Stumbled across this while looking for something else
useful insight
Dec. 12th, 2020 12:42 pmI was thinking about kids playing and the "game" of "keep away" came to mind.
That's where someone snatches something of someone else's and a group of kids "keep it away" from the owner. Can be harmless fun.
But usually it *isn't*. Because they'l grab it from some kid who isn't big enough to make them give it back nor fast enough to catch one of them before they toss it to someone else.
and the insight I had was that someone should stop the kids and point out that *they* may be having fun but the kid the item belongs to *isn't*. If he had a reasonable chance, then it *might* still be considered play. but as he doesn't it's turned into bullying.
After more thought, I realized this principle is *far* more widely applicable and applies to much of what is wrong with the world.
"You" (generic) may be having fun but the people you are "playing" with aren't. And that's usually because they don't have a reasonable chance against you.
This applies to various forms of harassment, power games and so on.
If we could just teach *kids* that it's *wrong* to be having "fun" at the expense of others who no longer find it remotely "fun" (if they ever did) just think what things might be like if they carried the new attitude over to when they are adults.
BTW, note how the justifications for a lot of bullying by kids amounts to "but they are just having fun". Or the more subtle "it encourages them to be stronger/faster/tougher".
The first is directly addressed by "the other kid(s) *aren't* having fun"
The second is likely best addressed by "it only 'helps' them if there's a *reasonable* chance for them to 'win'. If there isn't, it just rubs their noses in their shortcomings."
Again, consider how this carries over to adult behavior and often gets "justified" by "we went thru it, so should they" bit
That's where someone snatches something of someone else's and a group of kids "keep it away" from the owner. Can be harmless fun.
But usually it *isn't*. Because they'l grab it from some kid who isn't big enough to make them give it back nor fast enough to catch one of them before they toss it to someone else.
and the insight I had was that someone should stop the kids and point out that *they* may be having fun but the kid the item belongs to *isn't*. If he had a reasonable chance, then it *might* still be considered play. but as he doesn't it's turned into bullying.
After more thought, I realized this principle is *far* more widely applicable and applies to much of what is wrong with the world.
"You" (generic) may be having fun but the people you are "playing" with aren't. And that's usually because they don't have a reasonable chance against you.
This applies to various forms of harassment, power games and so on.
If we could just teach *kids* that it's *wrong* to be having "fun" at the expense of others who no longer find it remotely "fun" (if they ever did) just think what things might be like if they carried the new attitude over to when they are adults.
BTW, note how the justifications for a lot of bullying by kids amounts to "but they are just having fun". Or the more subtle "it encourages them to be stronger/faster/tougher".
The first is directly addressed by "the other kid(s) *aren't* having fun"
The second is likely best addressed by "it only 'helps' them if there's a *reasonable* chance for them to 'win'. If there isn't, it just rubs their noses in their shortcomings."
Again, consider how this carries over to adult behavior and often gets "justified" by "we went thru it, so should they" bit
While talking about a number of things with ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alatefeline last night a couple of things came up.
One was unconscious assumptions. The other was the old canard "it takes two to make a fight".
While reading this article, the two ideas bashed together in my head.
The problem with "it takes two to fight" is the horribly inaccurate assumption it makes about "male" interactions in childhood. Namely that the choice is "fight"/"don't fight".
In reality, the choice is "get beat up"/"try to protect yourself". so it's actually unconscious gaslighting.
I mentioned "male" above because in my experience, it's always the female authority figures spouting this nonsensical piece of "wisdom". I suspect that is because of the differences in "male" and "female" socialization. Boys are expected to have fights. girls are "trained" to attack in less physical ways.
Though come to think of it, "it takes to to have a fight" *should* be equally applicable (and wrong) to the social sniping among girls, which can get *really* nasty by high school.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me" is another horrible example of gaslighting kids and is another bit of "wisdom" that should be stomped on *hard*.
Name calling can do *more* damage than physical assault, Bruises, even broken bones heal a lot faster than the emotional damage those "harmless" words can inflict.
