The Impression You Give May Not Be The One They Get

The "impression" you are giving to those who are on a higher level of awareness, who have functional empathy and abstract reasoning ability, is not at all the same as the "impression" that those with a lower level of awareness, emotional maturity, empathy function, or reasoning ability are getting of you.

You don't look the same to everyone who's meeting you or looking at you, and in many cases, not even close to the same.

And in most cases, even those with clearer perception don't see you exactly as you see yourself. They can't, it's not really possible, even if they are a highly aware and mature individual; they only know a couple of things that they can see, or think they can see. They would need time to get to know you and learn more about you, just like you would need to learn about them.

For those who are less aware and mature, they are looking at you through a stack of thick filters in their own mind.
Bias for or against people who look like you,
prejudice for or against your gender or race,
assumptions and stereotypes about you because of your height, or your weight, your build,
your hair color and the way it's styled,
your clothing,
your accent or speech pattern,
etc. ad infinitum.

It is very possible that they are comparing you to various characters from television, film, music, CARTOONS, politics, history, childhood, etc., and trying to find one that matches your looks (in their mind.)
People do this a lot, but those with mental illness are more likely to believe that your personality is JUST LIKE the character or person they think you resemble. So if you remind them of a girl they couldn't stand in school, you must be "just like that girl". If you remind them of a certain Aunt who was afraid of dogs, YOU must also be afraid of dogs.
If you remind them of a nude-magazine model, well, that can get not so funny very quickly.

The less maturity, reasoning ability, clarity of perception and functional empathy (not sympathy) a person has, the more they are likely to judge others in all kinds of left-field, imagination-based, tales-from-childhood ways, and so are not going to even be able to see you for "who you are".
Further, they are much more likely to believe that they know "all about you" from a few superficial traits, or from hearsay, or from hearing you speak, or seeing your posts online. Or even from your car, your shoes, or your job, or people they saw you speaking with.

However those who DO have higher reasoning ability, empathy function, clarity, and emotional maturity are much more likely to see you closer to who you really are, and to treat you with civility, manners, and respect.

So if someone treats you poorly for "no reason", (nothing you did that was inconsiderate, manipulative, or aggressive...for real...)
it's probably because of their own limited perception and discernment and reasoning ability.

When you find yourself dealing with a person who has some sort of authority over you, or poses a direct threat, and this limitation seems to be the case, it's probably best not to let on that you think they're limited in perception; just keep it as peaceful and calm as you are able so you can figure out how to get away from them as quickly and unscathed as possible.
(Those who have limited perception toward others, with limited maturity, are also more likely to be histrionic, volatile, and reactive.)

She Deserves To Get Picked On?

Narcissists tend to see those who are treated as less important or less valuable as "deserving it" because they are somehow intrinsically less valuable human beings.

This perception fuels their belief in their own superiority.
In order to have superior people (like themselves), there has to be inferior people in order to make "superiority" valid ~
(like that woman over there, or that boy in the other room, or that girl at the store, or that man outside. Or those people from that other country or town, or political party, or religion. Or anyone of that other sex. Or anyone who's shorter, or thinner, or heavier, or older, or younger. Or like their sister, or their cousin, or their neighbor, or their uncle, or their nephew, or their niece, or their coworker, or that customer.).

Which is why they tend to become enraged or devastated when they themselves are treated with any sort of lack of attention, adulation, or acceptance. They are suddenly being treated as one of those "less valuable people", instead of one of the "valuable people".
It contradicts their self-image and identity.

Narcissists NEED to feel superior to someone else in order to feel worthy. Many believe that everyone else also needs to feel superior in order to feel worthy, and so they think everyone is competing for superiority, and that anyone who doesn't achieve "superiority" (in their imagined world) are envious or jealous of those who have.

(What defines "superior" depends on the individual person's beliefs and perceptions;
one N. might think that a certain level of wealth indicates "superiority" over others,
while another might see being "tall and good looking" as "superiority",
another might see being "small" and good-looking as "superiority",
another might see having dark hair as "superiority",
another might see being "athletic" as "superiority",
another may see being considered "NOT attractive" as "superiority", another might see having large shoulders as "superiority",
another might see being a certain sex as "superiority",
for another it might be what kind of car a person owns,
or how many,
or their house or neighborhood,
a club they belong to,
the job they have or that they belong to a union,
the political party they belong to,
a sport they participate in (or just watch),
having children,
not having children,
being married,
not being married,
their spouse's job, title, or looks,
the high school or college they went to,
or their level of education,
or what FIELD they're educated in,
or that they DON'T have a college or a graduate degree,  
or what religion they belong to,
or that they don't belong to a religion,
or having a certain skill or knowledge,
having a certain ancestry,
or just being themselves and therefore better than anyone,

It can LITERALLY be ANYTHING.
ANYTHING WHATSOEVER can cause a Narcissist to feel that they are superior to others because they possess this specific object or trait.



~

They may or may not be aware of this need, and will almost certainly adamantly deny that it's true. However their behavior reveals their underlying perceptions and motives:


When someone near them or with them is treated with disrespect, rudeness, unfairness, disdain, backstabbing, or bullying, what do they do? (Especially if they themselves are being treated with courtesy or respect by the same people or person who are disrespecting the other person?)

Do they allow it, go along with it, act like nothing is happening, pretend not to notice, or even worse, join in?

Or do they acknowledge that the other person is being treated poorly?
~And then perhaps either show solidarity with the person, even in a subtle way, refuse to engage with the disrespectful person, or leave, or say something out loud; do they do any of those things?
(Or are they apparently getting an ego buzz out of being treated better than someone else?)

