non-misogynistic men's rights & logistics advocacy

Note: I often have links set to open in a new tab & try to indicate that using the mouse hover popup. This is a static website & so no cookies, etc.

Last edited/updated July 11, 2024 (Mobile users need to click off the image to hide .gif video popup.)

cameltoelogo

So I titled this website "non-misogynistic men's rights & logistics advocacy", which is rather straightforward and self-explanatory, except that some may wonder why "logistics" is included and not "support" or other word associated with an idea that is congruent with the motif. It's quite simple really, I figure that the word would imply organization & action, as opposed to ... you know, merely uh... complaining about whatever issue while ensuring that the issue can never be resolvable. Why make the complaining a moot point when it's so effective?

I figure that this site is an excellent platform to address some issues, controversies, misunderstandings, etc. in the topic of human sexuality (& gender issues), but here from a man's perspective while assessing contemporary aspects and consider historical context. I suppose that I could explain that last point here briefly by pointing out that there were traditional practices, i.e., gender restricted schools, that became viewed as being due to male chauvinistic dominance and so were not beneficial whatsoever for women. My argument would be that without the distraction and associated competition, a young person of either gender, has better odds of absorbing education knowledge.

Oh! The .gif animated image that I have popping up is of a video clip from Geraldo Rivera's Geraldo Rivera's 1972 expose of Willowbrook State School which gives us a good instance for a "Theory of Forms" example with the fact that conservatives can't stand Geraldo since he is "a liberal" and so by extension they have to ignore any good work he has done. (It's so convenient!) He could bring to the entire world's attention that people are being abused but the average (overweight) conservative's point is that we all need to be tough enough to view that kind of imagery of suffering human beings since they're trying to save up for a down payment on a new truck and the economy needs to be a priority for the sake of the younger generations. The same (supposedly "Christian") right-wing community will freely admit that the people in the video are suffering but it's the liberal people's fault since they allow the people to continue living.

Note: Theory of Forms is rudimentary philosophy that explains that there exists a perfect form for each & everything, but what we encounter in our reality is an (immutable) imitation of the form, so is imperfect. The point is that people can argue about a subject where it is expected that you concede that it's you who is not accepting the imperfect form that is presented to you & everyone else. If the subject is psychiatry, for example, then we are expected to concede to the idea that people who get involved in the mental health system have not been victims of physical abuse in any way in their lives, and just need to accept that they have to take debilitating pharmaceuticals the rest of their lives and be mocked, ridiculed, scapegoated, etc.

What has all that to do with gender issues? Psychiatry is a male dominated field, especially at the time the video was made, so it could be surmised that the lack of any attempt to keep the patients engaged in some level of positive interaction to occupy their time is because of male psychiatrists not caring about anything except getting some psych-ward nurse tail (or whatever). Somebody might exclaim here that I must not understand that the people were "mentally ill" and there weren't the same medicines available then as there are now. To that I would answer that may be true (to form) but yet in this era we still have "mentally ill" homeless people and the reply I would receive is that they don't stay on their prescribed medications like they're supposed to (& it can't be that something bad happened to them) ... but, to go with the argument, I would ask why won't they stay on the medications? Is it because of side-effects? What are the side-effects? There is weight gain and, reportedly, the "feeling like a zombie" phenomenon, but the people are obviously expected to accept that along with being treated as an inferior and told that they never was abused by anyone and we all know that because they were diagnosed as "mentally ill" after being brought into the psychiatrist's office by their familiies because the "mentally ill" person is embarrassing to them. What reason would the family have to deny the doctor's assessment that the person is "mentally ill"? The real question is: How is it not obvious that the "mentally ill" family member was abused in some way? It's always assumed that if the "mentally ill" person has any problems then it is because they stopped taking meds. For average people problems usually build up over time & not just instantaneous.