I know I'm far from the only person to have PTSD from *emotional* abuse.
alatefeline last night a couple of things came up.One was unconscious assumptions. The other was the old canard "it takes two to make a fight".
While reading this article, the two ideas bashed together in my head.
The problem with "it takes two to fight" is the horribly inaccurate assumption it makes about "male" interactions in childhood. Namely that the choice is "fight"/"don't fight".
In reality, the choice is "get beat up"/"try to protect yourself". so it's actually unconscious gaslighting.
I mentioned "male" above because in my experience, it's always the female authority figures spouting this nonsensical piece of "wisdom". I suspect that is because of the differences in "male" and "female" socialization. Boys are expected to have fights. girls are "trained" to attack in less physical ways.
Though come to think of it, "it takes to to have a fight" *should* be equally applicable (and wrong) to the social sniping among girls, which can get *really* nasty by high school.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me" is another horrible example of gaslighting kids and is another bit of "wisdom" that should be stomped on *hard*.
Name calling can do *more* damage than physical assault, Bruises, even broken bones heal a lot faster than the emotional damage those "harmless" words can inflict.
I know I'm far from the only person to have PTSD from *emotional* abuse.
The Wrath of Hannelore
Dec. 21st, 2017 08:04 amWe see a very different side of a character in Questionable Content
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3635
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3636
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3637
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3638
Note, the "Taffy" Hannelore's mother refers to in the first strip is actually named "Tilly".
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3635
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3636
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3637
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3638
Note, the "Taffy" Hannelore's mother refers to in the first strip is actually named "Tilly".
on gaslighting
Apr. 27th, 2017 09:25 pm(this is an edited version of a comment I made on one of Fayanora's posts a few years back. Figured it deserved wider distribution:
"There’s a form of mental torture called “gaslighting,” its name taken from a play in which a man..." http://t.co/bMtUp2LccQ
Abuse survivors deal with this a lot, and even more so when they are still being abused.
It's due to a major disconnect most folks have.
They (wrongly) believe that *intent* matters. So if it wasn't intended as abuse, it's not actually abusive.
But in reality, intent *doesn't* matter. You can do something with the best of intentions and still hurt someone if they are wired that way.
A good example is allergies. I don't care *how* much care and love you put into that dish of X. If I'm allergic to something in it, you'll put me in the hospital (or the morgue) by making me eat it.
Same thing applies to abusive behavior. Even the racial stuff and GLBT stuff.
But people will fight bitterly to avoid acknowledging this. Because if they do, it means they have to accept several things that they don't want to.
That good intentions don't matter. That other people are not like them, and thus don't react like they do. And worst of all, that being different that way is *not* wrong.
And that last is why so many reactions to getting called on stuff boil down to "you're doing this just to be contrary" (because they *literally* can't conceive of someone actually being/thinking "that" way)
I blame the golden rule for a lot of this. It *inherently assumes* that other people are just like you. The allergy example I used above points out the problems with that.
And gee, ever notice how many people don't *really* believe that allergies exist, they think that they are just people being unreasonably "picky".
Funny how that looks like the folks who claim that they aren't being insensitive/abusive.
The version of the "golden rule" used in metalaw works better but people really hate it:
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
People immediately jump to "but they can abuse that for all sorts of things". Which says a lot about how they think...
"There’s a form of mental torture called “gaslighting,” its name taken from a play in which a man..." http://t.co/bMtUp2LccQ
Abuse survivors deal with this a lot, and even more so when they are still being abused.
It's due to a major disconnect most folks have.
They (wrongly) believe that *intent* matters. So if it wasn't intended as abuse, it's not actually abusive.
But in reality, intent *doesn't* matter. You can do something with the best of intentions and still hurt someone if they are wired that way.
A good example is allergies. I don't care *how* much care and love you put into that dish of X. If I'm allergic to something in it, you'll put me in the hospital (or the morgue) by making me eat it.