Actions AND words reveal the underlying motives and feelings of a person with Narcissism.

Narcissists Can Have Kindred Spirits, Sort Of

"Kindred Spirits"...

Narcissists tend to LIKE other Narcissists.
Not for the same reasons non-narcissists like other people, but for their own reasons. They can be superior to others together, help one another to rationalize and justify their poor treatment of other people, give one another positive reinforcement, and help each other with various activities and agendas. 

They can often be seen creating cliques and factions with one another, and conspiring against common scapegoat targets.

Sick?
Very. 

(Give it enough time and they will eventually turn on one another when there's no one they can target together.)

On the other side of this coin, if they don't like a particular fellow Narcissist, they tend to DESPISE them, and compete with them directly in all sorts of ways.
The targeted person is like a scapegoat, except that the Narcissist considers them to be "on equal footing", a "peer", a "worthy opponent", a "fair fight"...

They get a very big charge out of the drama of targeting a scapegoat, attacking a person and/or their reputation, wielding control over another human being, and from "competing" with a "nemesis". 
The charge from the drama is a neurochemical cocktail that gives them a "rush", and makes them feel powerful. (Possibly similar to the reported "high" from cocaine or cocaine by-products, or amphetamines, which explains the addictive behaviors to this "rush".)

(Having a "nemesis" means you're very important...apparently...even more important than when you consider yourself superior to another person.)

"Pig" "Dog" "Unclean" "Inferior" "Elitist" "Gold Digger" "Whore"

Post by Sanctuary For Awareness And Recovery.

Always Offended, Always Accusing

Constantly being "offended" by something another person has done or said, frequently expressing doubts and questioning another person's real meaning, motives, or agenda, having ongoing suspicions toward another person (especially with no proof or real evidence) about betrayal, agenda, ostracizing, gossiping, triangulation, disrespect or abandonment is actually a symptom of paranoia, which may or may not a part of a Narcissistic disorder.

Having occasional doubts or suspicions is not necessarily "paranoid", it's normal human. We know from experience that people aren't always on the level, and can do crappy things, even sometimes unconsciously.
However, a person who does NOT have paranoia or a disorder is keen to find out if their suspicions are founded or not. They will often seek to find out what's true, false, or hidden. They will happily accept evidence that shows their suspicions were incorrect about a person, and will experience a feeling of relief.

If however they find out their suspicions were correct, their focus will be on protecting themselves and getting out of the mess they find themselves in, not so much on the other person; not on retaliation and revenge.

They will also often accept a genuine admission, apology, or amends, but - if they don't want to, or if there is no forthcoming apology or amends, they will simply separate themselves from the person without much ado. They won't keep the same connection with the person, nor will they make an effort to try to stay connected to the person either with positive or negative intentions.

~
~

A person who does have paranoia or a related disorder does NOT accept evidence about their suspicions being incorrect, because that's not really their main focus. Their main focus tends to actually be a desire to feel "vindication". (This may be a loop they're stuck on from something in their past with a real person who betrayed them, abandoned them, or hurt them.)
So evidence that the other (current) person has no agenda means they have no excuse to be angry at the person, or resent them, or try to dominate them.  That's not what they're looking for, so they ignore the evidence.

When they find that there is evidence to show that their suspicions WERE accurate, or even if there's a grain of truth but not entirely correct, they will typically ramp up their efforts to dominate and "punish" the person. This is what they wanted, an excuse they can use to justify their desire to go after the person whom they've targeted.

Importantly, they will ALSO OFTEN ramp up their efforts to "punish" the person WITHOUT evidence or proof of "guilt", often CREATING false stories and motives in order to "justify" their poor treatment of the person.

This behavior has been seen over and over and over throughout human history coming from "officials" who unfortunately had positions of power in spite of their mental illness; well known larger scale examples of which are the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the American "witch trials", Jesus Christ's trial and crucifixion, persecution of women in general and of certain men in many countries, persecution for religious beliefs in many countries, and slavery throughout human history.
("Persecution" is a word that describes this behavior, as well as "scapegoating", "smearing", and "oppression".)

Those who have severe paranoia (delusional) often don't really have an agenda, they actually believe their suspicions and imaginings: they're "stuck" on a feeling of suspicion of betrayal, or believing that another person is out to get them, or is trying to hurt them, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. (They often can be found to have been betrayed, neglected, or abused in their past as well, but they are less aware of the difference between their own thoughts and feelings, and reality.)
They may not even be aware that they are making stories up in their minds about what others are doing, and what others' motives, feelings, intentions, and thoughts are.

Those with certain disorders that may include apparent paranoia may be looking for "reasons" to validate their feelings of suspicion or resentment, or "reasons" to cast judgment and blame on the other person, or an excuse to retaliate against or ostracize a person.
It's not about what REALLY going on, that's not what they're interested in. They are focused on seeking ways to validate and justify their feelings, real or imaginary, and excuses to treat the other person poorly.
~
~
~
Those with Narcissism, whether they have paranoia or not, often accuse others of "paranoia" in order to paint them as exaggerators or liars. They are not that difficult to spot because they don't have compassion for the person in mind when they say it; in other words they are not stating an observation about the person's health, and having concern for the person, which a non-narcissist would have if they realized another person was displaying signs of mental illness, actual "paranoia".

