He's Such A Great Guy! She's The Sweetest Lady! Narcissists Are Great At Image Making

People with Narcissism issues tend to pay much more attention to those outside of their personal family than inside. They may be known as "good listeners" or "lovely people" or "sweet and generous" or "heroes" or "very responsible" outside of their marriage or their household, but don't have patience, time, or resources to listen to, validate, or help the people closest to them. They may even appear to "fight for what's right" out in the world, but treat their family members, partner, or children like burdens, like servants, like warts on their skin, like they're the "lowest" people they know. A Narcissist who would cross the country to help put out forest fires or rescue someone they barely know would be hard-pressed to cross the street to genuinely help or show care toward someone "close" to them. "Helping others" or "Being a good person" is all about being SEEN and GETTING CREDIT and GETTING RECOGNITION for a person with Narcissism, not about actually helping or caring.

Narcissists actually COMPETE WITH their own family members, spouse, children, and close friends for recognition, resources, credit, "love", and image, which is the exact opposite of "healthy".
So they are always trying to make themselves "LOOK GOOD" to those outside of their family or close friends, and "LOOK BETTER" than the people "close" to them.
A Narcissistic mother who has a physically attractive daughter, or a talented or intelligent daughter, will feel THREATENED, not proud, as if they were two children in a fourth grade class instead of mother and daughter. And so an N. mother will do things that an envious child might do to another child who she was envious of, like spread rumors and gossip, triangulate, "steal" the daughters friends, present herself as the "GOOD ONE" of the two to others any way she can, compete with her for male attention, etc.
Of course a Narcissistic "best friend" would also do these things for the same (or similar) reasons, but it's not as traumatic when the N. is a platonic peer compared to a parent or spouse, although the trauma can still be quite devastating and cause real damage.

Whatever the relationship is "supposed to be", the Narcissist doesn't change; they see other people as either a way to GAIN for themselves, OR as a THREAT to themselves.
People who are close to them especially are seen as either someone to CONTROL, or someone who is TRYING TO control them. Narcissists do not come out of "competition mode".
Everything is a competition. Everything is "who's in charge", or "proving who's better", "proving who's smarter", "proving who's a better person", "proving who DESERVES recognition, privilege, or resources", or a DISPLAY of "how great" they are.
That's what THEY"RE doing, so they think that's what EVERYONE ELSE is doing too.

(If they think you're attractive, you must be MAKING YOURSELF ATTRACTIVE ON PURPOSE... because you think you're "so great" or because you're trying to MANIPULATE other people by apparently creating your own face and body.........
unless they're still in the "valuation phase", then your physical attractiveness means that you're "Above others"....... but that will only last until they find someone else who they think is more attractive, or until you stand up for yourself or for someone else, or have some kind of "need" ... or "opinion" ...)

On Academic Arrogance

On Academic Arrogance
(Elmer John Thiessen)

The know-it-all attitude of the undergraduate student at a university; the willingness to expound at great lengths on any and every subject on the part of the graduate student; the confident airs put on by the college or university professor – all of these are examples of academic arrogance. Academic arrogance is unfortunately all too common, and is enhanced, no doubt, by the attitude that persists in our society that the university-educated person or the educated professional are somehow superior to those who have received only a high-school education.
Arrogance is of course everybody’s problem... (Click for the full article)



ElmerJohnThiessen's article on Academic Arrogance is really about Human arrogance in general, which all arrogance of course really is; we humans can take ANYTHING and use it as a "status symbol".
It's just a one of those Hairless-Chimpanzee things, (sorry, but it's true.. ooohhhooohhhooohh).
ElmerJohnThiessen's point of view is from a Christian perspective, however arrogance is the same whether one is Christian or otherwise. Very well said, in my opinion, which may be humble, or not.

Who Has Point-Of-View Bias

Who Has Point-Of-View Bias?
Practically everyone.

Some people have more POV bias than others, however, and some have less.

Point-of-view-bias is about how we see things from our OWN point of view, combined with our ability, or LACK of ability, to see things from someone else's point of view.
Stephen King is a world-famous writer of fiction, mostly horror, and in my humble opinion, exceptionally talented at writing from many different points of view. If his character is a very large man who grew up on a Bayou in the deep American South, for example, he is able to effectively and believably write from that character's point of view, as if he is "standing in that man's shoes". As if Stephen King was actually able, for a time, to BE that person, and express how that man sees the world, what he thinks, and what he feels.
If his character is a small, young woman from the Midwest who grew up in a poor household, he seems to be able to transport himself, again, so that he is "standing in that woman's shoes", as if he is writing from HER point of view, expressing how she sees the world, and what she thinks, and what she feels.

Stephen King seems to be a very rare talent; there are precious few writers who seem to be able to suspend their own point of view in order to write so effectively from the POV of the opposite sex, or from the POV of a person of a different race, age, class, ancestry, or region. He may not get it 100% perfect all of the time, but his average is pretty impressive.

Most people, writers or not, seem to fall short of Stephen King's talent for objectivity and for transporting themselves to someone else's point of view.
There are countless tales, stories, poems, tomes, and modern films and shows, as well as Advertisements, and also songs and "musicals", that reflect the BIASED POV of the writer/author. When the writer is purposely expressing a certain POV because the story or character is specifically written that way, then the flow is not interrupted or skewed; it's appropriate. But when they are purporting to be of a NEUTRAL, HUMAN point of view, but are actually writing as if all "humans" are male, or white, or black, or Baby Boomers, or Hispanic, etc. etc., then the flow is interrupted and cock-eyed for EVERYONE EXCEPT those who share the writer's personal BIAS. 

There have also been years, decades, even centuries of non-fiction texts (science, religion, philosophy) written in quite biased POV, that have been touted as "Neutral", "Neutrally Human", or even "Scientific". 
For an easy and obvious example, the "big three" Religions all have texts that are written quite obviously in male AND male-biased point of view. Much of the texts are written as if "Human beings" are MALE, and females are "other", instead of BOTH males and females being considered "People" in the same way.

When a person with a BIASED POINT OF VIEW says or writes the words "WE" or "US", they are NOT referring to ALL of the people who are also in their group. They are ONLY referring to the people who they think of as being JUST LIKE THEMSELVES, usually in a physical way.

A person who lives in BIASED POINT OF VIEW often has skewed beliefs about other people. For example, it's common for women who have female-biased-POV to believe that ONLY WOMEN share their array of feelings, interests, fears and motives. They may believe that ONLY WOMEN really care about children, or they may believe that ONLY WOMEN JUST LIKE THEMSELVES really care about children. They might actually believe that no MEN could ever really appreciate Romance, or gentleness, or deep emotional bonds with other people. They might actually believe that men would not BE ABLE TO LEARN HOW to really take care of other people, or how to keep a house clean, or perhaps other things such as how it feels to be treated badly or abused by other people.

Males who have BIASED POINT OF VIEW might actually believe, for instance,  that women and girls don't have the capacity to feel the rush of adrenaline that one would get from going fast on a bike or in a car, or that only MALES are ABLE to learn and understand what it's like to be proud of learning how to rebuild an engine or play a guitar. There have been male-biased writings that imply that ONLY BOYS and MEN can UNDERSTAND the bond between humans and dogs, or the feeling of ultimate FREEDOM that one can find being "one with Nature" or "in the Wild", or that "finding one's fortune" or seeking success is only something that MALES even think about. 

It's easy to find writings of all kinds that are written in blatantly biased Point of view. Rock music, for example, is LOADED with male-biased point of view, and that's very unfortunate, since the "movement" of Rock Music had purported to be about Personal Freedom for PEOPLE, not just freedom (or privilege, or the freedom to denigrate others) for ONE GROUP of people, and NOT for another group. Many girls and women who were musicians and fans of Rock music find out the very difficult, spirit-crushing way that there is a huge amount of ANTI-FEMALE and female-exploiting and belittling material in many Rock songs, and in the world of "Rock music" in general.

Racially biased POV is rampant as well in all kinds of writings, art, music, and non-fiction texts, from all points of the globe, from nearly all ancestries and all "colors".

Biased Point Of View is very common in humans; see how many Native American Tribal names mean "The People" or something that implies "The Real People". That's a common phenomenon to find ALL OVER the Earth, throughout the Human Species. "Only those who are like ME are the 'real people'."