Same thing applies to abusive behavior. Even the racial stuff and GLBT stuff.
But people will fight bitterly to avoid acknowledging this. Because if they do, it means they have to accept several things that they don't want to.
That good intentions don't matter. That other people are not like them, and thus don't react like they do. And worst of all, that being different that way is *not* wrong.
And that last is why so many reactions to getting called on stuff boil down to "you're doing this just to be contrary" (because they *literally* can't conceive of someone actually being/thinking "that" way)
I blame the golden rule for a lot of this. It *inherently assumes* that other people are just like you. The allergy example I used above points out the problems with that.
And gee, ever notice how many people don't *really* believe that allergies exist, they think that they are just people being unreasonably "picky".
Funny how that looks like the folks who claim that they aren't being insensitive/abusive.
The version of the "golden rule" used in metalaw works better but people really hate it:
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
People immediately jump to "but they can abuse that for all sorts of things". Which says a lot about how they think...
Way too real indeed
Jul. 29th, 2016 05:20 pmhttp://fayanora.tumblr.com/post/147780318077/animatorzee-people-will-tell-you-that-emotional
It'd be scary how many of those had me nodding my head if I hadn't figured out *years* ago that I'd been being abused.
I hope none of you recognize any of your life in there.
It'd be scary how many of those had me nodding my head if I hadn't figured out *years* ago that I'd been being abused.
I hope none of you recognize any of your life in there.
Dysfunctional relationships
Sep. 12th, 2015 03:24 pmBreak Up to Make Up by The Stylistics just came up on my playlist. And it got me thinking.
*Way* too many "love songs" are about *severely* screwed up relationships.
*Way* too many "love songs" are about *severely* screwed up relationships.
"accidental" rape
Aug. 28th, 2014 04:17 pmThis post got me thinking. And while it's appalling I realized something about the way guys are "indoctrinated".
Guys, especially teens *know* that *of course* everyone wants sex. They don't even question it.
A fair number figure that there are reasons why a girl might not want to admit it. They get *that* much* of female cultural conditioning.
But I suspect that the vast majority would find the concept of girls actively not *wanting* to have sex totally incomprehensible. And a lot don't "get it" even after they become "responsible adults.
The simple fact is responsible for vast amounts of suffering.
So, not only do we need to quit teaching that "no means no" (rather teach that "anything but an explicit *yes* means no") but we need to get across to guys that for females sex is a *horribly* risky thing and that they have a lot of very good reasons to not even want to *consider* it.
With that context, teaching them that "consent means an explicit yes" will be a lot easier.
Heck, it might even make the stupidity that is "abstinence only" sex "education" a bit less of a major fail.
Guys, especially teens *know* that *of course* everyone wants sex. They don't even question it.
A fair number figure that there are reasons why a girl might not want to admit it. They get *that* much* of female cultural conditioning.
But I suspect that the vast majority would find the concept of girls actively not *wanting* to have sex totally incomprehensible. And a lot don't "get it" even after they become "responsible adults.
The simple fact is responsible for vast amounts of suffering.
So, not only do we need to quit teaching that "no means no" (rather teach that "anything but an explicit *yes* means no") but we need to get across to guys that for females sex is a *horribly* risky thing and that they have a lot of very good reasons to not even want to *consider* it.
With that context, teaching them that "consent means an explicit yes" will be a lot easier.
Heck, it might even make the stupidity that is "abstinence only" sex "education" a bit less of a major fail.
Consent isn't easy
Jun. 16th, 2014 02:40 pmThis post raises some interesting issues about consent.
It also reminds me of something else I read recently regarding questioning someone for information when they may be trying to be misleading (or just trying to give you the answer they think you want). Again, as in the post, you can't ask questions that suggest what the answer is.
That is, Don't ask "did he do X?" Instead, you have to ask "what happened?" or "show me what he did."
This is especially true with kids.