(Using a mental illness as an accusation, like the person is "bad" for having it, or as if the person CAN "help it" but refuses to, as if they're "using it" as a way to get attention or an easy life, is a common Narcissist behavior. I have personally witnessed this numerous times coming from family members of autistic people, friends and acquaintances of those with mental, emotional, or neurological issues such as anxiety, depression, bipolar, bpd, PTSD or OCD, and from PAID "caregivers" of mentally disabled children and adults. ~ If you can imagine an adult person saying "he exaggerates his Down Syndrome issues in order to get attention, just ignore him.")

Paranoia Disorder

Feeling Alone And Unwanted

One of the most serious side effects of Narcissistic treatment or abuse that can be difficult to recover from is an internalized belief that one does not belong, and that one is not likeable or loveable by those who are confident, caring, healthy human beings.

If one takes it apart and analyzes it, the flaw in the logic is revealed.

Confident, caring, healthy human beings, male or female, of any ancestry, do not manipulate with rejection, disrespect, ostracism, shunning, slander, sabotage, neglect, triangulation, hurt, abuse, or abandonment.

Only Controllers, abusers, and Narcissists do those things. 

When these things have been done to a person by controllers over and over, the person can begin to believe that the REASON they are being treated so poorly is because they just aren't worthy enough.

OTHER people are being treated well, so I must not be as good, or as worthy, or as likeable as they are. I am a person whom others don't want around.

But remember it's not just "people" who don't want a person around, or who bully and manipulate them, it's Controlling people.

If and when these beliefs solidify, it can be very difficult to recover from. Every time a new narcissistic or controller person (or group) shows up and does their usual manipulative, cold, or dominating behaviors, the internalized belief can get reinforced.

Even when a person or group is not doing seriously abusive behaviors, one's negative beliefs can still be reinforced just because the other person is aloof, arrogant, emotionally reactive, or oblivious.

People who are narcissistic, controlling, disordered, arrogant, bad-mannered, self-centered, or dealing with their own trauma issues are very numerous in modern culture. So it's almost impossible to avoid interacting with them.

IF the internalized feeling of not being liked, wanted, cared about or worthy was not present, it would be much, much easier to deal with self-centered,  disordered people, and it would be easier to discern those who are dealing with trauma symptoms.

So healing that skewed belief that some Controllers helped to implant is a very important and worthwhile goal. <3 br="">Namaste.
You are quite worthy and loveable by HEALTHY, good, strong people. 

Controllers Are Obstacles In Front Of Your Goals

Having focus on a personal project, mission, goal, and/or task is one of the "happiness" or "contentment factors" for a healthy human being.

This does include playing a personal role in a larger project, mission, goal, or ongoing organization. 

Since this is a significant factor for the health and happiness, confidence and fulfillment of healthy humans, it's also a target for bullies, controllers, and Narcissists.

If they can prevent a person from progressing toward their own goal, they feel powerful, and indeed gain a kind of power over the person.

If they can prevent and block a person from participating and contributing their personal abilities to the larger group, family, project, community or organization, they have successfully sabotaged several things that would have been beneficial, even essential, for that person's well-being, health, and growth, both present and future. 

One of the creepier examples of this is when a controller tries to prevent a parent from caring for their own child, guiding their own child, teaching their own child real values and ethics, and supporting and protecting their child.
Also, trying to prevent a person from caring for or about their spouse or partner, friend, or other relative.
This clearly demonstrates how the desire for control over others has absolutely nothing to do with "making others do the right thing because they don't know any better".

When others stand between you and a personal goal, (POSITIVE goal, that is), a project, mission or task, whether it's caring for your child, rescuing an animal, buying a home, getting a job, singing a song, going to school, building a shed, learning an instrument,  or painting a picture, they are not trying to "help", they are trying to insert themselves in your business in order to get a fix of control, and to block you from progress.

See it for what it is, and go around them. Block them out.
If you have to, go do what you were doing somewhere else, away from them.

You may want to involve them, or to get their approval, because you know that letting Controllers believe they're a part of something you're doing (and getting credit for it, and leading) means they're likely to do less to block you. But that's an illusion, they'll still block you or try to control you, they'll just do it in more of a Passive Aggressive way. Controllers don't comprehend boundaries or respect, so it's inevitable. If they're involved in any way, they WILL try to take control at some point, and if they can't, they'll probably cause damage instead.

Keep your goals, projects, missions, tasks and activities "online", don't shut them down in order to avoid a Controller's consequences. Go around. It does take more effort than if there was no Controller in the way, but take it for what it is, an obstacle on the course.

Monkey See Monkey Do: Bias For One Sex Is Learned

Bias for one sex or the other, and against one sex or the other, is generally learned by watching the way people treat one another during childhood, especially in our immediate families, but also in the larger community. Then when a person grows up, they generally judge the sex they are biased FOR through rose-colored glasses, assuming and projecting positive capability, motives, and character onto them. They tend to judge the sex they learned to be biased against through a cloud of negativity and self-righteousness, as if the members of that sex automatically deserve to be under a microscope and on trial.

Humans do the same thing with race and ancestry. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it's bias for or against another person's sex or race, or even age group.

Humans will do this regarding ancestry traits within their own race as well.

Those who we are biased FOR (either as a member of a group or as an individual) we "make way for", give more resources, respect, time, and positive attention to, willingly and respectfully assist them, recognize and honor their achievements, accomplishments, and character, and tend to believe in their capability, intelligence, and wisdom without making them "prove it". We also tend to believe them without double-checking their facts or doubting their motives. 

