The "strong woman" fetish on Netflix is reaching a point of insanity.

I have a daughter who loves teen dramas and guess who gets sucked into watching them at least once a weekend? That's right= this guy (points to self). And what do all of these shows have in common? Well the same thing that has infected 'adult' programming as well- the "strong woman" archetype. 

"But what's wrong with strong women? Why are you incels so obsessed with this? Is your masculinity threatened by a strong woman?" 

Yes, sure if that makes you happy. Now for the rest of us non simple minded, non hive minded individuals, the problem is three pronged I'd say:

1) It's misleading as all hell. My daughter parrots this "women are as strong as men and can do anything" stuff but if there's a bee, spider or even a cobweb in the vicinity she runs screaming for Daddy. So is she going to grow up feeling inadequate because she is not living up to this ideal of the "strong badass woman?" Are they actually dis-empowering females in an attempt to empower them? 

2) It could be dangerous. On one show she watches a teen girl is telling her teen friend (a male) about how she is being stalked by an older ex boyfriend. She tells him she is scared and not sure what to do or where this guy may show up. She finishes talking and the male friend (a much larger, stronger person) says "okay well I am going to walk you home, alright? In case he shows up." 

She looks at him with this absolutely incredulous look and then he apologizes and she says "I'll walk you home." After fighting to keep from rolling my eyes out of my head I started wondering about this idea that perhaps some girls might buy so much into this idea that they may make reckless decisions as they get older that may potentially lead them into danger. I hope not but media does shape people's perceptions (especially females who are more hive minded). 

3) It's just so fucking forced. I'm not watching organic characters and organic story lines- I'm seeing a political agenda being pushed through fictional media. Propaganda basically. 

There is also of course the question "if strength, aggressiveness and power (aka base masculine characteristics) is so bad and something they are trying to "teach boys out of" why are they turning around and pushing these ideals on women?" but I suppose that's a topic for another day......

I never get too wrapped up but this one is fucking with me. From reddit parenting:

Check out this post on reddit parenting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/a2w0c8/disturbing_messages_to_daughter/

TLDR A parent went through their 11 year old daughter's phone and are now talking about involving 'counselors' and school administrators because of messages from a boy (one year older than daughter) that consisted of silly/dumb/crude pickup lines involving body parts.

The comments all, and I mean ALL, support this idea and others actually go so far as to talk about involving the police and that this may constitute sexual harassment. I read this already knowing how most of modern society thinks but find myself lost, confused and raging at the lack of awareness of reality. So I (stupidly) decide to chime in.

I throw out the idea that at TWELVE he is just coming into puberty (which means raging hormones and new, confusing feelings) and that factored along with an undeveloped brain leads to clumsy shit like those crude pickup lines. I introduce the idea that he is just trying shit out and of COURSE it's going to be clumsy and ham fisted- he's TWELVE. I also ask if perhaps it was banter back and forth between the two and/or maybe a quote/in joke. I suggest that nothing really need be done and that the idea of involving 'counsellors' and ESPECIALLY the police is INSANE.

I foolishly thought maybe I'd talk some sense into these people. Nope. Downvote city.

I'm trying to forget it and move on (things are where they are; it's bigger than me and getting worked up only serves to make my mental state worse) but this one is really fucking with me. Lately I have been really thinking about how misunderstood boys are and how modern society is doing them a MAJOR disservice. Mental health crisis? It's only going to get worse. WAY worse. We've designed a square hole society and boys are the rounded pegs. "Boys will be boys" was reflective of a healthy understanding of the biological nature of males. But it's so heavily tied to "rape culture" and other such stuff now that the basic societal idea when it comes to boys is to "teach" them out of their biology. Which of course only serves to alienate and add to the mental health crisis that these same people are (ostensibly) so worried about.

I'm living in fucking crazyland and I can't stop thinking about it now. Fuck fuck fuck fuck. What a goddamn shame.

Just needed to vent (and hear from more sane people I guess).

EDIT: 

You've been banned from participating in r/Parenting

subreddit message via /r/Parenting[M] sent 20 hours ago

You have been banned from participating in r/Parenting. You can still view and subscribe to r/Parenting, but you won't be able to post or comment.

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/Parenting by replying to this message.

Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.

....But of course.

In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!

Common Parenting Mistake I See Everywhere

Taking a child expressing (clumsily; they're learning) their emotional reaction to something you say/do as "attitude" or "talking back," getting upset about it (ego) and then coming down overly hard (only making things worse).