Asking leading questions is one of the big things that lead to all the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" nonses 30(?) years back. Folks asking very young kids leading questions, and the kids trying to please the adult by giving the answrs they think the adults want.
BTW, this may have been a factor in the Salem Witch trials, at lesast at the beginning. Later, things were more driven by the girls realizing the power theyt had to get other people in trouble.
It also reminds me of something else I read recently regarding questioning someone for information when they may be trying to be misleading (or just trying to give you the answer they think you want). Again, as in the post, you can't ask questions that suggest what the answer is.
That is, Don't ask "did he do X?" Instead, you have to ask "what happened?" or "show me what he did."
This is especially true with kids.
Asking leading questions is one of the big things that lead to all the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" nonses 30(?) years back. Folks asking very young kids leading questions, and the kids trying to please the adult by giving the answrs they think the adults want.
BTW, this may have been a factor in the Salem Witch trials, at lesast at the beginning. Later, things were more driven by the girls realizing the power theyt had to get other people in trouble.
socialization is important, but...
Jun. 10th, 2014 01:29 pmI've been working my way through an interesting person's tumblr (warning, she's got a *lot* of NSFW content) and I ran across this entry.
The comments about "forced socialization" are *so* true. Yet somehow most teachers, parents and other adults don't seem to even *consider* the possibility of any of this.
I expect a lot is due to this cultures overwhelming bias towards extroverts.
But it's also a symptom of the practice of adults not *listening* to kids. You can't just throw a kid in with a bunch of other kids and expect them to learn social skills by osmosis, much less make friends.
Yeah, it works often enough to be seen (via selection bias) as workable. The problem is that when it doesn't work, it usually goes pretty far into the negative. And then we blame the kid for not being able to get along or whatever. Hell, it's where a lot of bullying comes from.
Parents *really* need to stop and listen. And consider that while the kid may not be expressing himself well, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point. He (or she) may well know quite well that things are going wrong (and how), but just lacks the vocabulary to discuss it.
Lack of success does *not* mean lack of effort. Often it's a case of clashing personality types. Or of ignorance.
I know that I had some difficulties fitting in in the first few grades because (due to being raised by a widow) I didn't know the rules to baseball, football, etc. Didn't help that mom's husband had been a lefty, so when she gave me his old baseball glove it didn't help.
We *really* could use someone sitting down and writing out all the stuff "normal" kids *do* pick up thru osmosis and writing it down (probably as a series of "age" appropriate books) for the kids (and adults) who *don't* figure it out.
Also need something to explain to the kids who don't "work" the way "normal" kids do (and their parents and teachers) that it's not *wrong* to be different. And suggest coping strategies that *aren't* "fake it".
The comments about "forced socialization" are *so* true. Yet somehow most teachers, parents and other adults don't seem to even *consider* the possibility of any of this.
I expect a lot is due to this cultures overwhelming bias towards extroverts.
But it's also a symptom of the practice of adults not *listening* to kids. You can't just throw a kid in with a bunch of other kids and expect them to learn social skills by osmosis, much less make friends.
Yeah, it works often enough to be seen (via selection bias) as workable. The problem is that when it doesn't work, it usually goes pretty far into the negative. And then we blame the kid for not being able to get along or whatever. Hell, it's where a lot of bullying comes from.
Parents *really* need to stop and listen. And consider that while the kid may not be expressing himself well, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point. He (or she) may well know quite well that things are going wrong (and how), but just lacks the vocabulary to discuss it.
Lack of success does *not* mean lack of effort. Often it's a case of clashing personality types. Or of ignorance.
I know that I had some difficulties fitting in in the first few grades because (due to being raised by a widow) I didn't know the rules to baseball, football, etc. Didn't help that mom's husband had been a lefty, so when she gave me his old baseball glove it didn't help.
We *really* could use someone sitting down and writing out all the stuff "normal" kids *do* pick up thru osmosis and writing it down (probably as a series of "age" appropriate books) for the kids (and adults) who *don't* figure it out.