Humans will OFTEN see others as either "Like ME", or "Not Like ME", and therefore "US" or "THEM", and they'll use nearly ANYTHING AT ALL as identification for that purpose. So "US" might be those of the same SEX as they are, or those of the same ancestry, or those of the same HEIGHT, or who went to the same SCHOOL, or who have the same academic degree, or who LIKE THE SAME SPORTS TEAM, or THE SAME BAND, or who LIKE DOGS, or who DON'T LIKE CATS, ....etc. etc. etc.... etc........  

It's much less "jarring" or emotionally damaging to individuals when they are aware BEFORE HAND that something is being presented or carried out in a certain BIASED POV, or that the people in a certain GROUP are all in a BIASED POV. For example, before trying to join a local "club" like the Masons, one usually finds out that they are "male-only" membership, and therefore a female does not try to join, and subsequently get humiliated. Or the "Ladies Auxiliary" is aptly named; a young man is warned off just by the name itself, and will probably not think of including himself in the group.
For an example of the potentially quite damaging kind of BIAS that people COVER UP and present as NON-BIAS:
In America, MANY, MANY Public Schools STILL implement budgeting, classes, and extra-curricular programs that are very biased toward one RACE or one SEX, or toward BOTH one race and one sex, depending on the region. These are PUBLIC SCHOOLS, so many children are under the very-American assumption that the ADULTS in their town actually care about each of them EQUALLY and GENUINELY, and unfortunately many of their parents are also under this very naive assumption as well.
So when the children find themselves a student in a school where there is blatant BIAS AGAINST THEM and FOR OTHER KIDS because of their race, ancestry, or sex, after having been told that it was all "fair" and "non-biased",  they can really suffer some serious emotional trauma. These children have been blindsided in a very harsh way; no one told them that they would be treated as if they didn't MATTER, as if they are unimportant and even "in the way" to the adults whom they expected fairness and REAL education from. After all, it's Public School, which means all of the adult citizens in the town, especially property owners, PAY FOR IT. Therefore, all of the students should expect equal, fair, and supportive educational experience. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW THAT THEY ATTEND. 
 
Biased Point of View in human beings is extremely common, but that doesn't mean there's "nothing wrong with it" , just because it's so common. It's Biased Point of View that is responsible for the actions that have OPPRESSED and ENSLAVED various peoples around the world from the beginning of recorded history.    

Personal Attacks Vs. Intelligent Discussion: Go-To-Weapons For Insecure Bullies

ad hominem

"You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird."
~(Logical Fallacies)

Making People Smaller, Weaker, and Unimportant

Making People Smaller, Weaker, and Unimportant is one of the Narcissist's main life hobbies, and one of the ways they get through life and get things they want.
Emotionally healthy people don't need to try to make others into something "lesser" in order to makes themselves look "greater" or "worthy", they operate with what's REALLY THERE.

So if an emotionally healthy person is in a Dance Class with an exceptionally talented dancer, they simply accept the person's exceptional talent and give credit where it's due. Even if they feel an occasion twinge of jealousy or envy (and it would only be an occasional twinge), they wouldn't ACT on it, and they would recognize it for what it is; their OWN insecurity issues. An emotionally healthy person is likely to be inspired by the other dancer and try to learn from their skill or their passion.

For an emotionally healthy person, that very talented dancer's ability would be kept separate from the dancer's personality and social behavior, they wouldn't see them as one and the same. They wouldn't try to pin "arrogance" or "snottiness" on the dancer when it doesn't exist, just because they feel intimidated or out-shined. By the same token, they would not EXCUSE arrogant or bullish behavior from that dancer either, just because the person is so talented, or because they think they're "cool".
The fellow dancer's ability would not be ENMESHED in the healthy person's mind with the fellow dancer's personality and behavior. 

However if a Narcissist is in a Dance Class with an exceptionally talented dancer, they would make everything about it personal. Narcissists are not capable of neutrality, OR real student-hood, or professionalism. They LEAD with their EMOTIONS, and their actions and behaviors are DICTATED BY their emotional reactions, which rarely or never include "empathy".
A fellow dancer with exceptional talent (or apparent physical attractiveness, wealth, or 'status') means the Narcissist will EITHER try to be the dancer's "buddy", OR they will try to DIMINISH the dancer somehow.
There will be NO neutrality.

The only reason a Narcissist would not engage in either trying to buddy up to the person or trying to diminish the person would be FEAR of consequence. If the fear factor is small or absent, then the "games" WILL commence.  

So the Narcissist might try to create a situation where they just "happen" to end up alone with the fellow dancer, or they just happen to be there when the fellow dancer needs assistance or emotional support, or they might even sabotage the fellow dancer so they can be the one to stick up for them or "rescue" them; all ploys to try to get the dancer to trust them or bond with them.
OR,
The Narcissist might devalue them from the get-go and insult them, humiliate them, counter everything they say, make fun of their dancing or appearance, and also try to get others to believe in their devaluation of the fellow dancer.
The most common go-to manipulation is to spread a belief that the targeted person is a morally "bad person", and not NEARLY as "nice" or "honest" or "genuine" as they seem.

One of the favorite smear campaigns against either female or male targets is telling others that the target person said something BAD about them. "She said you were too fat to dance." or "He called you a slut." or "I didn't like what she said about you..." ... ...
Implying that the target has insulted or attacked another person behind their back is probably the most common way that manipulators successfully turn people against a chosen target, or against one another.
~Narcissists will even purposely set a target up during conversation, trying to get them to say something that they can use against them later - either about themselves or about someone else. For instance the N. might "lead" the target about how Nancy said this or that and is a terrible friend, goading the target to agree with them for as long as it takes; when the target finally says something like "Okay I guess you're right, I guess Nancy is a jerk..." that's all they need; they'll go back and tell Nancy that the target was talking "smack" about her and called her a jerk.
WHY would a person go through all that setting up and goading, when they could have simply told a bold-faced LIE? ~Because most people with Narcissism are usually obsessed with JUSTIFYING everything they do, so they need excuses for the things they do. They can't FEEL "innocent" without having an excuse to justify whatever it was they did.
It sounds "juvenile" because it IS "juvenile".

Some favorite smears against male targets might be about how arrogant he is, and how he thinks he's "so great". Other favorite made-up smears against males may include "He's lazy", "He's a thief", "He's a drunk", or "He has a serious gambling habit, and spends more at the track than on his family", or "He's bad news", "He's not 'manly'", "He's light in the loafers", "He can't fix anything".

It has to be something that others in that particular group will react to negatively.

So if the whole group smokes pot, for instance, saying that the guy smokes pot and is therefore "bad" is not going to work. It has to be something that they'll all JUDGE him for negatively, so most of the time a Narcissist has to MAKE SOMETHING UP that's PURE FICTION or EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED (such as turning his occasional lottery ticket purchases or his occasional casino visit into a "serious gambling problem").
It's important to note that accusing a man of being sexually promiscuous (slutty, whorish) does not seem to work in smear campaigns, nor does telling everyone he cheats on his wife, OR that he has a problem with anger or rage, especially against women. That's because our cultures are male-biased and anti-female biased, so a man who is sexually promiscuous does not get a "whore" label slapped on him, a man who cheats on his wife is often give a "pass" because, after all... "he's just a man, he can't help it"(so much for males being the superior sex)... and anger and rage have been implanted in the cultural mind as "privileges" of males, especially against women. (Until, that is, one of them rages at a person who's doing the slandering, and then all of a sudden it's a serious issue.) 

However, things that people DO LIKE to judge men negatively for (such as "not being manly enough") work rather quickly and easily for smearing purposes.
Men who are single are targeted much more frequently than men who are married, because men who are married appear to have more of a support network, and appear to be more supported by the community. Narcissists are much more likely to target people who appear to have less of a support system.

Some of the favorite "go-to" made-up smears that people like to direct at female targets include "She's so stuck-up", "She thinks she's all that", "She thinks she's better", "She thinks she's so smart", "She's a 'Diva'".
Also, "She's a slut/whore - she 'sleeps around'", "She sleeps with other people's husbands", "She drinks", "She does drugs", "She's bad news".
"She's an angry person", "She's unstable", "She's ditzy", "She's crazy", "She's a bitch", "She's a bitch to her mother", "She's a drain on her family".
"She's a bad mother", "She's a bad wife", "She's a bad cook",
"She doesn't take care of herself", "She's ugly", "She's fat", "She has bad taste"
"She talks too much", "She's opinionated"
"She thinks she's tough"
"She thinks she can do what MEN do"

There are more smears that work very easily against women because more people are biased against women in the current era, and actually welcome the chance to single out, diminish, or sabotage women whom they envy, resent, or are jealous of.