For example, you tell your five year old that they need to finish their dinner before they can watch TV. They respond by telling you that you're "mean." You then get angry and come down on them (*how dare you speak to me that way* type of response, often followed by a threat or punishment).

A better response would be taking the time to explain your rationale for making them eat first before TV.

Kids need to know there's a beneficial reason for us stopping them from doing things otherwise they take it as nothing but authoritarian dominance and that sort of perceived dynamic never ends well.

I know we're often frustrated or tired and no one is perfect but trying to minimize this sort of thing is better for both parties in both the short and long term.

Let kids take risks. Let them fail. Let them get hurt. End Helicopter Parenting!

If you practice doing things in the face of possible danger as a child (sports, skateboarding, climbing trees, wrestling, etc), you become almost fearless as an adult which aids you in almost any realm (business, dating etc.). Let your kids take risks!

My ex wife HATES the way I let our daughter take risks. She HATES the way I don't coddle her when she is hurt (there's a difference between hurt and HURT, mothers) and instead insists she "mans up" so to speak. She HATES the way I let her fail over and over and over and don't lie and say everything she does is "good enough." Well in twenty years she'll be happy with who our daughter has become even if she won't have enough insight to understand how she became so. 

There's a difference between being hard and your kids/having expectations for them and being an unfeeling dick. I love the shit out of her and hug her every day. Doesn't mean the world needs to stop when she stubs a toe.

If you want your children to be self actualized, confident, powerful, contented, centered and engaged (with the world) adults..........when they are kids LET THEM BE KIDS. Helicopter parenting is the worst thing to happen to childhood since media reports of kidnappings became so prevalent (actually there's a casual relationship there which the media should have to answer for). It may sound stupid but there's a direct correlation between tree climbing and playfighting (risk taking and "violence") and adult success. Every time you tell them to stop because they "could get hurt" you're reducing their chances of succeeding later in life. Which of course you will blame them for in twenty years, adding to the damage you already caused. 

LET YOUR KIDS BE KIDS.  

Society focusing on the individual and thinking we are "free of" biology is a huge mistake.

The postmodernist idea of redefining everything (like gender roles or relationships) through the lens of personal freedom/happiness, etc might be great for individuals but like any problem, political or otherwise, we have to consider society as a whole across generations. Something might be better for individual humans but much worse for humans at the societal and/or multi-generational level. This is something we are really bad at thinking about and so many changes under way right now are great on the face of it but spell disaster long term.

The trend of ignoring the influence of biology on personal satisfaction is one example of this. There is a trend right now of acting like we are "beyond biology" but the truth is we are inexorably tied to our biological natures. The result of this is scores of people in 20 years saying things like "I am doing what we all agreed is our new freedom to do yet I am miserable. Why can't I just be happy?"

There is no "Real You." There is no "Real" Anybody.

Ever hear someone say something to the effect of "I thought I knew him/her but obviousdly not-she/he really revealed who he/she really is that day in that one moment. 20 years of knowing them (well, thinking I did) and it all goes away in an instant. How could I be so blind? Or were they just lying the whole time?

Maybe you have said something like that yourself.

Well.......

The deeper truth that a few philosophers, neuroscientists and psychonauts know is that there is no "real you." There is no "real anybody." All there is is tendencies governed by momentary situational factors. You might not see a certain behaviour in someone until 20 years into a relationship and this is not because they are hiding the "real them" but because the specific set of circumstances in play at the time of the behaviour had not existed in that exact form at any other time.

A pedestrian example is irritability when tired (which many people share). A "nice" person may be great 23 hours a day but a real shitbag between 7-8am. Which one is the "real them?"

A less pedestrian example is a self proclaimed (and seemingly objectively so) pacifist slapping his girlfriend in the face eight years into their relationship during a really bad fight. He had never, EVER shown any signs that this was possible nor had he ever hit anyone else in that eight years- wow, I guess you just don't know who someone "really is" even if you think you do. You had not seen that behaviour because those exact circumstances had not yet come into play. Not once before had you ever been in a major fight following infidelity and the death of his mother and found yourself making an egregious, incredibly hurtful comment about his other's death. And it's possible you may never see that type of reaction from him again. So which one is the "real him?" The "pacifist" or the (duhn duhn duhn) "abuser (#metoo)?"

Answer: It's all him.