Also need something to explain to the kids who don't "work" the way "normal" kids do (and their parents and teachers) that it's not *wrong* to be different. And suggest coping strategies that *aren't* "fake it".
On the kingdom mailing list, there have been a number of comments about kids and making them safe (triggered by some unclear rule changes about what sort of supervision kids need at events).
I decided that my responses to a couple of them need sharing. Please note that I'm talking mostly as someone who remembers all too well what it was like as a kid.
( Read more... )
I decided that my responses to a couple of them need sharing. Please note that I'm talking mostly as someone who remembers all too well what it was like as a kid.
( Read more... )
Fathers Day
Jun. 21st, 2009 10:11 amI'm glad for those of you that have v(or had) them.
But some of us didn't nothing extreme or "magic" required. (This is in response to someone's LJ noting that he was pretty sure all of his readers had them and then going "....barring [list of weird and unlikely circumstances]..."
Quite simple. I was adopted as a baby by a widow. So, while Had a father in the technical sense, in the practical sense? No.
There are lots of other ways that can happen. Ones that aren't *really* all that unlikely
So enjoy the fathers you have. Or the memories.
Just try to not rub it in too bad for those who don't have that.
But some of us didn't nothing extreme or "magic" required. (This is in response to someone's LJ noting that he was pretty sure all of his readers had them and then going "....barring [list of weird and unlikely circumstances]..."
Quite simple. I was adopted as a baby by a widow. So, while Had a father in the technical sense, in the practical sense? No.
There are lots of other ways that can happen. Ones that aren't *really* all that unlikely
So enjoy the fathers you have. Or the memories.
Just try to not rub it in too bad for those who don't have that.
(no subject)
Jan. 21st, 2003 02:46 pmReading ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
griffen's recent entries made me look at some of my "stuff" a bit harder. A few thoughts follow.
( Read more... )
griffen's recent entries made me look at some of my "stuff" a bit harder. A few thoughts follow.( Read more... )
(no subject)
Dec. 24th, 2002 07:00 pmI was thinking of writing a "what I'd like for Christmas" post, and remembered this bit that I wrote in March of last year.
It's a bit of a downer, but I think it needs to be said anyway.
( Read more... )
It's a bit of a downer, but I think it needs to be said anyway.
( Read more... )
I'm waiting for backlogged mail to process on Kathy's BBS box.
I got bored and something (maybe something from the TV Kathy's watching) got me thinking about what exactly I'd want in the way of a "sex friend" (I forget who came up with that, but it sounds much better than "fuck buddy" :-)
And the thought came to me that it'd be nice to be asked. (As opposed to asking).
I think this may apply to a lot of my "relationship stuff".
Maybe it's partly the "wanting to be wanted" bit. And I'm sure that some of it is "relief" from the "fear" of "pushing to hard".
This may be one of the nicer things about having Lin for a friend. She calls *me* a lot. Not that I don't call her, but I do hold back from calling all the time to avoid being a nuisance.
Anyway. I think that wanting to be asked bit may be an important insight. (aka a "duh! moment :-)
I got bored and something (maybe something from the TV Kathy's watching) got me thinking about what exactly I'd want in the way of a "sex friend" (I forget who came up with that, but it sounds much better than "fuck buddy" :-)
And the thought came to me that it'd be nice to be asked. (As opposed to asking).
I think this may apply to a lot of my "relationship stuff".
Maybe it's partly the "wanting to be wanted" bit. And I'm sure that some of it is "relief" from the "fear" of "pushing to hard".
This may be one of the nicer things about having Lin for a friend. She calls *me* a lot. Not that I don't call her, but I do hold back from calling all the time to avoid being a nuisance.
Anyway. I think that wanting to be asked bit may be an important insight. (aka a "duh! moment :-)
Last night Griffen and I spent a long time in chat discussing stuff. And he released me. He's no longer my Master. He's still my friend though.
( boring personal rambling follows )
( boring personal rambling follows )
Feelings...