(For example if you were to take a male political candidate and a female political candidate, both of whom were equally "hated" by a certain group of people, the specific SMEARS the group would use to diminish each of them would be tailored to their GENDER, they would NOT really be about what each person really DID or DIDN'T DO. So the female candidate would be called names like "bitch" and smeared with sexually oriented smears like "slut" and "whore", and the male candidate would be called names like "asshole" and "snake oil salesman". People tend to try to SKEWER females more severely, regardless of the actual events or behaviors, because of their own deep-seated personal issues.
If a person WITHOUT prejudice were to express anger or even hate toward both a male and female candidate, they would not use terms that imply the person's gender (or race, or hair color, or anything else about the person's body) ).
People who are riddled with prejudice focus on things ABOUT people like their sex, race, looks, ancestry, or religion, and call names and pigeon-hole people; people who are not riddled with prejudice are only focused on what a person actually said or did (REALLY said or did) without skewing, diminishing, or inflating any of it.

It's also important to note that Smear Campaigns don't work unless others participate.

Taking Sides: Woody Allen

"Who's Side Are You On?" Ever notice that most people assume that there always has to be "sides"?

In any discussion or "debate" between any groups of humans regarding bullying, abuse, or unfair treatment, those who are actually also bullies will always take whatever stance serves THEM personally.

For example with this "Woody Allen Debate" going on now, those who are biased for Woody Allen because they like him or identify with him in some way (same age, same sex, similar disposition, similar ancestry, etc.) will most likely automatically "take his SIDE".

And whoever does NOT like him for whatever reason (even if they don't know him personally) will probably either side AGAINST him and say he's guilty, or they'll just be indifferent and ignore the whole thing completely.

Those who are biased against Mia Farrow for whatever personal issues they have will of course say she's making up the allegations of abuse toward Dylan, or making a bigger deal out of it than it is.

ALSO, those who are biased FOR abusers in general, usually because THEY are also abusers and bullies and that's how they get what they want in life, will side adamantly AGAINST Mia Farrow, and against the allegations, and typically say that she's completely making it all up, and that Dylan was too.

REALITY is that no one who wasn't actually THERE can say either way what the "truth" is, so taking a SIDE for or against anyone in this case is simply about one's OWN personal issues, biases, and identity. There are no human beings on the planet other than Dylan Allen and Woody Allen who know for sure what happened and what didn't happen.

The media and followers of the media who are "taking sides" are just doing the thing they always do, making a frenzy out of something serious, and making very serious judgments about something they have no way of knowing any factual information about, just so they can be part of the "gang" to VILIFY either Woody, Mia, or Dylan.
And if they're doing it to people they don't even KNOW, you can imagine how severely they do it to the people who are in their own lives.

Reading, or Just Skimming Articles And Blogs?

There is a common form of arrogance that has seen exponential growth in modern times; most people who are afflicted like to call it "A.D.D."

But it's not "A.D.D.", it's just plain old arrogance, combined with a good dose of presumptuousness, and a rather large dash of laziness.

We glance at a headline, and maybe skim the first paragraph, and actually tell ourselves we've read and digested the entire article. And then, very confidently, we loudly and exuberantly express our oh so very educated opinion about the article... and often AT the author of the article... that we didn't.actually.read.   We skimmed it, we glanced at it, we already HAD a biased opinion BEFORE we glanced at it, which of course will not be changed or swayed, especially since we didn't.actually.read.the.article.
If we're feeling ambitious or we want to keep up in a discussion about the topic later, we might read through a couple more paragraphs. But the whole article? Who does that?

I'll tell you who does that; people who live in reality-land, who don't have delusions of believing that they somehow possess a Super Power of thoroughly reading and comprehending an entire article AND the writer's point of view just by glancing at a few of the words, and looking at the author's PICTURE.

I would love to see actors doing Shakespeare on Broadway doing that with their script, or film actors on a very expensive shoot...
"What do you mean that's the wrong line? I read the first part! It must be right!"

Or a musician in the Philharmonic Orchestra who only pays attention to the first page of a piece, and throws the rest on the floor... "I'm a Virtuoso! I don't need to actually LOOK at the music! I can just automatically play it after glancing at the first page!"

Or one of the physicists at Cern who only read the title and the first paragraph of the experiment they're about to perform... because of their excruciating genius, they just psychically absorb the rest of the paper without having to actually READ it..

How about if we allow all medical students to obtain their degrees and licenses because they got the first part of their exams right? Sign me up...

I think maybe we could resolve it all by allowing Police Officers to train for about a week, and then graduate them and issue them service weapons because they SAY they "get it", and put them on the street. How about that? That might be fun...

Why People Target A Person For "Scapegoating"

A "Scapegoat" is a term for a person who has been singled out in a family or other group who others tend to "pick on" and judge more harshly than everyone else.
The difference between an "abuse target" and a "Scapegoat" is simply that more than one person has jumped on the bandwagon of targeting an individual; usually most or all of the members of the group are either participating in "dumping on" the person, and those who are not actively participating are also probably not standing up for the person against the malicious treatment, either.

They are the first to get blamed when something has been misplaced or lost, or when something goes wrong. The Scapegoat receives more negative judgment, and less understanding and support than everyone else.
When the members of the group focus on something the Scapegoat has done, or is doing, they tend to seek excuses to criticize, and to paint whatever the Scapegoat is doing in a bad light, no matter what it is.
They are BLAMED for things that happen to them that are beyond their control, and they are BLAMED when they are the victim or target of another person.
Scapegoats are usually blocked from the resources, help, and support that others in the group expect to receive as a matter of course, and probably take for granted.
The Scapegoat is the person who is flagrantly gossiped about and slandered, with others trying to DESTROY their reputation instead of PROTECTING it.
They are often purposely left out of group gatherings, group decisions, and group celebrations.
They are often blatantly and flagrantly LIED about, in order to make them look bad to others and keep the targeting going both within and outside the group, and as far-reaching outside of the group as possible.

The reasons behind Scapegoating are all based in a deep lack of maturity in the members of the group.
The primary motivator for singling out a member of one's OWN family or group, and making them into some kind of "Pariah", is usually envy, or its cousin, jealousy.

Envy is when a person feels contempt and resentment for another person because they have something they want, such as good looks, talent, apparent love or an apparently comfortable life, or a nice car.

Jealousy is when a person feels something like anger or resentment regarding their relationship with someone else.

But in some cases it can also stem from a compulsion to bully, whereas an individual simply gets a charge out of doing mean things to another person because it makes them feel powerful, it makes them feel like they've "won" in some way, and gives them a little "rush".
Scapegoats only really exist in family or group systems that lack strong ethics and integrity.
MOST families and groups will completely deny it when they have Scapegoated one of their members, and will rationalize their behavior, fully blaming the target. This denial alone clearly shows that the members of the group are unwilling and unable to be accountable for their own behavior and actions.


The reasons that people pick one person to Scapegoat and not another are all very petty, and again, all based in a lack of maturity.

Scapegoats are usually a person who seems to be either unwilling or incapable of retaliating.

For example a child who was frequently sick may be targeted because they seem weak and unable to fight back.

Or a small or thin person who no one in the group is physically afraid of at first glance, and whom they know has higher values than to physically attack another person in retaliation.

A person who others don't fear retaliation from because they have a high degree of integrity.

A person who others in the group envy because of any number of "assets", such as looks, talent, ability, skill, money, success, potential success, or even a charismatic or CARING personality.

A person who others in the group are jealous of because another "favorite" or "authority" member of the group has a close or special relationship with them.

A person who others in the group envy because they seem well-liked or well-loved in general.
It's important to understand that some people can ENVY absolutely anyone and anything, for any reason, and children are actually prone to envy and jealousy because part of their very survival is about the adults and older kids around them genuinely caring about them, and giving them needed resources and help.

People who have Narcissism will try and Scapegoat any person who is not already a "chosen favorite", who NEEDS anything specific from them, and who they have any envy or jealousy toward.

Abuse Survivors: None Of Your Beeswax!

One of the things targets of abuse (esp. in childhood) get "trained" to do is be extremely hard and judgmental toward themselves. This, believe it or not, is BETTER than the other thing that might have happened: becoming a Narcissist.
It's about a thousand, maybe a million times harder to heal if one has developed the disorder of "Narcissism" as a result of a dysfunctional or traumatic childhood.

One of the things many survivors tend to do is be SUPER HONEST ALL THE TIME, and think of being forthcoming with information as MORALISTIC.
Survivors often go to the extreme with trying to "be honest" and "straightforward" by giving TOO MUCH information, and giving personal information to people who don't need to know those things.

