themselves know better, and understand what "ethics" and "integrity" are. But there are many more who swallow whatever they're fed.

(The fact that this is so common says a lot about the average intelligence of humans in general.)

Girls Care, Boys Don't?

One of the very large differences in the way most boys and girls are raised in many current cultures revolves around being taught to care for others or NOT being taught to care for others, and being allowed to ignore the needs of others in order to accomplish one's own personal goals.
There are degrees of this disparity, of course, and exceptions. In general, however, girls are directly taught that caregiving is one's "duty", and are often shamed for focusing on one's own goals and not making themselves always available to care for someone else. Boys, on the other hand (in general), are directly taught the OPPOSITE; that caregiving is NOT their priority, neither to others nor to themselves (or even children), and that it's perfectly fine to ignore the needs of others when focusing on one's own goals. Some are even taught that this is a "masculine" way to be, unfortunately.


To think of this in action, one might easily picture in their mind a brother and a sister of about 9 and 10 years old. When their Aunt takes ill and is confined to bed rest for a time, the other adults are predictable in their actions and guidance toward each child. Instead of caring for the Aunt and sending both children off to do their homework or play with their friends, or both being directed to help care for her, the children are usually separated in such a situation. Sister is actively and directly guided to help care for the Aunt: fetch a glass of water, fetch a cool cloth, bring medicine, sit by her and talk with her, speak in hushed tones, feel her forehead to see if it's warm. Help serve her soup and tea. Fluff her pillow. Straighten her blankets. Sister is getting positive attention and approval (in some families it's the only time she receives it), and she feels like she is being allowed to join in the adult's responsibilities.
The other thing that's happening is that Sister is being interrupted from her personal interests, from playing with her friends, and getting taken away from completing some of her other chores and also her school work. She's being given the message that caregiving for another is the number one priority, and she can and should eschew everything else in order to do this, no matter how important the task is that she was working on. Friendships are made trivial and unimportant, and so is her own self-care.
Brother, however, is dismissed from this situation. He is allowed to scurry away from the "sick room" where his Aunt lays ill, even though his sister was made to stay in spite of her discomfort. He is not guided or taught to help with any caregiving except perhaps fetching a glass of water or an occasional tray of tea, from which he is allowed to quickly retreat, regardless of the blatant rudeness. He is even encouraged to go play with his friends, and is commanded to finish his homework (and left to it) just like any other day.
While Sister is being taught to prioritize caregiving for another above her own tasks and goals, and how to actually do it, Brother is being allowed and encouraged to reject the very idea of giving care to another, and is being discouraged from thinking of himself as a person who is capable of caregiving. He is not being taught any knowledge or skills regarding it either.
Both Sister and Brother are being directly conditioned to believe that girls are "supposed to" be caregivers for others, and should put that above everything else in their life, and that boys are "supposed to" not know how to do it, and are allowed and expected to put everything else in their life ahead of caring for others.
Eventually they will both come to forget that they were TAUGHT these things purposely and directly, and will buy into the conditioned belief that "girls are naturally good at it" and have to do it INSTEAD OF anything else or they are "bad women", and "boys are not naturally good at it" and CAN'T do it, and SHOULDN'T because they have "more important things to do" (everything else is "more important").

(So if caregiving is the number one priority for one person, because it's so important, then how is it the lowest priority in another person's life, and very unimportant... ahh the human mind, rationalizing and creating excuses is it's number one talent.)

Both of these extremes block progress and create unhealthy paradigms. Women who are not naturally "good at" caregiving often end up as caregivers anyway, even getting jobs and making careers of something they're not well-suited for, to the detriment of those they are "caring" for. Men who ARE naturally "good at" caregiving are often discouraged from it and directed toward some other work that they may or may not be suited for, and are often shamed for being "too caring" toward children, partners, and others, again to the detriment of themselves and everyone around them.
Women and men are BOTH "directed" and shamed into someone else's prefabricated gender roles instead of developing their own talents and goals, often passed down over several generations, so we end up with large numbers of people who are doing jobs they're not really that good at, that someone else would be BETTER AT because it's an actual INTEREST of theirs; and people who are NOT doing the jobs they WOULD HAVE THRIVED IN, because they're the "wrong sex".
We as a species destroy our own progress, peace, safety, health and happiness in this way every day.