My example of a possible social dynamic problem that a trauma'd person might experience that could be misconstrued or ignored, which could be a precursor to mental health crisis; and where it's merely assumed that the person quit taking medication. Maybe some young man with a dog likes to walk around with it off-leash & lets the dog "greet" this "mentally ill" person everytime they're walking home from a store. The dog is "friendly" and just wants to "be friends" so what could be the problem? In reality the young man is violating ordinance, breaking the law, but the "mentally ill" person is everyone's problem. No one else walks through the neighborhood unless for pleasure so the dog is cute & fun, type thing. People are complex, or social/family dynamics are, so the problems can be multi-faceted. There could be other issue in my example with the off-leash dog where the "mentally ill" person was fine with the dog except when carrying some groceries home and the resulting conflict would be difficult for the person to articulate to their family. The dog owner is accepted and popular and out of embarrassment the family gets angry at the "mentally ill" person and causes them to threaten harming themselves. The narrative would not include any mention of a neighbor walking an off-leash dog because what on earth would that have anything to do with it? Call the dog catcher or drop it. The point is that it is insinuated that if the person took their meds as prescribed then they would not have any problem with politely requesting that the neighbor put their dog on a leash like anyone else would do under the circumstances. Most people wouldn't be carrying their groceries home, to reiterate, and that's one of the reasons that most people won't walk is because they might encounter an off-leash dog. Everyone's point will be that it would be so much easier for everyone if the "mentally ill" person will just "take their medicine'. The "mentally ill" person is selfish for not taking it, and the evidence for them not taking it is that they're having problems that other people are not experiencing. It is all just circular logic, & people will go round & round until somebody flies off the handle. Better them than you, kinda thing!

Anyway, I digressed there. I wanted to add that it's just about impossible for an avarage man, who doesn't have an associated formal education (college) degree, to get a word in edgewise about the sexuality aspect of the human condition without being Kafkatrapped. (And that term is even used in judicial reviews produced by people in my country's governmemt.) Not only is middle-aged white man considered as the one to blame for any of the problems but God forbid he be allowed a defense. Why on Earth would a man need to defend himself unless he were wrong? Women want everyone to believe that they are incapable of abusing anyone, ever, least of all innocent men. The problem is for me that any other men (of some influence) that I agree with on some issue, are extreme right-wing on other issues to the degree where they're just bigots. The example that I think of most readily is criticism of the response to the pandemic. Any crisis like that will impact people of lower income to a greater degree and people of color still are disproportionately represented in the lower income demographic. The pandemic illness would affect people of color more that whites so a white man complaining about the response being too extreme is not acknowledging the plight of minorities. There is a good example of Theory of Forms in the aspect that the middle-class white demographic was fine with "toughing it out" and talked about "herd immunity" and all the while I seen numerous accounts of police officers and others who refused vaccine and obese (obviously by their photographs) who died from the virus. It's not an ordinary flu virus and it mutates. The global goal was/is to attempt to minimize it's proliferation. The people who tout that they'd just deal with it are those who'd be comfortable imposing on other people; or narcissistic, in other words.


(gender) jealousy & relatable fundamental attribution error

One point I would like to go into more detail about here is that it would stand to reason that there'd be a biological basis for the jealousy that exists between the (two) genders and that it's necessary for survival of our species. In other words, if it weren't for the natural intrigue that exists between the genders then the act of sex would happen by accident. The attraction can affect all of our senses e.g., aesthetics and symmetry appeals to our sense of vision, and so on. I wanted to point out here that it's been mentioned in philisophical works that "beauty" is a subjective concept, and is dependent on individual tastes. In regards to sexual attraction I would like to point out that there is a paradoxical phenomenon (the best way I can describe this) where women who have slight deformities (i.e., overbite, freckles, enlarged convex shaped "wrap-around" areola that covers almost the entire... (nevermind), & etc.) can be appealing to men in an erotic way, and so still considered beautiful. I know that to exist with women's perception of men too, but I'm going to leave it at that.