Survivors often develop a habit of NOT PROTECTING themselves, sacrificing themselves for the sake of principal, and SHAMING themselves severely whenever they go outside of the strict parameters they have set for themselves.

Survivors often live on the edge of shame all the time, and will often shame themselves for normal human behaviors, feelings, and small mistakes or sins.
Shame is a weapon when used inappropriately, and controllers, abusers and manipulators use it OFTEN, both to control others, and to make themselves look "good" in comparison to someone else - (project shame onto a target and everyone else near them looks like they don't "deserve" to be shamed because they're so "good").

Survivors often BUY INTO THE PROJECTION OF SHAME that someone else placed on them, and will end up being "honest to a fault".

This is NOT an implication or statement that DISHONESTY IS OKAY. That's a completely different thing.

"Honest to a fault" for an example would be to reveal to a new neighbor that you used to have cockroaches, even though they've been cleared out for three years. Or WHY you were late to an important meeting, (you stepped in dog dirt, your stocking ran, your hair got caught in the curling iron brush) when you could have just said "Sorry I'm late". Or telling a new acquaintance about an abusive relationship or childhood, or telling a relative about an addiction to shopping for clothes.
"Honest to a fault" means TOO MUCH INFORMATION when it's not necessary, and thereby sabotaging one's goals by inadvertently painting a less than positive or strong picture of one's self to other people.
People for the most part ARE JUDGMENTAL of other people, in a negative way, and we usually end up finding out the HARD WAY after the fact, after we've said "too much" to the wrong person.

A person who has Narcissism issues will put your once having had cockroaches at the top of a LIST they are compiling about who is a "loser", and probably tell anyone they can in order to paint you as such (for no real reason except that's their hobby, because they lack inner self-esteem).
A person with Narcissism issues will latch onto your reasons about why you were late, and pin them on you like you are one of those "bumbling" people who "can't keep it together", and they'll also use that as ammunition against you.
A person who has Narcissism issues will use the information about your having been abused for several things: To JUDGE you, as if the abuse was YOUR fault; As free information about you that reveals that you are probably an easier "target" for manipulation, since you've been abused before; As free information about HOW to manipulate you, gain your trust, and bully you; and as "ammunition" against you in the future.
And of course a relative with Narcissism issues will blow your shopping addiction to extreme proportions, using it for gossip and slander fodder, using it to manipulate you, and turning you into a family Scapegoat.

Stop giving away free information that's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!

Here's a little window into the mind of a Narcissist-gossip: I once had some neighbors (not close friends) who seemed to be acting strangely, as if they were angry, as if we had done something wrong to them. Finally I asked the husband if we had done anything to offend them, and he answered back in a snappy tone, "You people think you're too good to talk about the details of what's going on in your life like everybody else! You're too private! We don't even know how much money you have! And what do you DO all day when you're in your house?!"   ......Okay? That's what's going on in their heads. They were ANGRY that we didn't give away our lives like the National Enquirer, so they could use the tidbits to talk about us. And yes, these neighbors were particularly "gossipy", they always had some criticism to say about random neighbors and people in the community, and the nicer the target was, the more criticism they had about them. But people like this are NOT RARE, they are actually VERY COMMON, much more common now that the Media has created a poisonous vortex of TEACHING young people that Gossip and slander are "normal" for so many years now.

Healing our boundaries means we WILL and DO learn not to self-sabotage by giving away too much information about ourselves and our lives, and we WILL and DO learn what information is "okay" to reveal, WHO it's okay to reveal it to, and what is none of anyone's business but our OWN.

Gossip: A "Chick" Or "Hen" Party Only? Or Do Roosters Attend That Party Too?

It is of popular opinion that gossip is a women's domain, however, those who really pay attention to the manipulations of humans know that this is quite a MYTH.

Slander, smearing, and implying negative things about another person are perpetuated by manipulative individuals who are EITHER male or female.

It is very important to differentiate WHO we are referring to here; we're not talking about ALL MEN, or ALL WOMEN, not by a longshot. There are PLENTY of MEN AND WOMEN, thank the Lord, who DON'T participate in this nasty pastime of purposely spreading and believing negativity and lies, and ruining people's relationships, families, reputations, and careers. This article refers to only those people who are participants, be they male or female.

A "Scapegoated" person is someone who has been targeted in this way by SEVERAL people, especially over TIME. Girls and women are more often targets of Scapegoating, by both males and females, for the simple fact that it's EASIER. People seem to LIKE to gossip about girls and women, because OTHER people tend to jump on the bandwagon out of envy, resentment, and jealousy; people are less likely to stand up for a girl or woman who is being slandered. And ALSO because people generally don't FEAR REPRISAL or RETALIATION from targeted girls and women, while they do tend to fear reprisal from men, so that's a HUGE reason why manipulative people tend to target females more frequently than males.
They don't think that anyone is going to kick their ass or sue them, even if they're trashing someone's daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife, female friend, or Mom.

People who target others for gossip and slander are usually doing it for only a couple of basic reasons: Because they envy the person's possessions, life, looks, talent, success, etc.;  so they seek to destroy those things and turn others against them;
because they are jealous of the person and the person's other relationships with other family and friends, so they seek to destroy them;
or because they have betrayed, manipulated, or abused the person, and they don't want to get caught. (Destroying a person's reputation means no one will believe them when they tell what has been done to them.)

Sometimes, a sociopath or psychopath will slander/smear a target because it's part of a larger plan to get or accomplish something specific; this has been done often for political, military, or financial GAIN.

Gossip has been very much a "sport" of individual manipulative male members of the species since the beginning of time. It's definitely not, and never has been, a female-only creation. In fact, you could say that GOSSIP is one of the things that men actually really do seem to be BETTER AT than women, in general, because men who gossip and spread rumors tend to be more clandestine and nasty about it, more manipulative, and less obvious.
For example, time and time again throughout history it has been demonstrated that a manipulative man is more likely to be able to lie and imply convincingly enough in order to even turn a son against his own mother, more easily than a woman who manipulates is able to turn a daughter against her own father.

"Yet another study recently conducted by global research company, Onepoll, revealed that men spend an average of 76 minutes a day chatting and gossiping with their friends or work colleagues, compared to just 52 minutes for women.

The study also found that the favourite gossip topics for men include the antics of drunken friends, old school friends, rumours about possible relationships in the office or the boss, promotions, sex, salaries and the most attractive girl at work…while women were found to be more likely to complain about other women, other people’s sex lives amongst others."

It's the way of the world, and has always been. Gossip is how Kings have persuaded their subjects to believe that THEY are worthy to sit on a Royal Throne, and that someone else was NOT (including their own brother, sister, or parent).

"A ‘smear campaign’ is a collocation used to define an active and concerted attempt to blacken the name of a person or organization. The aggressor uses a number of tactics, including rumors and false statistics, in order to question the target’s morality." ~Wisegeek

A 20th century example of one of the biggest smear campaigns in recent history that affected many was Joe McCarthy's famous "mission" against Communism in the early 1950's.
"Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. He was noted for making claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the United States federal government and elsewhere." ~(wiki)

Manipulative people have been targeting others in this way since recorded history, and writers have been illustrating this behavior forever. The EASIEST WAY to turn a person against another is to IMPLY that a person has "questionable morals", or is mentally or morally unstable.

Gossip is ANCIENT. It's how military leaders have persuaded hundreds and thousands of people, even millions, to participate in risking their lives to fight an enemy that none of them have ever seen or spoken to.
It's how government officials convince voters to vote for THEM, and not their opponent.

The greatest irony about it is that Smear campaigns and gossip are ONLY COMMITTED BY people who DO HAVE "questionable morals"! A person with ETHICS and INTEGRITY does not try to get one person to believe negative things about another, and get them to have a lower opinion of them.
And ESPECIALLY about a person who is a family member or friend.
~So when a person, MALE OR FEMALE, gossips about another, or tries to make it SEEM like another person is doing "questionable" or "immoral" things, they are revealing THEMSELVES to be of "questionable morality", and should be watched carefully, with caution.

(Obviously, venting or seeking advice about a relationship, or the way a person is treating them, is completely different, but it's discernible from gossip because there is no implication that the person is a "bad" person, and the goal is NOT to convince the listener to NOT TRUST or NOT LIKE the person, or have a lower opinion of the person, or turn on the person. The goal of a person who is venting or who seeks advice is NOT to create "factions" against a person, or to spread malicious innuendos or lies and damage their relationship with the listener, or their reputation. If there is an allegation of ABUSE, then a professional counselor should already be involved, and also the authorities. ABUSE should never be part of some lame GOSSIP campaign, it's a very serious matter.)