Jul. 22nd, 2002 12:11 amLast night when I was talking to Lin, we were discussing trying to get the three of us (me, her, and her husband, Kermit) together to try out Chez Geek. (Yes, Griffen, it's all your fault! :-)
She pointed out that there weren't a lot of places to sit in my apartment (true). I jokingly pointed out that we'd need a clear tabletop to play.
Alas, I had stepped on a land mine.
I hadn't realized that the fact that her place is pretty messy bothered her. She'd prefer that it be much neater, but her fibro and her sometimes there sometimes not vision don't let her keep it as clean as she'd like.
So she blew up at me. She let me know in no uncertain terms that she was very hurt by that comment. I tried to apologize, but didn't do a very good job.
I worried about it on and off until I finally called her this evening. She was on the phone with a friend so she was pretty brief. She told me she was feeling better, but had to get back to the other call.
For some reason, that tripped things. After I hung up, I started crying. I was pretty upset, and (as those of you who know about my situation growing up could guess) I was afraid that she was going to be mad at me for that "forever".
She called me a while later. And she apologized to me for reacting so badly.
<shock>
I was still a bit "odd" from the tears and worrying, and I guess she could tell from the way I sounded (and the fact that I wasn't saying much).
I tried to explain that I don't deal well with situations where I have "screwed up". Which is true. I don't expect to be forgiven, I expect to have my face rubbed in it again and again. :-(
So she shocked me again by repeating the apology and saying she was forgetting the matter "It never happened" (not the words she used, but the basic idea).
Ok. That's nice. It's just not a reaction I'm at all used to. I guess it's good. But I'm still a bit discombobulated by things not taking the course I "expect".
<sigh>
Someday I may learn to be "normal".
She pointed out that there weren't a lot of places to sit in my apartment (true). I jokingly pointed out that we'd need a clear tabletop to play.
Alas, I had stepped on a land mine.
I hadn't realized that the fact that her place is pretty messy bothered her. She'd prefer that it be much neater, but her fibro and her sometimes there sometimes not vision don't let her keep it as clean as she'd like.
So she blew up at me. She let me know in no uncertain terms that she was very hurt by that comment. I tried to apologize, but didn't do a very good job.
I worried about it on and off until I finally called her this evening. She was on the phone with a friend so she was pretty brief. She told me she was feeling better, but had to get back to the other call.
For some reason, that tripped things. After I hung up, I started crying. I was pretty upset, and (as those of you who know about my situation growing up could guess) I was afraid that she was going to be mad at me for that "forever".
She called me a while later. And she apologized to me for reacting so badly.
<shock>
I was still a bit "odd" from the tears and worrying, and I guess she could tell from the way I sounded (and the fact that I wasn't saying much).
I tried to explain that I don't deal well with situations where I have "screwed up". Which is true. I don't expect to be forgiven, I expect to have my face rubbed in it again and again. :-(
So she shocked me again by repeating the apology and saying she was forgetting the matter "It never happened" (not the words she used, but the basic idea).
Ok. That's nice. It's just not a reaction I'm at all used to. I guess it's good. But I'm still a bit discombobulated by things not taking the course I "expect".
<sigh>
Someday I may learn to be "normal".
We had a great time!
Mar. 16th, 2002 03:19 amL and I wound talking for over 2 hours on the phone Friday morning. Then we met 3 hours before the party and spent another two and a hlaf hours talking.
She enjoyed the party, we had a good time.
"This looks like the start of a beautiful friendship" <g>
She enjoyed the party, we had a good time.
"This looks like the start of a beautiful friendship" <g>
Cross your fingers
Mar. 14th, 2002 11:29 pmWell, L and I are definitely on for the party tomorrow.
I'm trying not to get nervous. But if folks would think good thoughts, starting around 5:30 pm PST and going on til around 2 am, it would be *greatly* appreciated.
I'm trying not to get nervous. But if folks would think good thoughts, starting around 5:30 pm PST and going on til around 2 am, it would be *greatly* appreciated.