"Temporary Insanity" Is a Legal Term But Not A Valid Psychological Concept

This is a short summation of the circumstances surrounding the first ever implementation of the legal defense known as "temporary insanity:"

George Reimus built a massive bootlegging empire during prohibition. His wife was by his side during his ascent to becoming a major kingpin and he provided her with anything she ever wanted.

Reimus gets sent to prison for a short 2 year prison term. He left her in charge of his entire empire while he was incarcerated. She was his soulmate and he trusted her completely, without hesitation.

His wife starts sleeping with a new man. Within 6 months, she sold all of her husband's assets, stole all his money, and filed for divorce.

Upon his release, George was driving to his divorce hearing when he spotted his wife in another car. He forced her car off the road, then shot and killed her. He immediately turned himself in and admitted to the murder.

At his trial, he pleaded temporary insanity and won. He said this afterwards: 

It was a duty I owed society. She who dances down the primrose path must die on the primrose path. I'm happy, this is the first piece of mind I've had in years - George Reimus

The problem with this defense is the fact that it's simply not real. 

"Temporary insanity" is a legal term but isn't at all a real psychological phenomenon. In fact, in reality, there is no sanity or insanity or even a "real you." There are just moment to moment brain states which are a result of biological, chemical, physiological, environmental, etc factors.

That guy wasn't "temporarily insane." His behaviour was the end result of a specific set of factors which were in play the moment he saw his wife; the reason he had never acted that way before was simply because he has never been in that situation before. Just like when an otherwise "friendly dog" attacks someone. They aren't insane in that moment; they were acting on circumstances that hadn't been in play prior to that moment.

Taking Reality for Granted?

Taking Reality for Granted?

We all have senses, and we use our senses to perceive the world around us. The sum total of our sensory perception is the input to which we ascribe the characteristic of reality. When we do this, we are effectively saying that what we sense around us is what exists around us, and we use this information to guide us as we move about the world in which we live. However, there is a problem inherent within this methodology, as philosophers have been noting for millenia: We cannot be certain that reality is as we perceive it, since the perceptions that we cite as evidence are necessarily subjective, and are devoid of external, independent confirmation of their accuracy. Or are they? This is the question I'd like to address.

Parenting: On Yelling and Hitting

My daughter is 7 now and I can count the times I have legitimately yelled at her on one hand. I have always talked to her, reasoned things out, etc. I prioritize her psychological health over anything else- us being late, me being tired, whatever. And I NEVER hit her. Or "spank" her (which is hitting, stop pretending otherwise).

I have always had a policy of "treat her like I'd like to be treated." No one would want to be yelled at or hit by someone six times their size, so why would we expect fragile little children to tolerate that? It's totally unfair (but I get it!!!! they don't understand our job and how they unintentionally make it harder and what we feel/go through, especially as single parents; we're tired, stressed, dissatisfied, etc....I do get it!).

People around me try to convince me to "toughen up" as they think sometimes things "take too long" (just yell and she'll do it right away, they say) but again my priority is her not me or them. Everyone always uses the running on the road example (what if she ran onto the road without looking, you're going to "talk" it out?) but she never does anything like that and she listens very well. She respects me because I treat/see her as a real person and I make sure to care about how she is feeling. In turn she doesn't want to disappoint me so she tries her best to be a helpful girl.

I know it's tough. We're tired, we're frustrated, the list of things to do never ends. But you have to keep in mind the nature of children, understand it and work with them- don't hold them responsible for their nature (they had nothing to do with it). Ask yourself why you yelled or hit and you'll realize your answers don't actually justify the response. It's always "we were going to be late or I said it four times already!" which really means "it didn't happen when I wanted it to" which is never worth even a minuscule amount of fear, anxiety, or hit to self confidence that they can (and do) experience. They are fragile and they need us to be on their side.

In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!

Re: On Labeling Women 'Crazy' (Thoughts From a Discussion I Had)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harris-oamalley/on-labeling-women-crazy_b_4259779.html

I see both sides of this. women getting irrational and hyper emotional is pretty much a staple of female behaviour, so on that one I am with you guys 100%. On the other hand, there are guys (and girls, yes feminists, chicks do this too) who "gaslight" their partners by essentially doing shit and then denying it when the person reacts and then furthermore telling them that they are "crazy" or "oversensitive." They do this even though the person is right and that can really fuck with someone psychologically.