Here's how you can tell very quickly if the real agenda is GOSSIP when someone is accusing someone of being a "terrible person":
GOSSIPERS and MANIPULATORS DON'T SEEK PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING WITH THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, neither romantic NOR family relationships, NOR close friendships.
Because, they DO NOT WANT a "Neutral Party" involved... especially someone who would be able to see THROUGH their manipulation and bullying.


Gossip has been used since humans have used spoken language to paint a very good picture of one person, and a bad picture of another person, in order to MANIPULATE people into liking, trusting, and believing one person, and distrusting another.

Businesses large and small have succeeded and failed based on gossip alone throughout history, and today as we speak.

Gossip is used to manipulate people into turning against their own Kin, their own friend, their own parent whom they love, and their own spouse.

Gossip is used all the time to turn entire groups of people against one person whom some manipulative and malicious person happens to be jealous or envious of.

Believing gossip is one of the human species' most common daily mistakes, and almost all of us have done it at one time or another, even believing rumors and complete fiction about people we know we should be much more loyal to than that.
We tend to lose our integrity quite easily when it comes to believing a person who is implying negative things about someone else, even someone close to us.
It is, unfortunately, one of the problems that humans seem to be very susceptible to.




HOW SUSCEPTIBLE ARE HUMANS TO BELIEVING GOSSIP AND SLANDER?
HOW EASILY DO THEY GO ALONG WITH IT?
~Soap Operas have been LOADED with the blatant act of gossiping for years and years as part of practically every other plot, and they are among the most popular forms of entertainment.
~Popular music has been LOADED with gossipy, slanderous lyrics forever, and no one even seems to NOTICE, including those that are getting lampooned or debased.
~There are Talk Shows and Reality Shows on television that are completely based on Gossip and smearing, and no one seems to have a CLUE.
~The number of gossip magazines are at an unprecedented height of popularity.

And yet, everyone FLIPS OUT for some reason when the Gossip Gun is turned on THEM, even though they've been fully participating in trashing others whom they DO or DO NOT know for YEARS.

We aren't very good, as a species, at simply STOPPING gossip and slander in its tracks by simply not buying into it when someone says something negative or IMPLIES something negative about someone else.
We are more likely to go along with it and blindly believe the person, instead of simply saying something like "Now wait a minute, why are you saying negative things about that person? And why are you trying to get ME to believe them?" 

We seem to LIKE to believe negative trash-talk and implications about others, because most of the time we don't even TRY to find out if the gossip and smearing had any TRUTH to it.
Not even if the person is one of our relatives, classmates, neighbors, or fellow church members.
The LAST thing we do is actually ASK the targeted person, but that's because we fear that we'll find out that it was complete baloney, and then we won't get to be one of the Judgers anymore. PLUS, we'll be EXPOSING the little gossip and slander RING that we've been participating in.

So we throw members of our own community or family under the proverbial bus, and just go along with it.

And then we complain that the world is screwed up... and we freak out when someone does that same thing to US.

No, Gossip is not a "Woman Thing", not by far. It's a HUMAN thing, and it's pure manipulation.

Olympics 2014 Opening Ceremony In Russia

The 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony is just winding down, and I must say, it was spectacular.

The vast amount of talent and effort really showed throughout the ceremony, from the amazing art, design and effects, to the fantastic performances of dancers and music.

What a wonderful display of the creativity and beauty of the human spirit, and right smack in the middle of the ridiculous political climate from all sides. 









A personal message to all the people who are obsessed with being "political" 24/7, who apparently have very little appreciation for the glorious resilience of the Human Spirit, or for artistic expression, or for OTHER PEOPLE'S talent and ability:

Shut up already, and BE QUIET, and BE POLITE while this beautiful and wonderful tradition of the gathering of the Tribes here on this unique and precious Planet Earth is being celebrated.
WATCH and LISTEN while you practice being QUIET, so you can hear and see what SPIRIT really is, from the artists, the dancers, the singers, the musicians, the craftspeople, the engineers, the producers, the spectators, fellow citizens of Earth, and of course the OLYMPIC ATHLETES who have worked harder than most people could ever imagine to get the very rare chance to participate in the Games.

"SPIRIT", also known as "HEART".

Listen, watch, and learn, and celebrate, together.
 

Homosexuality A Sin... Because It's In The Bible

Let's talk about "sin" for a moment. 
The Holy Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with very specific examples of what is considered "Sin". So if we are going to call one of those a "serious sin", and take it literally, then it would be actually a sin of Blasphemy not to take ALL of them literally.

James 2:10 

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

Let's start with this one, for example:

Deuteronomy 22:25
But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim.

Man rapes woman, he must DIE. That's what it says. 


1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Sexual immorality means sexual immorality, there's not one that's "more okay".
You don't get to PICK THE ONES YOU WANT to be either "okay" or "not okay", if you're using the Bible to condemn OTHER people, and to rationalize and excuse your own behavior.

And since we're being literal, MOST of the Bible books are written in male point of view, BY males, FOR males, as if the only "real" humans WERE males, so when it specifies women, it only means women, and when it specifies men, it only means men, like in the above Cor. passage. There is no condemnation of female homosexuality in the Bible, and most of the instructions about sin and behavior were directed specifically AT MEN, not at women. So keep on taking it all literally... and watch out for those CONTRADICTIONS... you can't exactly Honor Thy Mother (or any other of God's children) if you're going to judge her, condemn her, or stone her to death, can you?

If you are going to use the Bible for an excuse to condemn people, then the first person you need to examine is yourself, because being Christian is about SELF-REFLECTION, Humility (the genuine kind, not the stage act), and controlling one's OWN BEHAVIOR and sinful tendencies. We need ALL OF OUR TIME AND ATTENTION FOR THIS if we're actually DOING IT, we wouldn't have the time (or the right) to stare at and scrutinize everything someone else does, or place judgement or condemnation on them.
(Pretty sure the other religions that follow the Bible or the God of Abraham are ALSO about SELF-REFLECTION, SELF-control and SELF-education, not about condemning others as well, but I can't speak from a personal point of view about it.) 

And to "haters" of Christianity and Christians, shove it far, and shove it wide, my incredibly hypocritical pal, if you are one of those who CONDEMN and JUDGE Christians and Christianity... because you think Christianity is about CONDEMNING and JUDGING other people... YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T "GET IT" EITHER, and you don't get that you're a hypocrite, so why are you even HERE? Go pound.


So, anyway, let's briefly review some things if we're going to use the Bible to judge, condemn, or control other people, either who are OUTSIDE or WITHIN the church :

~If you EVER had sex outside of marriage, ANY kind of sex, you committed sexual immorality. 

~If you desired/ LUSTED AFTER a person outside of your marriage, you committed sexual immorality. And yes, that includes any person on the street, in a magazine, on tv, at your work, on your computer, in your neighborhood... ANY person.

~If you ever lusted after a person in your family, blood related OR NOT, you done REALLY screwed up... there's a WHOLE LOT about that. (as it should be... gross...)

~If you "explored" different kinds of sexual acts, you committed serious sexual immorality.

~If you watched Porn, hard OR soft, you committed sexual immorality.

~If you ever cheated on anyone, that's called "adultery", and you are an ADULTERER.

~If you ever cheated WITH anyone on THEIR sig. other, you are an ADULTERER.
Jude 7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Here's a SIN that no one seems to pay attention to, but if you "get" anything at all about humility, Christianity, personality disorders, and just generally not being a JERK:


If you COVET others, sexually or otherwise, you are committing  serious sin, breaking a commandment. "Covet" means "ENVY".
“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

So if you don't like the pretty girl at work, or on TV, or at Church, or at school, not because she actually did something terrible to you, but because you think she gets more attention because she's pretty, then you are ENVIOUS, and that's one of the more serious sins, because envy is at the root of a good percentage of a lot of the other sins.
(That's just common sense psychology, never mind religion. Envy is the most common motivator behind bullying, sabotage, gossip, and cruel agendas).

If you think your brother or sister gets paid "too much", or gets too much credit or recognition, or YOU think that HE/SHE thinks that he or she is "all that" because he or she is "smart", "talented", or successful, then you are ENVIOUS.

If you think YOU DESERVE your neighbor's cool car more than he does, then you are not only COVETING and ENVIOUS, but you are ALSO HAUGHTY.