Those who we are biased AGAINST we tend to treat in the opposite way, whether we're biased against them as members of a certain group, or as an individual.
We'll nonchalantly or directly block them, dismiss them, argue with them, try to prove them wrong, and ignore them. We'll ignore, dismiss, and criticize their achievements and goals, and apply negative motives to them. We'll say negative things about them instead of positive things in conversation. We'll treat them as if they are incapable, inexperienced, weak, stupid, silly, or crazy. We'll deny them resources, even sabotage their progress and goals, and refuse to make effort for them like we do with those whom we are biased FOR.   

Whatever biases are common in a local community and culture, Narcissists will capitalize on. Some of them believe stereotypes and cultural prejudices are real, while sociopaths will use them in order to manipulate and oppress whether they believe them or not.

(Narcissists figure out quickly who's a** to kiss in order to get accepted and get ahead, and who it's okay to treat with disrespect because everyone else is bigoted against them or scapegoating them too. Many also seem to intuitively know that in each crowd there are different biases, so while in one crowd, everyone is biased against black men, in the next crowd everyone is biased against Hispanic women, and in the next it's white men, and in the next it's blond-ancestry women, and so on. A sociopathic Narcissist will morph into whatever crowd they're in, and find a way to be a member of the "in crowd" within that group, adapting the group's bully, bigot, and bias behaviors.)

Good Vs. Evil

Remember that Evil is as evil does.
It will always try to rationalize and justify, and it will try to make itself appear to be "good", "knowledgeable", "strong", "straightforward", and "important".

But it is revealed not in words nor appearance, but in actions; in what it's actually doing.

Good is also revealed in actions, and in cause and effect; not in description, intention, nor appearance. 

Evil likes to make itself into judge, jury, and prison guard, because it's a way to control others that appears "righteous".

Good wants to find solutions and plans that are of mutual benefit for all, while preserving the freedom and dignity of the individual.

Evil wants to own, control, or destroy places, things, and people.  Good does not.

The reason it seems that evil "always wins" is because evil is driven, obsessively, to "own", control, or destroy, and will destroy whatever is in the way of its "goal", like a charging rhino across a field of bunny rabbits. Evil doesn't care what or who it stomps, it just wants, and figures out ways to get what it wants.

Good is much stronger than evil, it's just not driven, obsessive, or destructive by nature.

Is He or She The "Right One"?

"Is my partner really Mr. or Ms. Right?"

You've won Powerball, but in order to collect you have to break up with your spouse or partner, (no fake-outs allowed where you get back together later in secret), what would you do?

What if THEY won Powerball and had the same requirement, what would they do?

If the answer for either of you is "break up, collect the money, it's a once in a lifetime shot", then you're not "in love", and you're probably not the right person for each other.
Seems like there should more to this story, but there's really not.

Humility Vs. Supremacy

Humility and Supremacy are opposites of one another.

Humility is about knowing that one is not omnipotent, a god, a deity, all-knowing and above others.
It allows one to learn, and to appreciate and view the world and other people as they really are, without casting personal bias, assumptions, projections, or judgments, which block one's clear perception. 

Supremacy is about believing that one is innately superior. Since it is a belief, it must be continually reinforced and reaffirmed with evidence proving that it is so. When we need to reinforce a belief by gathering evidence to prove that it's true, that means we are not just sitting in a neutral position, allowing it to prove itself.

The moon proves its own existence every night, and so do the stars, and the sun, and the rain. We don't need to do anything to prove they are there, they just show up and show themselves. What we BELIEVE about them, however, is that which we favor to be true, but isn't necessarily, and so we seek evidence to prove that our belief is correct to others, and to ourselves.

There used to be a common belief that the sun, planets, and stars rotate around the Earth, like the moon does.  There were many who held positions of authority who wanted it to be true, and there were all kinds of "papers" written by "scholars" who insisted that it was scientific fact, complete with explanations of WHY it was so. They could not prove it, they just wanted it to be true, probably because it made them FEEL a certain way to believe that they were the center of the Universe, the most important thing. They wanted it so much that they exiled or even killed people who said otherwise.

In modern times, many humans have shown and proved that only the moon rotates around the Earth, but the Earth rotates around the sun, along with the other planets in our solar system, and the stars are very far away "suns" with solar systems of their own, in a larger galaxy, and so on.  

Belief needs to be reinforced over and over. Reality does not need reinforcement, it simply shows up. So when a person feels defensive about their belief being true or not, it's usually because subconsciously they know there isn't really indisputable proof that it's true or real.


There is a common belief throughout the world that there are giant hominids in the wilderness; "Yeti", "Sasquatch", "Bigfoot", the "Abominable Snowman" are names that have been given to this mysterious, elusive creature.

Does it exist, or does it not? Is it real, is it living, is it out there? Or is it a myth?


What we have is evidence that is not rock-solid because it could have been faked, many eye-witness accounts which can't be used as "proof", footage that could have been faked, and legends that go way back. All of this proves zero, zilch, nada. There is no solid proof that the Yeti DOES exist, NOR is there proof that it DOES NOT exist.

And yet, there are people who are adamant believers that the Yeti exists, and there are people who adamantly believe that it DOES NOT exist.


Without proof either way, it's all the same. Believes and skeptics are in the same boat; it's all about BELIEF. So, the "believers" tend to try to gather anything they can find to prove that they're right, and "skeptics" try to gather anything they can find to prove that THEY are right.

It's all futile. There is no way to prove that the Yeti DOES NOT exist, nor is there solid evidence to prove that it does.