P.S. Just the word "oversensitive" alone should give you guys pause. Who determines what is an acceptable level of sensitivity? Are we really going to deny that a lot of guys act like dicks, or do something shady and then when the girl reacts to it they shut them down, not because the chick is wrong but simply because they don't want to actually have to consider their own behaviour or just "don't want to hear it?" Sure, a lot of the time they are being "crazy" and making a mountain out of a molehill, but let's not lose sight of the fact that a lot of people out there are horribly self involved and don't give a shit about other people especially if it inconveniences them to do so. That shit exists and I have even faced it as a male.

An example: person insults the other. Other person gets hurt and mentions it. First person says "I was just kidding, jesus. You're too sensitive!" Too? As determined by who? I see absolutely no pausing to consider the other person's feelings there, and that's because people are a) apt to assume everyone is wired just like they are and b) don't want to have to admit fault or actually consider their behaviour.

When it comes to this "acting crazy" thing, is that if you ask first, and their response is pretty well, crazy, then okay. Bitches be crazy. A lot of guys though, they don't even ASK. Just immediately write it off. "Oh, you're crazy, relax!" The author is just saying, "hey, why not investigate a little before writing them off? Sometimes you're writing off legitimate feelings." And btw, when guys do that, guess what that leads to over time? More "acting crazy" which they further chalk up to the chick being "nuts" and don't ever stop for a minute to consider their part. I can't understand how anyone can deny that this happens. It's super common, and not even just with guys/girls and romantic relationships. ALL relationships (friends, family, etc) are fertile ground for this. I myself have had this happen numerous times over my life. A lot of it because of my own parents and their abuse. Or friends in the past, being total dicks. I tell them how I feel about what they did/do and I'm just "too sensitive" or "making a big deal out of nothing." Not one second to consider their (shitty) actions or how I could be affected. Just quickly write you off and move on.

The Irony is, They Aren't Teaching Girls Equality

They're giving them a complex about it. My daughter (she's 5) sang this part of a song this weekend for the first time "boys can *insert whatever action* and girls can too!" So she'll skip along and sing "boys can skip and girls can too!" or "boys can jump and girls can too!" etc. I asked her where she learned this song and she said it was at school last year (SK, she starts grade 1 tomorrow, which seems insane but that's for another topic). Now, on the face of it, this seems like a great message to be sending little girls. And my initial though actually was in this vein "oh, cool, they start early with the equality now, that's good." Something to that effect. I mean, a main focus of my parenting style is to avoid limiting her; encourage her interests and objects of curiosity- never repress them.

Not long after this though, my (fuckin unstoppable and often annoying) need to question goddamn fucking everything woke up from its nap and started the process. It's tentative conclusion? That this might be doing less teaching about equality and more introducing the idea of gender inequality, leading to an immediate (and gender wide) inferiority complex. The central question here then, if my goal is to find out if I am on the right track or not, is simply is there an inherent, ingrained idea of gender inequality amongst young children which necessitates this kind of teaching, or does the post feminism practise of teaching equality from a young age actually just introduce the idea of inequality in them and do the opposite of what it tries to?

What do you think?

Parenting Rules To Live By

My daughter is five. Here's a list of some of my parenting rules: (I try to stick to them as much as possible)

-If she gets dramatic/emotional to manipulate me into doing something, a) do not do it for her; b) call her out on it (with humour).
-No yelling or "spanking." There's no lesson that needs to be bullied into a kid in order to reach them.
-Say no but say it when it matters so it's not a pointless word that just starts battles.
-Think about her as a person. Empathize. Remember her age, remember her brain's limits. Don't just expect her not to be who she is because it's inconvenient or makes it hard for me to have control. Cut ego OUT as much as possible.
-Wrestle/playfight often. Don't go easy on her the whole time. Let her have some wins but mix in some moments of high challenge (build self confidence, teach her to overcome obstacles and stay persistent, increased physical strength and capabilities, exercise, bonding).
-Share jokes, and ask her opinion on things.
-Have fun
-Do things outside. Be in nature. Explore.
-Don't say no to things just because I, as an adult, no longer enjoy them. She's a kid, not an adult. If she wants to jump in a puddle, LET HER. Her shoes get wet, oh no! They'll dry, and she'll have a great childhood moment. Or, just have her take her shoes off. Think outside the box
-Like I said, think outside the box
-Question things, and have her do the same
-Try to show more than tell
-Share my love of learning and my awe of (and passion for knowing) the universe
-Engage her in things.
-Challenge her. Mentally and physically
-If she asks me to get her something for no reason other than laziness, decline. She can do it herself.
-If she tries to get something making sexy poses, point it out to her, and then ask her if perhaps there might be a better way. Never indulge it, but never shame her either. She did not choose her animal nature, so don't make her pay for it.
-If she falls, know the difference between real hurt and not so real. Attend to the first, handle the second with amusement and try to bring her into that frame. End result: hopefully she laughs off the not so bad ones instead of sits there vying for attention. (By the way, it worked. She "walks it off" and we talk/laugh about it or just keep playing. If she is really hurt I immediately know the difference and giver her the hugs and soothing that she needs.)
-TV isn't the end of the world, but don't have her in front of it for hours and hours either