If you think YOU DESERVE more attention, recognition, or love than one of your relatives or friends, then you are COVETOUS, resentful, and hateful.

If you ever caused another person to suffer in any way, you DEFINITELY committed a serious sin.
If you have DISRESPECTED your MOTHER or your FATHER, you have broken a commandment and committed a serious sin.

If you have "sold out" by doing anything for the sake of obtaining MONEY, you have committed a serious sin.

James 2:10 

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

And...

Matthew 7:1-5 

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Romans 2:3 

Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?

James 4:11-12 

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

If you're going to take one thing literally, and condemn another for it, then you'd better be prepared to take ALL of them literally, and pay your own price.

But really, the bottom line is this:

Romans 13:8-10 

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

blog.thenarcissistinyourlife.com: Narcissistic Therapists Cause Psychological Harm t...

blog.thenarcissistinyourlife.com: Narcissistic Therapists Cause Psychological Harm t...: There are many highly qualified therapists who have fine clinical training and are excellent working with clients and helping them to heal. ...

Immune To Mental Illness

If a person is a Human and has a Human brain, then they are susceptible to "mental illness", like having a physical body means they are susceptible to illness and injury in general.
The brain is an organ of the body, and it's by far the most complex, and extremely delicate, and completely attached to the rest of the body and blood supply, just like every other organ. Any organ of the human body can become "ill" or be affected by all kinds of factors.
Human beings seem to have no problem accepting that any of their OTHER organs are delicate and susceptible to illness, but when it comes to the main one inside of their skull, most people desperately want to believe that THEIRS is different than everyone else's (and different from all their other organs) and therefore immune to any kind of pollution, injury, illness, or malfunction. 

(If a person's brain is made of silicon or play doh, then they are not susceptible to mental illness.)



Play Doh ROCKS!!!

NEWSFLASH: BABY BOYS, NOT BORN SEXIST

"Our beliefs about men have been twisted to where we actually lay this shit on our little boys.

"YUP, THANK YOU Cici Cummins! (Click anywhere to read Cici's article)

On a personal note, I find it very disturbing that more MALES tend to refute that "boys are not born sexist" than females; it seems that there are more males who WANT IT TO BE TRUE that
"males just can't help being bigots" because of their... testosterone levels?!? 

WHY would you WANT to be FORCED into naturally being trapped by BIAS, unable to escape, because of your biology?

That would imply that males are UNABLE to THINK objectively, to make logical decisions and choices, and therefore are the LAST people who should be "in charge" of anything at all, or even allowed to handle certain equipment (like cars, or kitchen utensils).

So, WHY are SO MANY MALES more likely to argue when someone says that boy babies are not born with bigotry?

Let's ponder that for a while, shall we?

The Difference Between Sexism And Racism

The difference between racism and sexism is the different list of excuses used to justify each bigotry.

They are essentially the same; a desperate desire to hide one's own fear of having weaknesses and flaws, and therefore trying to project those things onto others.

Separating humans into groups based on their physical bodies is a way to fantasize that all those of this one race, or this one color, or this one sex, or this one anything, all have specific weaknesses and failings, and all members of this other group (race, sex, age, ancestry, height, hair color, "class", etc.) all share certain strengths and assets.  

The difference between bigotry and actual oppression is the degree of belief in a certain bias in a given group or region. HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT, PERPETUATE IT, or GO ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE OF ANXIETY OR FEAR? So in a country where there is oppression, then obviously one group will have power and another will be kept from obtaining power, resources, and positive reputation, and enough individuals will go along with that being "THE WAY THINGS ARE", either because they LIKE IT, or because they're AFRAID.



ONE OF THE BELIEFS THAT CONTROLLERS TRY TO CONVINCE OTHERS OF IS THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN GROUP SHARE THE SAME PREJUDICE AND BIGOTRY.
Believing that all members of an entire group are against you increases the fear and feeling of powerlessness, causes a person to stop seeing other people as "good" or "neutral", and increases the "hatred" factor.


THIS IS PART OF THE OPPRESSION PROCESS:  SPREAD FEAR AND PREJUDICE SO THAT ONE MAY MORE EASILY DIVIDE AND CONQUER.


It's simply not true; if all males were "anti-female", then wherever there are males in "power", there would be no females who have rights; no males would even entertain the notion, never mind vote in favor of it.







If all females were "anti-male", then there would be no females who CARE ABOUT,
or CARE FOR,
male infants, male children, male adolescents, or adult men.

If all "Whites" were anti-"Black", then wherever there are "Whites", there would be no "Blacks" who are treated like human beings, and if all "Blacks" were anti-"White", then wherever there are "Blacks", there would be no "Whites" who are treated like human beings, etc.





HUMANS WHO SEEK EXCUSES TO TREAT OTHER HUMAN BEINGS BADLY OFTEN USE RACE AND ANCESTRY AS AN EXCUSE, AND TRY TO RALLY OTHERS TO HATE AGAINST THAT GROUP.

(It is important to note that in earlier eras in Western culture (and in this current era in many other countries) speaking out against racism, sexism, or slavery meant knowingly putting one's very livelihood and physical life on the line, and people did it (and do it now) ANYWAY. Because it's the right thing, because it's right, because it's a horrific thing to stand there and watch another person get treated horribly by another person, to stand there and allow it.)



The reasons that OPPRESSION is perpetuated are NOT SOLELY because the group IN POWER believes in their own superiority. Oppression is maintained and perpetuated because OTHERS in the country, including many members of the oppressed group, ALSO buy into that group's "superiority" and power. 

In a very simplified analogy, but one that can be witnessed in many places, when adults BUY INTO the children in the school or region being "too hard to control", they end up ALLOWING those children to "take over" and run around behaving any way they can get away with behaving. Without the belief that the children have power, the adults would not have given the power up. This is a REAL and RAMPANT occurrence in modern society, and has happened over and over again throughout history. When a group of humans who are obsessed with domination over others GET TOGETHER and SCARE other groups into allowing them to dominate them, they are QUITE OFTEN successful. USUALLY, these groups will have some physical trait in common, such as skin color, ancestry, or gender, but often also AGE, one trait that seems to get overlooked.

It is quite true, that "Oppressors" have and DO, throughout human history, often gone as far as one can go with the use of violence and imprisonment against those they are trying to oppress.
However, in nearly every case, the success of their oppression lays in their ability to make people BELIEVE in both FEAR and HATRED.
    

The general myth in that region or country that many people there have bought into either subconsciously, or consciously, is that the group who holds power actually IS superior in some way.
Even if they don't believe that the group is innately superior, such as in intelligence, they can still believe that the individuals in the group are superior in force and strength. And that will keep enough people fearful enough to take the supposedly superior group so seriously that they don't think there's anything they can do, so it's not uncommon for various oppressed groups to caution:  "don't rock the boat; it will only get you hurt"; and they will often prevent others from doing anything as well, including even TALKING ABOUT oppression.)

"Don't Rock The Boat"
A favorite saying of both oppressors and those who fear oppressors.

When a person believes that another person is superior to them, they tend not to challenge the person.
When a person believes in the superiority of one TYPE of person, they tend to treat those who are NOT that type of person as "inferior".

It can look much like treating one person as a PARENTAL figure, and another person as "one of the children".

The most common oppression in the human species is obviously against females.
(Which is NOT the same as all males having or wanting superior power.)
This power struggle and projection of superiority and inferiority based on SEX can be found in almost every country, nearly every culture, every race, in most religions, and in government, business, and education.
It crosses ALL "divides". 

HOWEVER, the oppression against females DOES NOT MEAN that MALES are not ALSO oppressed, based on their sex. Males are ABSOLUTELY oppressed and controlled, just because they are MALES. They are most frequently oppressed by OTHER MALES who sit in positions of "power" and who are invested in KEEPING their "power".

Female oppression could not be so widespread if it was not for so many females buying the belief that males actually are superior. Many females will go along with this belief either unconsciously, because that's just what they were taught, how they were raised, and how they were indoctrinated, or with full awareness. Getting "ganged up on" or rejected by those around them who are supposed to be friends, family, and fellow citizens is the most common reason for women backing down from standing up for themselves or for other females; the consequences are often immediate, and can be very serious, even in relatively wealthy cultures in the West that pose as "moral", "equal", or "enlightened". This behavior coming from others starts early during childhood, and increases as a female child looks and sounds more and more like a "woman" as she gets older.