So, generally speaking, there's a degree of natural jealousy between the genders and if a person can gather anything from Christian (or humanitarian) teaching, it's a decent thing to do to not make it a goal to deliberately instill feelings of jealousy in others. Owning an expensive car and driving it could cause others to be envious (which I'm using as synonymous with jealousy in this example), but mocking, taunting or goading other people who don't have a car at all would be unconscionable. Paulo Freire mentioned in his works that once someone is no longer in a position of being oppressed then it is imperative that they don't turn around and make it a point to be oppressive. That basic tenet seems to have been lost on womankind. (A man wrote that, after all.) I suppose it would be appropriate for me to give an example of this allegation and I think the best one is the fact that there is a posit to always first attempt to completely discredit some man, nullifying any contribution that person made to humankind. I must admit that previous claim of mine doesn't only effect men, but other women as well. With the human condition there exists our human weakness, vulnerability, etc. and so people can do embarrassing things, but what we can learn from a person should not be merely dismissed. In the trauma-informed community we like to validate other peoples' experiences, and I would like to explain here that validation is not only a person's traumatic experience itself (assuming they've had one since they're part of the community), but also validate the person's coping with the trauma. All to often you hear of people who were abused as children by their parents who won't have anything to do with the parent(s) as an adult. Their enstrangement gives credence to an unsubstantiated assertion that they were victims of child abuse, but a child abuse victim's forgiveness of their parents isn't considered as a strength. Some people that were victims of abuse or violent crime only interact with their families, or also peers if they attend a community mental health center program. Regardless of their past experiences or suffering they don't have any other choice but to accept maintaining a relationship with someone who has physically abused them.

Another point I'd like to mention is in regards to what people who've experienced trauma in their lives face in the everyday world. It couldn't be expected of people in society in general to understand that a person that they have some interaction with has experienced trauma in their lives and would explain why they're a bit skittish (not readily trusting people), maybe seem dejected, introverted, etc. The person's behaviors can be misinterpreted as being due to guilt or deceit, maybe either deliberately or genuine misunderstanding. In the course of discrediting somebody in direct confrontation scenario (maybe to get "evidence" to justify prejudicial contempt) there can be the simple goal to put somebody on the defensive, by levying false accusations & stigma, etc., but a trauma'd person can become frustrated and discombobulated and then that could be used as more "evidence" of their (perceived) "aberration" (to not mince words, here). The simple truth is that there are sadistic people who only really think in the general hedonistic form of relation to sex or violence (they're "enlightened" like that, see?) and so they will project that ideology onto an unsuspecting trauma'd person who wants to be principled and conscientious and other people get jealous of their compassion. Oftentimes there's a fundamental attribution error where a person's distress or reaction is (deliberately) misinterpreted. Some young people will deliberately frighten or harass a man alone and then film his reaction to post online. That is a vigilante posit and the harassment is criminal but the victims are stigmatized as deserving of the public humilation since they're unable to stop it. There is the lack of the application of the U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment of equal protection of law because entitled white people need to have other humans to hate on & abuse to feel better about who they are in this world.

People will often have a tendency to treat people who exhibit an introverted type personality as inferiors, but I should include subdued personalities, too. The point is that in interactions with people out in the world there can be those who are in some position to have some power over another person, i.e., a landlord, and it's up to that person and their moral compass as to whether they will be professional and ethical or not. There are laws to protect vulnerable tenants but there is weak enforcement of the laws. From my own personal experience there are people working in the apartment management field that are complacent and inept and scapegoat tenants out of expediency. There can be a combination of actions that are deliberate circumvention of a person's stability and some unintentional delays or errors. There can be women working in a position such as a landlord and use the power to coerce a male tenant to repeatedly visit the management office and that would be considered as sexual harassment if it were a male landlord and female tenant. In the former example of the male tenant and female landlord it is important to understand that the circumstances that he is in can be embarrassing for other women in the man's life who care about him, like his mother. Another woman may naturally wonder why the woman landlord would have a problem with the man. It is natural for people to initially sympathize with (or defend) a person or entity in a more powerful position and so it's up to the person in the less powerful role to conform to whatever requirements that are expected of them, regardless of the actual legality. No one else seems to have a problem is what is often asserted.