On the day that someone can gather enough evidence to proves that the Yeti is really out there, believing that it exists, or NOT believing that it exists, is still all just BELIEF. It's not "fact".

And so it goes with everything else. If one wants to believe in Supremacy, then one will keep trying to gather evidence to reinforce the belief. But if one has humility, then "Supremacy" is moot. It either proves itself, or it doesn't; if it proved itself, it wouldn't need to be reinforced, shown, or proven. Just like the moon, the sun, and the stars. No one would be wondering if it was true or not, and no one would be trying to prove it. 

Why Does Everything Suck... No Rocket Science Required

The more integrity in a community, the more confident, capable, ethical and strong each member feels and behaves, no matter their age, sex, financial or marital status, level of education, or job. Progress, humility, gratitude and good friendships and relationships come easy and are not taken for granted, no one gets trampled; individuals don't have to fit in to a cookie cutter mold in order to be treated with decency by others. They are supported to rise closer to their real potentials without pomp or extra effort; not just certain people, but all of them.

The less integrity in a community, the less confident many are, and the more arrogant and unethical others behave.
True integrity, genuine ethics, self-control, fairness, and empathy (not the same as sympathy or pity) purposely practiced by all members of a community, or at least most, regardless of their financial status, are the requirements for  real civilization.

Without them, we have what we have now. Chaos, self-righteousness, power-tripping, fear-mongering, and martyr-complexes all over the place.

All it would take to cure our current societal ailments is a little effort toward self-control and maturity.

How Do Adults In Your Community Or Family Treat The Kids

Here's a clue about the world we live in now.. in healthy, happy, well-rounded societies (that aren't inundated with control mongers), regardless of average income, it's typical for children to connect with and remain connected with friends and acquaintances of their parents, and extended family, and be able to rely on them for solid guidance, friendship, and support.
  
In antisocial control freak societies, you see the opposite of that quite often.

Adults don't make connections with other people's children as a "normal" thing, or stay connected to them, or have any idea how to mentor them.
Many don't even do that with their own.
Or they ONLY treat certain children decently whom they include in a chosen "clique", and judge other children negatively who don't "fit in", even children who are in their family, or local circles, groups, or community.

They put the burden of finding adult support, connections, and mentors on the children, as if the children have to "prove" that they're "good enough" to warrant attention or (proper) guidance from adults, or friendship and acceptance.

Adults in such groups may triangulate KIDS, gossip and spread rumors ABOUT children, or about kids' parents, and will often ostracize and reject KIDS from their cliques, and encourage the kids in their family to do the same.
(Instead of teaching them NOT to create cliques, gossip, single out, bully, and ostracize... through guidance, and modeling mature adult behavior, which includes caring about children).
    
So adults MIGHT show acceptance or approval toward a couple of kids who fit a certain mold that they LIKE, (usually who remind them of themselves), but that's it; the rest of the children get treated like 'rugrats, like they're just walking annoyances that cost resources and time, and get underfoot.

Also, many parents in these types of communities typically don't make an effort to connect with other families for reasons of "family" (as opposed to reasons of shared substance use or other adult-only "common interests"). And they don't LIKE IT when their kids make normal connections with actually-responsible, kid-friendly adult friends, or with adults who actually WOULD be a mentor to them; not because they're "worried about the adult's behavior" but because of jealousy or insecurity.
     (These same parents will often allow another blatantly irresponsible adult to be in contact with their kids, just because the person is one of their "buddies", but NOT a person with real integrity or the ability to mentor... the kid might LIKE them, and then what? The kid might learn how to see through B.S... wouldn't want that...)
      Before going blaming the parents for all of it, can't get off so easy. It actually does take the village to raise a child. It doesn't take a village if one lives in the woods, with no other human contact, because that's all the child is going to experience. But if the child is going to be raised in a "village", then the "village" the child comes in contact with IS already involved in raising and influencing that child, whether they like it or not. When they treat the child poorly, shun the child, bully the child, or treat the child's parent poorly, they are affecting the child directly.
It doesn't take "Mr. or Ms. Perfect" or "Mr. or Ms. Community Leader"  to be a positive (as opposed to negative) influence on children, it just takes not being a self-centered jerk, and having consideration and respect (including self-respect).
Having and displaying basic decency, fairness, and manners, and keep the ridiculous sexism to a minimum for the benefit of both boys and girls.
Favoring one over the other does neither any favors, it just instigates superiority and inferiority complexes, and causes them problems in adulthood when they're trying to deal with others in society, have good relationships, and lead happy lives. 

("Children" are still "children" when they're teens, legally till they're 21, they aren't grown up just because they look adult-like. And they're still young adults in their 20s, they're not experienced, life-worn older people who could possibly know what they haven't learned yet. Adult responsibility doesn't just STOP when kids don't look little anymore.)

Addendum: There is a very big difference between infantalizing young people and guiding/mentoring them.

in·fan·til·ize

[in-fuhn-tl-ahyz, -tahy-lahyz, in-fan-tl-ahyz] 

verb (used with object), in·fan·til·ized, in·fan·til·iz·ing.

1.

to keep in or reduce to an infantile state.

2.

to treat or regard as infantile or immature.

What It Might Be Like For A Person With Schizophrenia

http://www.refinery29.com/2014/06/69318/schizophrenia-simulator-video?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=post#page-1

This is a 2 page article with Anderson Cooper going through an empathy experiment on the first page and Eleanor Longden explaining a lot more on the second page. There's also a "simulator" on the second page. 
Very eye-opening. (Click anywhere)

Separating From A Narcissistic Person: Fear Of The Unknown

One of the reasons it's hard to separate from ANY type of relationship with a Narcissistic person is worry about the AFTERMATH, the fallout.