Many of the females who consciously go along with it are simply doing it so that they can have power over OTHER FEMALES, and use the existing dynamics of a male-biased culture to perpetuate this CONTROL.
Infantalizing other females is one of the common behaviors of women who seek control over women; treating other females as if they are less capable than males, or less capable than other women; treating other females as if they are weak, silly, unstable, inexperienced, uninformed, and undeserving of the same courtesy and respect given to other human beings (male or female) of the same age.

Women who do this will condescend to other females in similar ways that men will who are male-biased: talking "down" to other females whom they've targeted, trying to "prove" that another female is of bad character, or is incapable, weak, or stupid, and trying to render the other females' point of view as unqualified, crazy, or unfounded. 

Obviously, MEN who also seek control over females are not going to stick up for a female who is being bullied by another female, because he has a similar motive and agenda.
So women who do this to other females (both children and adult females) usually feel safe in this behavior from consequences.

*Sadly, many women who use the dynamics of a male-biased culture to bully other females actually believe that because they are participating in the bullying of females, that they are accepted by the men around them as "one of they guys".  There is a gap in their "logic"; they think that by performing the same behaviors and prejudice patterns, that they're creating their own membership in the "superior" group, in this case, anti-female-biased males, and are therefore fully accepted by them.

They don't seem to realize that anti-female-bias applies to ALL females, not just certain females.

This same kind of behavior (if you can't beat em, join em) can be seen in all manner of other forms of oppression as well, including racial and religions group oppression.

There is a term in American culture, more specifically in African-American culture, that refers to a person who purposely behaved in ways to win approval from oppressive Caucasians ("whites") from a novel of the same name by Harriet Beecher Stowe.

~("The term "Uncle Tom" is used as a derogatory epithet for an excessively subservient person, particularly when that person perceives their own lower-class status based on race. It is similarly used to negatively describe a person who betrays their own group by participating in its oppression, whether or not they do so willingly.
The popular negative connotation of "Uncle Tom" has largely been attributed to numerous derivative works inspired by Uncle Tom's Cabin in the decade after its release, rather than the original novel itself, whose title character is a more positive figure.These works lampooned and distorted the portrayal of Uncle Tom with politically loaded.American copyright law before 1856 did not give novel authors any control over derivative stage adaptations, so Stowe neither approved the adaptations nor profited from them.")

>>>If ONLY males believed in male superiority, there would be either much, much less oppression of females, or it would look much different than it does today.
Believing in the superiority of a group can mean actually believing that the members of the group are innately superior, OR, one can believe that they are TOO FORMIDABLE as a group, and as individuals, to risk offending.

Females can be (and are) taught to believe in male superiority, just like male children can be. They may also FEAR standing up for themselves, but that fear is learned, it's not automatic.
~If a given group, a region or a country, was biased for females and against males, then male children would be taught to believe in female superiority in the same way, for the same reasons: keeping the status quo, making sure that those who have power keep it.
People learn that they are a member of an oppressed group when they stand up for themselves against even just a random, seemingly trivial injustice or unfairness, but get invalidated, ignored, shut down, or further threatened or bullied by members of their own group.
Members of the supposedly "superior" group of course may try to shut them down, but it's when members of their OWN group shut them down or refuse to stand up with them or for them that "Oppression" reveals itself.



It is no different in regions that one race or ancestry keeps others oppressed, or in regions where one race or ancestry is oppressed by all of the others.



In order to understand oppression, one must understand that sexism and racism are TOOLS that oppressors use in order to get others to GO ALONG WITH THEM in their plays for power. 

A PERSON WHO OPPRESS ANOTHER RACE DOES NOT ACTUALLY WANT ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN RACE TO HAVE POWER AND CONTROL, THEY JUST WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES.

A PERSON WHO OPPRESSES THE OTHER SEX DOES NOT ACTUALLY WANT ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN SEX TO HAVE POWER AND CONTROL, THEY JUST WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES.



Humans also use religion (and anti-religion) as an excuse for supremacy and oppression of others.All oppression comes from the same origin.

Control-seeking humans will ALSO USE the oppression or past oppression of their own group as a weapon to try to control other people, both people of their OWN group, and people of other groups (race, sex, religion, etc.)
Projecting SHAME onto others for the oppressive actions of others of the same race, sex, age group, or ancestry is a common tactic,
as well as projecting SHAME onto those of their own race, sex, or group who refuse to go along with HATRED or attempts to "oppress BACK".


HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

If an individual person is seeking "evidence" to show that one group is superior, or that another group is inferior, they will do that WHEREVER they are, and WHOEVER is around them.
So for example if Jason (who seeks to feel naturally superior) lives in New York, he would be surrounded by nearly every type of human being that can be found on the planet. Jason can simply pick any "type" of human being to label as "inferior".
So while Jason is living in NYC, he chooses a couple of groups to be "inferior": women of all races, and anyone of Asian or blond-haired ancestry. There are women of all races all around him, and there are also both male and female Asians and blond-haired people all around him, all the time. He can get his fix of feeling superior just by walking out of his front door.

But when Jason moves out of NYC to a smaller town in a Northern state, there are no Asians there. So now Jason changes his bias to being against Hispanics, because there are a few Mexican families there, and still blond-haired people and women of all races.

When Jason moves to a different country, he finds that there are no blond-haired people, and all of the people have dark skin, like himself. So Jason can still get his "fix" of belief in his own superiority from being around women, but his ancestry bias doesn't work so well.

However, Jason finds that he is able to break down people into sub-groups INSIDE of this group of "dark-skinned" people, and finds satisfaction for his desire for supremacy that way.
So those who are of one certain ancestry within this group are supposed to be "superior", and this other group is "inferior".

Jason finds that there are others like him in the group who use things like shades of skin color, subtle differences in speech, and exactly what part of town a person lives in to separate people into sub-groups and cast "inferiority" on them.
Jason also finds satisfaction in separating people within this group of people by specific beliefs, and by the possible financial status of a person's family.
(Jason thinks he knows how much money other people have by the way they look and act.)
When Jason's JOB causes him to have to move to a compound where there are ONLY men, who all receive similar pay, AND who are all of the same ancestry, at first he feels VERY insecure; there are no people who he can point his finger at and call "OTHER", so he doesn't know how to get his "fix" of superiority.
Worse still for Jason's supremacy addiction, he is not the most skilled nor the most experienced, so he can't use either of those; he's starting to fear that he won't be able to get his fix.
 
Eventually, he finds that most of the people there who are like himself (seeking ways to feel superior) tend to bad-mouth the business-hierarchy in his company. 

After a while, bad-mouthing the "higher-ups" wears thin, especially since they rarely come around and show their faces, so Jason starts separating the other men in his work-group into even smaller sub-categories. 

First, Jason notices that a couple of his co-worker men have different hair styles, so that's the first thing he tries to use to separate his co-workers into sub-groups that are either superior (like him) or inferior (not like him).
Then he notices that some of the men are shorter in height than he is, so he starts trying to insult their stature. He implies that they're not as capable as he is, that they're weaker than he is, and that they're emotionally or mentally less stable and secure (ironically).
When that doesn't work well enough to give him the "fix" he craves, he starts honing in the weight and body types of his male co-workers. He singles out the couple of men who are a little heavier around the mid-section, making fun of their weight, implying that they're in poorer health, and that they have weaker self-control.
Then Jason notices that there are a couple of men who have slender builds, so he starts making subtle and not-so-subtle remarks insulting their bodies, implying that they're "breakable" like "twigs", and not as strong as everyone else. 

Jason tries to get others to join with him whenever he targets someone to project inferiority onto.

After a while, he notices that there are others in the group who already have separated the men by subtle political differences, and he jumps on that bandwagon, although he doesn't actually care one way or the other about those political beliefs.

When the group has become divided enough for there to be two DISTINCT sub-groups, based on "political beliefs", then Jason starts to separate the men inside of these groups, and make "his" sub-group the "superior" one.

Jason will continue to create excuses to split others into groups, and sub-groups, and sub-categories, and sub-sub-groups, as long as he lives, because he does not realize that he
DOES NOT FEEL LIKE A VALID HUMAN BEING unless he feels like he is a member of a "superior" group. And he will use anything he can in order to get that "fix" that he craves.

Jason associates being "superior" with having power and control over the group, over RESOURCES, and over decision-making.
Jason feels that if he's not one of the "superior" people, then someone else WILL BE, automatically. Because this is how JASON thinks, he assumes that everyone else thinks the same way, and that therefore everyone else is competing for superiority, control, and power.

Whatever group, sub-group, or sub-category Jason decides he belongs to, that's the group he sees as "deserving power" and "deserving credit" because they are "superior" in so many ways.