On the subject of the human tendency to initially sympathize (defend) an entity or person in the more powerful position involved in a conflict is the phenomenon of people reporting an incident of sexual abuse or rape to a friend/family/loved one, they will inevitable fight (argue or even physical) with the person. I have no research reference for that assertion, but in reading many people's experiences related to the subject I have personally noticed that it is a common result. My circumstancial proof of my claim is that the phrase "Just World" was coined and the motive behind it was due to the concept of victim blaming but it'd also happen with friends/family so it was attributed to the human need to feel secure and safe so there has to be some palatable explanation for the violence. What I had pointed out in some discussions (and I was agreed with) was that in events of sexual assault the person hearing about the crime initially will say something as to question the victim's responsibilty but then realize the nature of the crime and feel ashamed of their suspicion. The sudden wave of conflicting feelings is frightening for the person and they get angry. (Anger is a secondary emotion based on primary emotion of fear.) The resulting anger directed at the victim for merely reporting the violence against them is shocking for them. The resulting rift between the people may not be possible for the victim to mend (forgive).

One of the most difficult issues when taking part in the intellectual, philosophical, and contemporary sociology community is the association with politics which is where any typical conversation or online discussion will inevitably lead to when interacting with family & friends. I mentioned the word "sociology" to my father and he went on a twenty minute rant about socialism which was all merely a popular rhetorical, regurgitated misrepresentation of the concept. Don Marquis, an early twentieth century journalist, is quoted with: An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it. and that is a critical point when considering the work of the humanitarian, Karl Marx. He pointed out decades ago that people get exploited for their manual labor while there exists a class of people that are expected to be gainfully employed without doing any physical intensive work at all. Not to be ingratiating, but there is a grey area in my previous differentiation with careers in medicine (especially), science, law, etc. to where the nature of the work requires some physical risk or exertion, including reading and writing to a significant extent. The point is that although our society's goal is equal opportunity for everyone, and it's admitted by people (if they're even the slightest bit honest) that the goal has not yet been met then I would assert that the study of sociology is still pertinent and merely arguing at the Theory of Forms level of stereotypical "us vs. them" ideology reveals complacency and willful ignorance. My father should be one to understand that the concept of socialism has never really been implemented in its true form anywhere in the world since there still expenditure for military. The argument of course is that's the way the world is ... "it is what it is", whatever, but there is excessive amounts of petroleum (carbon based) fuel being burnt up with rich people's pet projects, and other frivolous pursuits.

I suppose one of the biggest issues I have along the lines of political rhetoric is with the right-wing perspective on the pandemic response. It is a very basic tenent of sociology that anytime there is a crisis that effects the general public then those who are in the lower income class will be (disproportionately) impacted more. The virus was statistically more prominent within minority groups and so wealthy white people ranting about "herd immunity" and social restrictions when their overall odds of surviving the crisis are overwhelmingly good but are upset because the economic problems are preventing them from buying a brand new car (or whatever). There's protest against vaccinations by people who'd have no problem being laid up a few days with a family member or somebody nursing them back to health. If the family member that is the nursing one then if they get sick then oh well (I guess). I really don't understand why people who are perfectly fine with eating hamburger that was cleansed with ammonia would have a problem with a vaccination shot. They're supposed attitude is to be tough when actually being tough is the last thing they are, from what I could tell. Threatening and committing violence is "tough"? Humans still haven't moved pass that ideology.

I suppose I could touch on the fact that the idea of men's rights is usually associated with child custody or visitation and I don't intend to disappoint anyone, but that's a whole different ball of wax... well, sort of. I don't have children myself but I'm sure that women use similar purposeful tricks to degrade men that they desire to retaliate against or belittle. It would be ideal if it could be assumed that both parents would put their children's welfare first but all too often people underestimate what will negatively affect children. Of course the reality is that in an average cross-section sample of people there are still many who are immature and will give in to pettiness. In my experience, men are more likely to want to "turn over a new leaf" and want to be more responsible, etc., but their women counterparts usually never consider anything like that is necessary for them. If they have debts, for example, they don't feel that they're to blame. They can be just as quick to start playing "damsel in distress" and take advantage of (exploit) any other man in their life who they can have some power over (cuckhold) without any reservations whatsoever. I think it's instilled on modern western females that their own sexual liberty is the most important thing there is to the point where that idealogy stands in stark contrast to Christianity but they understand that men won't trust them at all if they are obvious about that contradiction, so they will feign piousness, or moral superiority, too. In reality their ideology will lean toward hedonistic and so can become bad influences for men who want to enjoy their companionship. They intend to demoralize men so that they can have that power over them and don't consider that to be a character flaw. It's that same hedonistic ideology that women will project (transference) onto men when in reality those men would rather be in a committed relationship instead of "playing the field".