People who have Narcissism typically try to turn everyone connected to them against a person whom they realize is distancing themselves from them.
They often take ostracism, smearing, and slander to a very dramatic level, especially if they're afraid that the targeted person might tell others what really went on.

So separating from a Narcissistic person doesn't end with separation from the person, like it would with a non-narcissistic person. There will most likely be whole groups of other mutual friends, family, and associates who "shun" the person, and treat the person like they "don't belong" or are "unwanted", because they bought into the N's slander/ smearing/ drama routine.
This smear-and-shun routine directly affects the person's entire life, children, reputation and livelihood.

It might be little comfort to know that only easily-led people, and those who enjoy drama, go along with smear and slander campaigns, but that doesn't fix the actual damage it can cause to a person's life or their children's lives.

By the time a person decides to distance themselves from the N friend, family members, spouse, coworker, or acquaintance, they're at least subconsciously aware that the potential for exaggerated drama is quite high.
Most N's "retaliate" in some way when they feel challenged or rejected in any way, either directly or indirectly, and they tend to immediately devalue and despise anyone who seems to NOT adulate, enable, or follow them.

The point is, the anxiety about distancing one's self from a person with Narcissism is likely to be about MORE than just separating from the person.
It's also about losing a network, group, or community of people, and also certain individuals that one knows the N. will "take with them". And not just losing the people, but also dealing with them "turning", like flying monkeys.

It can be daunting, and the worry and anxiety about it can be hidden from one's conscious awareness, thus holding one back from doing what they need to do, because it seems like "fear of the unknown".

Why Don't They LIKE People Who Aren't Judgmental, Who Are Ethical, Fair, Calm, And Objective

People who care ten times more about their image and ego than other human beings or relationships with others, whether they're a parent, boss, "friend", partner, sibling, cousin, neighbor, coworker, the mail carrier, the president, the vet, the clerk at the drugstore, will reject others very, very quickly and easily.
They have an "eject" button with a hair-trigger.
When anyone who's not a current favorite says or does even the slightest thing that could possibly be taken as some sort of insult or accusation, they'll eject them like a bullet from a gun.

The problem is that they are so hyper-protective of what they have come to believe is their "self", that they destroy positive connections with genuinely caring people with integrity right and left.
It might be compared to the way we might react if someone comes near our very badly sunburned shoulder. "GET AWAY! GET OFF!!! GET THE H. AWAY FROM ME!"

They don't reject people who are focused on gossiping about and blaming OTHER people, because they're pointing and shaming OTHER people.

(If I'm standing next to you, pointing at the girl across the street, I'm not pointing at YOU.) 

So they bond with other gossipers and blamers based on that alone.

If they happen to have some common interest, that's what they'll say the relationship is based on, but the reality is, the bond is based on mutually pointing at, judging, and blaming OTHER people, and therefore AWAY FROM themselves.

They don't LIKE people who look at themselves and self-reflect, and who speak straightforwardly about what's really going on. They don't like it, and they don't like them.
Because people who self-reflect and self-examine, and who are objective observers and solution-oriented, don't have taboo subjects, and don't avoid looking at, talking about, or examining, well, anything.
Being objective means leaving bias, preference, and ego out of it, not taking sides, and not engaging in emotional reactivity that clouds perception, so the objective observer is able to see what they're looking at much more clearly.
In order to actually see what's really there, and what's going on, they'll  look directly at the things that an avoider is often trying to keep covered, either due to shame OR due to self-protection.

Divide And Conquer: Shame Tactics On Little Boys

Narcissist Control Culture:
One of the main brain-washing tactics aimed at little boys in a lot of cultures is shaming them for associating with female children and adults. This starts very young, probably much younger than most people realize.

This is one of the first steps of "divide and conquer".
It's much easier to establish control over boys if they are made to feel weird about identifying with their own mother, or other females in their lives.
If a boy feels this weirdness about the connection with his mother or other females, he is much less likely to believe her, follow her rules, respect her, or pick up her VALUES and ethics.

This little alienation tactic creates a premature rejection/rebellion process in the relationship between a son and a mother, and between the boy and other female role models or peers in his life. The boy ends up feeling humiliated, ashamed, or embarrassed about his bond with  his own mother, and especially his identification with his own mother, and also about any camaraderie with, or admiration for other women or girls in his life.

It is much easier to control and indoctrinate a child with one's personal agenda and skewed values when the child has been alienated from one half of the human population, AND one of his own parents, AND relatives, teachers, and people in the community.
It greatly lowers the chances that the child will be influenced much by their values, ethics, and strengths.

It essentially makes the child mentally and emotionally blind and deaf to their direct influence, because the child is being taught not to respect them, and to see them as "OTHER", that is,  NOT like himself.

The child is quite purposely taught that there are "teams" who are at odds with one another, and that HIS team is the boys and men, and that the OTHER team is the girls and women.

So the child, who will automatically seek an adult to look up to, model, and mimic, like all children do, has little choice but to look up to only men, since he's been taught that girls and women are "OTHER".

IF all of the men that the child is exposed to have integrity, are nurturing, and have good ethics, values, pleasant personalities, patience, emotional strength, good mental health and respect female people, then it wouldn't be much of an issue.

However, the only men the child will be exposed to are members of a Narcissistic community, because that's the only type of community that would humiliate a child about his connection and bonds with his own mother or other females. That means that the odds of the child being exposed to disrespectful, bullying, narcissistic men are very high.