That's good for now.

My goal is to have a confident, open minded, critical thinking daughter who isn't ashamed of her sexuality but doesn't wield it like a weapon. Ditto her emotions. It would be nice if she worked through problems, had some measure of self reliance and autonomy, and didn't just cry on facebook when something mild goes wrong. Nice, caring and empathetic but not a pushover and physically capable. Just an all around cool chick. Possible? I dunno. Signs are promising. She's a badass five year old. Then again she's only five. Grade one starts next month and along with it a year's worth of other kids and their influences. And those influences only grow with each passing year. For now I just do what I can.

Self Help and Social Anxiety

The Problem I have with self help when it comes to social anxiety:

There is no answer.

The fundamental reality is that social anxiety and the lack thereof are arrived at by equal (and opposite) roads, and the only way one could morph into the other type of person is by having new experiences opposite to the old that would in effect, reprogram the person to feel differently around others. Can someone with SA work on it? Sure, and well have some agency over our own behaviour, but let's not invalidate years of learned behaviour. A person with social anxiety will only truly be cured through positive experience with others. Of course, one does have some room to self improve in ways that would give them a higher chance of having said positive experiences, and for that self help material can be useful, but not in the way it is advertised. it always seems to put the onus on the self while ignoring the fundamental fact that good experiences with others throughout ones life=confidence and vice versa. A non confident person can get there, sure, but it's like asking a confident person to suddenly feel anxious around others- it ain't happening unless the people around them suddenly start responding differently to them.

On "Manning Up"

NOTE: This post has now been published (in a more fleshed out format of course) on the website A Voice For Men. The link is HERE is you wish to read it in its updated format.

-Social anxiety?
-Self confidence issues?
-Struggling with something?

"Just get out there and do it."
"Get over it"
"Just be you and start feeling confident."
"Suck it up."
"Deal with it."
"You're x age and still doing this/feeling this way? Come on/it's time to grow up."

Basically, "man up." 

I was just reading a forum post about anxiety written by someone with really bad social anxiety and of course the replies were full of those quotes above and others like them. Any time anyone ever says something to that effect (which includes me at some points in my life, either to others or to myself) I think to myself "okay, can you do the opposite?" When you say "man up" to someone, what you are basically saying is "be not like you."

Well, I have a question for you. Can you "man down?" If you are confident can you be anxious and insecure instead?

No?

So what makes you think someone else can "man up?" If you are who you are why aren't they afforded the same sort of leeway?

Now, I'm not at all saying that people can't get past things, but sometimes I think people (myself included at times) downplay how strongly other people are who they are in the exact same way they are who they are, but just in the opposite direction. Next time someone acts like "manning up" is the easiest thing in the world to do, ask them if they could just as easily "man down." When they invariably say no, ask what the difference is. I've done this before and people usually get totally stumped because they've never thought of it like that before.

The thing is, the part that everyone always misses with this stuff is that most of the time, the anxiety, lack of confidence, whatever, comes from past experience and past experience is instrumental in making us who we are. If you have good experiences with people, you'll be fine looking them in the eye/feeling adequate socially. If, however, you have had bad experiences with people that made you doubt your self worth, you won't. It's not as easy as "being confident" or "finding your balls." You being uncomfortable around them is as much a result of your genetics, psychology and experience as them being comfortable in those situations is a manifestation of their genetics, psychology and experience.

That being said, this isn't necessarily it forever. A series of positive experiences and some practise can change this for the person affected negatively by their past. I know about this from experience and man; it isn't easy to change but it can be done.

Just not by being told to "man up."