Narcissistic Parents

"You used to think that by the time you were in your twenties and definitely by your thirties you’d have your act together – you’d be establishing a successful career, have your own place, be in a committed and stable relationship, visit the gym enough to have the body you always wanted and your social life would be vibrant.

But, you’re nowhere near where you thought you’d be, and the tiny boxes next to the list of achievements that you’d hoped to accomplish are still unchecked.
As your confidence deflates, you look back on your own upbringing, and think about your father – Mr Self-Assured. He seemed to have it all – charm, success, popularity and he never seemed to be plagued by self-doubt, unlike you. He was the... 

(Narcissistic Fathers: Mark Banschick, M.D.)

The Narcissistic Parent :Light's House

When Mothers and Daughters Compete: Narcissist Mothers

The Repetition of Trauma with Narcissistic Spouse/PartnerSo often those who are married to narcissistic spouses or who have narcissistic partners are repeating an abusive cycle of behavior that they experienced in childhood and beyond. They move from the traumatic home where they were continually in a psychological state of siege to marriage to a narcissistic partner who always has them in a state of apprehension and in some cases–all out terror. Each moment they know that their narcissistic partner might come unglued and go into a violent vituperative rage. They know it will happen–the question is When? The narcissistic spouse is predictably unpredictable.

Psychiatry? Psychology? Or Blowing Smoke On Occam's Razor?

Let us ask, in the name of science and Occam's Razor, why it seems so much easier for humans to diagnose behavioral and apparent emotional or mental issues in ANIMALS, but they make it such a mysterious and "highly intellectual and academic" process in diagnosing human beings?

When someone's pet dog barks and howls when the owner leaves them alone, no one questions a trainer or a veterinarian when they simply say "the dog is obviously anxious because it was left alone; dogs are pack animals, so being left alone in a confined area, and being separated from their owner can of course cause them to become upset and anxious... etc.. The dog is a social animal. The dog naturally wants companionship and leadership. The dog naturally does not want to be separated from its owner/pack leader. Therefore the dog is anxious. ALSO, the dog becomes more anxious because of certain noises in the area.
In order to HELP THE DOG FEEL BETTER, simply do this..." (whatever they prescribe).

So, why exactly does a human child who is also a "social animal", who cries when Mother and Father leave her with someone else in an unfamiliar or scary environment get weird speculations about some kind of "emotional illness" slapped on her?
It's not the fact that she's getting left in an unfamiliar, foreign environment, or that human children naturally want to be with their parents, or that human children have natural boundaries that prevent them from simply trusting any stranger or acquaintance. Nor could "excessive crying" possibly be an effect of something else that may have happened to the child either in the past or recently... right?
(But if we think something did happen, we'll immediately blame the mother OR father first...) 

Apparently, the DOG is "legitimately anxious" because of nature and external situations, events, and factors, but the HUMAN is just CRAZY, or has some kind of inner DEFECT when SHE is anxious. It's not because of anything, it's just HER... she's just "screwed up". Or, her mother is "screwed up..." It can't be anything else that we might have to find out about.

And further, if anyone connected to the child wants to share information with us about the child's life, or about that environment, we'll treat them like they're acting strange, even histrionic or codependent, or BPD...
 
The capacity for DENIAL in humans, ABOUT other humans, is absolutely MIND BLOWING, both in and out of psychiatric, medical, and social fields.

This is not an article to demonize every person who works in these fields. There are plenty of individuals who are competent and objectively scientific, and who actually respect and care about other human beings, both male and female, young and old. But in general, these fields don't seem to care much about gathering FACTS and actual INFORMATION. They tend to be quite used to getting away with "practicing" on pure speculation and assumption, and JUDGMENT and BIAS, and not a little arrogance.

If you want to find out for yourself, set yourself up as a patient in a psychiatric hospital and see what happens. You're "sane" and of sound mind, right? So what do you have to worry about...?
Surely the staff will recognize you right away as "one of them", one of the "sane people", and not try to diagnose or medicate you ..... right...?   

So, the cat at the shelter who HISSES at everyone that comes in is simply defensive because of what he's been through. You can't get near him, you have to be careful when you feed and water him, he doesn't seem to like other cats, he tries to bite and scratch, the veterinarian has to sedate him, but you can "understand why he's like that because of what he's been through"..! Right? Sure. Someone abused him at some point. He was living in an abandoned barn because someone abandoned him. All of his behaviors are completely understandable, and they're OBVIOUSLY from what he's BEEN THROUGH, what he's ENDURED, the POOR CAT, let's give him all the CARE and UNDERSTANDING we can muster.
RIGHT?

YES, in my personal opinion, YES, that's what should be going on, absolutely. The poor cat, he deserves to be understood and given CARE, and treated with RESPECT, especially given what he's endured.

So... how does that go again when a HUMAN walks into a doctor's or psychiatrist's office? Or the average counselor's office? Does anyone take that human's entire history seriously? And connect that human's current apparent emotional effects, affect, reactions and behaviors with that human's actual life events, either in the distant or recent past? Either or both, or is it just BARELY acknowledged, and REALLY, we treat this human as if they dropped out of the sky with all these "issues"? Like they were just born this way, and they would have been the SAME if they were raised in Atlantis by the Utopian royal family?

So the CAT'S behavior is because of what it's been through, not because he was just BORN "mean".
But the HUMAN's behavior and emotional profile is just "because", umm... that's "how she is"... she's just some kind of nutjob with a defective brain.
Yeah... that's it... so break out that prescription pad and give her something to affect her brain, and SEND HER ON HER WAY, get her OUT of our hair, and collect that paycheck.
In the meantime, let's make sure that poor cat is comfortable, protected, fed, and taken care of.

"Science" even fully recognizes the effects of the SOCIAL CLIMATE on the emotional and mental well-being of all other animals, and on their behavior, but apparently NOT on the animal called "human".

When an animal in a group seems to behave differently or oddly, the humans observing them IMMEDIATELY jump to finding out WHY, and they look to only a few factors:

The way the OTHER animals in the group are TREATING it,
the environment itself (food, water, terrain, weather, predators, etc)
physical disease that's affecting the animal's health and nervous system. 

They don't just single out the animal and call it "mentally ill"!
They actually LOOK at what's going on, and what has happened in the animal's life.
And they do that FIRST, and in a thorough manner until they find out what's going on,  not as an afterthought..

So... why exactly DON'T medical, psychiatric, or psychology "professionals" do that when it comes to HUMANS who behave "differently" or who are "more emotional" or "more reactive", or "can't get along well with others", or who don't seem to be interested in school or work, etc,, etc.

There is no good reason. Occam's razor is about looking at the most obvious factors about something FIRST. That means NOT making things more mysterious than they really are, not introducing all kinds of theories when the factors are right in front of you.

If a child is cutting themselves, I would bet TEN TO ONE that the child has been traumatized or abused in some way by another human being in their personal life. Direct abuse, neglect, or witnessing the abuse of a loved one is a safe bet. These are ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, the child wasn't born as a "cutter".
So treating the child as if they're simply "defective", and not dealing with trauma and external events is frankly just sick, and it's very irresponsible.
Medicate the CHILD and act like there's nothing else going on in the child's life, and that the child is just making things up? Is that any way to treat another human being? Is that how anyone would want to be treated by others, especially professionals who are supposed to be there to protect and help?

Let's give the person who comes in with social anxiety a diagnosis of a disorder, and throw some pills at them, and invalidate everything they say about what's really going on in their families or at their job.

Let's ignore the person's claims of childhood abuse when they show signs of depression or suicide, and keep telling them to focus on themselves instead of other people... and throw some pills at them and tell them to go home.


Let's deny the next patient's obvious need to tell their story and be heard and validated by a supposedly NEUTRAL human being ,who they're PAYING, treat them like they're not that bright, definitely not as bright as WE ARE, and throw some medication at them.

WOW.
So when HUMANS have issues, it's not from anything they've been through, lived through, the household they grew up in, the people in their lives NOW, the atmosphere of social interaction in their community, OR from events in their lives that would be traumatic or upsetting for anyone... Nope, it's just because they're DEFECTIVE, and need to be medicated.

And if they're DEFECTIVE, let's NOT EXPLORE anything MEDICAL!

RIGHT?

It's much more fun, and lucrative, to call it "psychiatric", and AVOID doing any neurological testing or exploration.
I mean, never mind about all that trauma or social dynamic stuff... that's just for every OTHER species on the planet.  That doesn't have a WALLET.