A non-controlling culture does not shame a child for identifying with, or following the values, preferences, and personality of their parent, or of HALF the population. And especially IN ORDER to indoctrinate and "mold" them in a certain pre-conceived form so they'll be more malleable for training and for service as they grow up.     

Nonchalance Or Annoyance Toward Another's Hardship

If it doesn't seem to bother someone who claims to care about you that you are:

Struggling
In danger
Having a serious problem
Being treated unfairly or disrespectfully
Being bullied, slandered, sabotaged
Being manipulated
Lonely
Sad
Anxious
Depressed

~because they behave dismissively, coldly, arrogantly, critically, inconsiderately or cruelly toward you, and especially when you express what you're feeling or dealing with; consider that a Red Flag.

Don't expect much from them at all regarding normal friendship, integrity, human connection, or usual values.
They may even believe themselves "strong" because they ignore YOUR hardships (apparently their wires are crossed about what "strength" means).
Don't expect "love" (of all things).
Don't expect "caring" behavior no matter how much they claim they care. Caring is an action. The word "caring" describes the action, or the person who is doing those actions. It's not a vague adjective like "sweet" or "nice" that describes how a person talks or comes across. 

Unsolicited Advice Is Not "Support"

The basic difference between "unsolicited advice" and "appropriate advice" is pretty simple; if a person doesn't specifically ask "what do you think?" or "what do you think I should do?" then they're not asking for advice.

Solicited advice is when a person asks specifically for it from someone else, like "What should I do?" or "How do I do this?" or "What should I use?"

Typically, a person who asks a specific question is asking for a specific answer, not a lecture on the entire subject as if they're clueless. "What kind of deck screws work best with Tyvek?" is NOT "What's a deck screw? What's Tyvek? How do you build a deck? What's a deck?" (Just answer the question. If you don't know the answer, then say that, don't babble trying to divert the person's attention away from the fact that you don't know the answer.)

Seeking neutral information and advice, but not personal advice, is like when we read a book that someone else wrote, or go on a forum or a weblog, or read a magazine article, or watch a show that gives information or advice. We're voluntarily going there, they're not coming TO US and TELLING US PERSONALLY what to do.

When people post memes, affirmations, information, observations, quotes, advice, news, or political stuff on the internet or on Facebook, that's not unsolicited advice, that's just their own posts.
They might be posting it for advice for themselves; or because it reminded them of a friend; or because they want to express themselves: or because they want to share information; or because they think it's beautiful; or they might be showing their friends or family something they made, like lots of people do every day with their own projects, 

If they posted those affirmations, expressions, or advice on someone else's page in order to "tell them they should be doing this" or "thinking this", that's "unsolicited advice". When they go on someone else's post and make personally directed remarks at the poster, and when they directly "advise" a person (without being asked) who posted a vent, a lament, or an experience, that's unsolicited advice.

~
My friend Steve
~
When my friend is upset about his job because something happened and starts telling me about it, I don't tell him what he "should have done", or what he "should do", or what he "needs to do in the future".
I just listen, and ask questions about what happened, and let him tell me the story, and acknowledge what he says and how he handled it.
That's not MY job, and I'm not HIM, and that's not my life, and I wasn't there.
If I do see something that MIGHT be useful for him that he might not have thought of, I might say something like "Hey I was just thinking, did you ever try doing such and such?"
But I don't go "You really need to be more assertive... faster.. more efficient... less sensitive...get up earlier...etc."

I don't think about what advice I'm going to give him instead of listening to him while he's talking. I listen while he's talking, so I can hear him and comprehend what he's saying.

When he tells me he ate an entire bag of cookies in one sitting, I WILL say "you know that's not good for you, right?" because it's actually a danger to his health.
When he tells me he's talking and driving in severely heavy traffic, I WILL say "just call me later" or "call me when you stop", because I get that he's stressed out so he's probably not thinking clearly, just like I probably wouldn't be in that situation.   

 But when he says it's raining out, I don't go "Oh I hope you took your umbrella with you!" or "Make sure you close your windows!" or "You should stay home in this weather" or "Wear a raincoat" etc etc.

When he says someone is driving him nuts, I don't say "Well this is what you need to do." or "You should be more understanding". or "You need to calm down" or "You need to take a pill".

I might say "That's gotta be hard", or "How do you deal with that?" or "What happened after that?" or "Do you want to get out of there for a while and come meet me?" or "Hey you want to go get pizza?"

I would not say "You should get out of there and go for a walk".
That's directive and impersonal, it's not supportive, and it's sending the person AWAY, by themselves.
Why would I do that? So I don't have to "deal" with the person myself? I'm too busy.. too tired.. they bore me.. I'd rather watch cartoons...
Why don't I say "Let's go for a walk" or "call me back as soon as you can" instead, offering personal connection?
(Because I don't want to offer personal connection, I want them to go away and stop bothering me...because I don't really care about them all that much, I just pretend to because it makes me seem like a good person and keeps me on their good side....)

~

Advice is not the same as "support".

When a person is dealing with something stressful, the last thing they need is me chiming in with "You should do this" or "Why aren't you doing that", and especially when I'm not even there presently with them, dealing with it alongside them.
If they're obviously extremely stressed out, anxious, or scared, and I can't actually DO anything at the moment to physically help, then sure, I'll try to help them find a solution, but a solution that would work for THEM, not for ME. It MIGHT be something that works for me, but it might not. They're a completely different person in their own life and situation. If I can't help them figure something out quickly, then I'll look for someone else who might be able to help.