Shame, Money, Resources, and Control

There are specific reasons why Controllers project shame onto targets regarding money and resources.

~

Controllers usually do not want to share their resources. An easy albeit immature way to avoid having to share one's resources is to cast shame on anyone who might request assistance, or on anyone they owe money to~ both persons and business entities.

~

That shame might take any form, whatever the Controller thinks of. So the target might be called "needy" or a "loser". This makes the Controller seem like a person who "deserves" to have more resources than the target, and is therefore justified in not sharing or helping them.

The target might be called "greedy" or "controlling" for expecting payment for work done, something they're selling, or money borrowed. This makes the Controller seem like a victim of another Controller, even though he or she consciously made a purchase, hired the person, or requested to borrow money. This martyr facade is meant to justify refusing to pay what's owed. 

Having, holding, and earning resources gives a person a measure of autonomy, freedom, and security. It also gives a person a measure of power and control, and with all of these things, a larger degree of confidence. Controllers DO NOT WANT anyone they want to dominate to have any of these; obviously it means they will not be able to dominate them and control them so easily, nor hide their own dealings so easily. Also, with more resources and confidence comes more respect from more people ~ (because so many people "respect" money and an  air of confidence or arrogance, not actual behavior or character) ~ so a person would have more influence, and any Controller who has manipulated or abused them will be at risk of being exposed; therefore Controllers are interested in keeping targets from gaining resources, success, a good reputation, and confidence. 

 Further still, Controllers want to have control over ALL of the resources, so they only want those whom they FAVOR to gain any of these things, and will actually block and prevent those they don't favor, who they can't control, who outshine them in some way, and who they don't think will favor them from gaining any of these things. 

(This can be seen on personal relationship/family levels, but is also seen in business, school, and government on both a personal and a group dynamic. Sexism, racism, and other "isms" are actually based very much in this.)

The target might be called "demanding" and "greedy" for politely requesting assistance or resources for small or large things, or for achieving a goal, even if the target is the child or other personal connection of the Controller. If the Controller does not have the resources needed, they could just say "no", but the projections on the target often indicate that the Controller actually does have enough to help and just doesn't want to.

On the flip side of that, a Controller who is "requesting" assistance won't take "no" for an answer, and will demand and try to shame or threaten the person they're asking into giving them what they want.

Both a Controller who holds resources/money, and a Controller who is requesting resources/money, feel that they are MORE ENTITLED to any resources/money, and the privileges and freedom it brings.

They will often cast shame and disparaging projections onto targets, trying to paint them as "undeserving" and "unworthy" of holding, earning, handling, inheriting, winning, or being paid back owed resources/money. 

 

Projecting shame and incompetence onto a target is a very common tactic used to divert them from LOOKING at a Controller's finances and dealings. If a target buys into the implication that she or he "wouldn't understand" or "isn't competent enough" regarding money or business handling, then the Controller successfully keeps everything hidden and covert. 

While money handling is a private affair, when all or some of those resources also belong to another person, they have the complete and total right to review and have ACCESS to them, and ask any question they want. Shaming the person serves as an electric fence, preventing them from requesting or demanding to review or to have direct access. (This tactic can be seen from personal relationships to families to businesses and local governments, all the way to large corporations and national governments.)

(Controllers/Narcissists edit their own history, deleting and dismissing support and help they received from others, and actually believing they built their resources and success with zero or extremely little support. They will especially delete support or help received from a person they're denying assistance to. They also seem to believe they were "entitled" to any assistance they received, be it emotional, financial, social, or promotional, as if someone who did not receive such help is simply not as "worthy" of a human being. In other words, when Joe gets John a job with his cousin's firm, but not Susan, John sees Joe's help as a natural consequence of his greatness, and the lack of Joe's help for Susan as a natural consequence of her being "less worthy". He's neither grateful to Joe, nor sympathetic toward Susan~ he just thinks he "deserves it" and that Susan does not, as a person.)