P.S. In some instances, people really DO need to 'man up.' I'm just arguing against it being used in situations in which it's really not at all applicable, helpful and most importantly, fair.

The World Would Be a Better Place If We All Studied Psychology

I'll (briefly, for both your sake and mine) present my case and you then tell me if I'm deluded or onto something here (it can't be anything else; I like my thinking black and white, like a coffee made by a supernatural barista):

Psychology as an academic discipline deals with many things. A few of those things are pertinent to this discussion, the first of which is introspection, the art of internal investigation. A process through which we examine our own minds and come to learn about and then manage, if we so choose, our reactions, emotions, thought processes, and even, ideally, our biases and our pride. Our ego. I could spend hours talking about how terrible a role the ego plays in this world on a daily basis, but I digress so let's move on.

Psychology deals with interpersonal relations. How we deal with others and why we do so. How we relate to them- and they to us.

So basically you study psych and you learn about us, humans, and yourself, both as standalone entities and in relation to others. Well, it seems like a good time to ask what it is in life exactly that these things are made relevant by? Hmmm....emotions, biases, thought processes, pride, relations with others....oh ya, how about damn near everything? Relationships with family and friends, dealing with people at school. People at work. Dealing with loss, success, competition, grief. How we handle and react to day to day life. How we assess the, as we see them, motives and desires of others? Hell, how about diplomacy?! And I don't mean as a mediator in a divorce. I mean foreign f'n policy!

All of the above is heavily related to the psychology of humans and their understanding of both themselves and one another. Yet almost none of us receive education in the field of study that deals with this- psychology. I only got the opportunity to do so in university. Now imagine if everyone on Earth that received a primary education studied psychology as part of their curriculum? Ah.....better relations, better understanding of ourselves and one another.....better everything. A better world.

Call me crazy but I really am concluding that I think if we studied psychology throughout our formative years we would be more adjusted and in control of our emotions, our thoughts....our minds. Ourselves. And if this were the case, then it would naturally follow that things made up of people, like say corporations, or even *gasp* governments, might function at a higher level than they do now, with a net effect of more positivity in this world, and consequently, less of the opposite.

Response to Psychology Today Article About "Fat Shaming"

In a Psychology Today article entitled The #1 Worst Thing to Say to Your Fat Friend the author, Harriet Lerner, Ph.D discusses an article written by another writer, a woman named Natalie Kusz. Ms. Kusz is an overweight woman writing about "fat shaming" and in her article she talks about instances of shaming enacted upon her by strangers and she contends that, while they are certainly hurtful, the moments during which she feels the most shamed is "the well-intentioned disapproval of a friend--the one who leans a narrow hand on your arm and murmurs, “I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings, but I love you and I'm concerned about your weight." Both authors contend that this friend is acting in a harmful, rather than beneficial manner when they make such statements to their overweight friends (I wonder if they would feel this way if it was gambling/alcohol, etc rather than obesity being discussed).

Well, I strongly disagree with the contention made by both of these authors and what follows is the comment I submitted for publication on the site.

The Urge To Smash Break and Destroy

NOTE: This is a post I had saved (but never published) and I decided to put it up now since I think it could be the catalyst for an interesting follow up/update since things in my life have changed rather significantly since I wrote this nearly three years ago. I will ruminate on things for a bit and if I believe a follow up is warranted I will write one, post it and link the two articles to one another. 

From time to time, I get the urge to break things. To vandalise. To destroy. I don't follow up on these impulses (although I admit that I did a couple of times when I was a kid/teenager, although nothing serious) but when I have them they are pretty strong.

I'm not sure why I have these inclinations. It may be related to the society in which I live, as it feels restrictive, and these feelings are a response to this? I dunno. Maybe there's some sort of biological reason? Like I am supressing my innate destructive 'manly' urges throughout my 21st century, 'cultured' 'modern' and 'civilized' lifestyle, and my inner caveman makes an attempt to break free every now and again, an attempt that manifests as an ure to tear down the social order, the 'establishment.'

Being Single Is Selfish....Sure, But Relationships Are Just As Selfish

Find that shocking? Ridiculous? Demeaning? Insulting, even? Okay, tell me: Why do YOU get into relationships then? Why does anyone?

(Note: This is a follow up of sorts to an earlier post I did regarding the selfishness of having kids. Click HERE if you want to read that one.)

 Here are some (arguably) selfless reasons (I say arguably given the selfish altruism theory popular in some psychology circles):