Support is being present, listening, and hearing, and helping when appropriate, but not when it's not needed or wanted.
It's sharing one's point of view and experiences from where one is sitting or standing.
It's not looking at another and trying to judge their level of experience, capability, strength, or knowledge compared to one's own, and then treating them like they're less capable.

Support is being there for a person, giving them neutral or positive feedback, "Yes I can see what you mean" or "That's a good idea" or "Yeah that sounds like a good plan" or "you did a good job", or "that makes sense" (because it does, because we actually listened to them while they spoke, or what they wrote).
Or actually being there with them while they carry out ideas and plans.
It's also telling them when a plan looks like the wrong move, but only if it honestly looks like they're endangering or screwing themselves or someone else.
("Hey I was thinking of robbing a bank tomorrow" ..."That's probably not the best idea... how about not doing that so you don't go to prison.")

But always telling them that they're not doing enough, or not doing something right, or "should" be doing something else instead in non-dangerous, non-sabotaging choices, activities, and goals is not supportive, it's just oppositional and controlling.

If what they're doing or saying is NOT harmful to me or someone else, for real, then why am I so concerned about what they're doing or how they're doing it? Am I preventing them from falling off a cliff by criticizing the way they cook spaghetti or wash their socks?

Support is also going to the DMV with a person when they have to renew their registration. It's giving them a ride to the doctor's, and waiting for them, and then maybe going to lunch.
It's helping them with a task or project, and not trying to take over or be the expert.
It's listening to them vent or cry when they're dealing with something difficult or overwhelming. Listening, not talking, not telling them what they "should" do. (We don't even know what it's like to be in their shoes, or all the facets of their situation, why would we think for a minute we know better than they do what they should do? Especially when we keep thinking about what we're going to say, and talking, instead of listening to them tell us about their situation or experiences!)

Support is asking for more information, and then asking again, because we're trying to get a broader and more accurate view of what they're dealing with, or what they experienced.
"So what did you do when the bear came charging toward you?! How did you get away?!"
Not
"You should have... If it was me, I would have... Why didn't you...Next time you should..."

Support is giving a person space and respecting their boundaries.
It's respecting their point of view. It's respecting them as an individual person as important and real as one's self, or anyone else. Support is recognizing their actual experiences, skill, knowledge, and capability, and not trying to diminish them.

"Advice" however is not being there for them or with them. It's about TELLING them something from our own point of view in a personal way. Not just sharing our own experiences, knowledge, or observations in a neutral way, but DIRECTING our own point of view AT them, personally.
It's "This is what I think you should do", NOT "If you need anything call me." (which would be support).
 
Advice is wanted when it's asked for, but the advice giver has a responsibility toward the person who asked.
"Do I really know what I'm talking about? Have I actually done this in my own lifetime? Do I honestly have the experience, knowledge, or skill to be giving advice on this?"

And if one does not have the experience or knowledge, then it's one's responsibility to recognize that and SAY it.

(Those with control or narcissism issues will often NOT admit it, and act like they're an expert even though they have little or no idea; and they'll do that with anything at all from giving directions, to doing a trade, to career or relationship advice.)

"Do I know this person's whole situation? Do I understand this person's point of view, or anything real about this person, such as their past, their experience, their strengths, their traumas, their goals, their aspirations, their abilities?

If they didn't ask for what we "think they should do" specifically, then they probably don't want our opinion in the first place, which is NOT an "insult" to a person who does not have an inflated ego or control issues.

~
Parents and children, (and other adults in a child's life), that's another matter; our responsibility as parents is to guide and mentor our children, and part of their job as children growing up is to rebel against the adults in their life (BOTH girls and boys, not just boys.)
The rebellion process is about unfastening one's identity and decision-making from one's parents in order to become an actual self-reliant adult with inner confidence and self-esteem.
 
So as parents, we have the responsibility of "teaching them to fly", which means the difficult task of knowing what to say, when to say it, being there for support but not suffocating them, being there to advise but not condescend, being there to mentor but not be a critical ninny. Teaching them to fly without knocking them out of the nest so they break their wings from the fall, and without flapping their wings FOR them as if they aren't capable, thereby never actually letting them learn how to fly.  
~

However with other adults, we are not their parents. They are not "in our charge", nor are we their "authority".  
Being respectfully supportive of others makes the world go 'round and the sun come out, but being self-appointed advisors, being condescending, shaming, critical, accusatory and controlling makes the world grind to a screeching halt and makes everything dreary and grey.

Relationships: Supportive Or Sabotaging?

Questions to ask one's self:

Do I support, help, or align with the goals, endeavors, and dreams of my partner? Of my children? Of other family members? Of my close friends?

Or do I ignore them, invalidate them, criticize them, or try to block them so I can be in control?

Is my partner, or are other family members or close friends supportive of my goals, endeavors, and dreams?
Or do they ignore me, criticize me, invalidate me, sabotage me, try to block me, or try to control?

When I have an idea, a plan, or a goal, do they take it seriously?
Do they ever go along with my ideas or plans?
Do they follow through when they say they'll help or support?
Do they support me, or NOT support me?

How do I behave toward them when they have an idea, plan or goal?

How do they treat me when I have a problem or issue?
How do I treat them?
Is there support, understanding, care, or compassion?
Or is there instead criticism, belittling, blame, defensiveness, countering, or attack?

"It's an awesome feeling when someone has your back."
~L. Concidine