certainty & uncertainty & self-sabotage

Now is a good time to mention another point ... If you think about it, on the spiritual level there are two basic states of being, in a state of certainty and a state of uncertainty. Apply that axiom to any real world issue, problem, etc. and it is evident. If you consider the idea of "conflict resolution" for example, the "resolution" is to reach the state of certainty. Trauma'd people like to have validation of their experience which doesn't necessarily just mean the traumatic event itself but also their resilience. I mention that because their lack of confidence, eccentricity, etc. can be deliberately misconstrued and even ridiculed. When I am in a group of people that I don't know well I will tend to be quiet and oftentimes someone will assume that I'm not too intelligent, maybe even comment to another person there something along that lines, insinuating that I can't understand them (which is my main pet peeve). As I pointed out to a VA case manager, in my introduction to her, that oftentimes when I'm interacting with someone there is some aspect of the situation that I thought of, maybe some action that they could use against me or there'd be some obvious stereotypical (insulting) platitude that could be brought up, that I won't bring to their attention. My silence could be taken as a sign that I'm not too bright but it's most likely that I've already thought of whatever aspect but, as what was taught to me by my grandmother, it's better to leave "sleeping dogs lie", so to speak.

In the introductory meeting with the VA case mananager that I mentioned she brought up to me something to the effect of "people's jealousies can be a problem" and I found that refreshing since my previous case manager was a white woman from like Iowa (or where ever) and was tall, but cute, and dumb as a rock. Seriously, I told her that it wasn't an issue for me at this time but the fact that one of the HUD Section 8 requirements for a landlord is that a lease has to be at least six months in duration became a problem for me with a landlord in the past. She replied that month-to-month leases are the standard. I have this guidebook that was printed by the U.S. gov't that states that leases have to be at least six month in duration. It was other people, who worked in professional positions analogous as hers, that made it a specific point to emphasize that and show me the page in the guidebook. I had that guidebook sitting open to the page on the table between that VA case manager and myself (but left it at that because it was a moot point for me then and I'm respectful not to argue) which is my reason for referring to that one as "dumb as a rock". (Note: the webpage that I provided the link to also contains the evidence that a landlord lied in civil court against me in 2015 and nobody ever really even acknowledged that to me.)

I realized as I was writing out the two paragraphs above that the anecdote provides an excellent example of an event that a woman (friend) in a man's life would utilize to project the idea that there is some sexual aspect to the relationship between a man and some woman in a professional role that he has some interaction with. A woman can get an idea like that and, maybe out of embarrassment because she realized she was wrong & her unfounded jealousy is transparent, she can be absolutely relentless in her pursuing an admittance of a sexual connection and whatever injustice, etc. that the man encounters in his life is dismissed as non-existent. A woman might like to point out that kind of scenario could very well be the same if the gender roles were reversed to which I would reply with a simple "Yes. Now you're beginning to understand." Women can be just as violent and physically abusive as men are too. That fact is often acknowledged in domestic violence counseling.

Sigmund Freud used the word "hysterical" in regards to some women's psychological condition and within the trauma-informed community online discussions I won't mention him because of that. I think the description has merit though, but it's one of those things that people (women in this case) will take personally when it doesn't apply to them so much. In my interactions with women apartment managers (for example) it's really the best term that I can think of since their emotional state prevents them from being self-aware or self-honest enough to understand that they're being needlessly abusive. A lack of fully understanding what their positions entail, i.e., what exactly is in their authority to do, will cause them to take on a persona of a no-nonsense hard-ass, or a victim of "the system" themselves, when it's unnecessary. I realized that the point that I brought up about the minimum six month lease was still pertinent for me when dealing with my last landlord in that she wouldn't maintain the online payment portal to keep it accurate for me to use it and it became obvious to me that she was deliberately trying to lure me down into her office by using any ruse. I pointed out in a complaint I filed with Dept. of Regulatory Agencies that the manager's actions were causing me to have to accept a de facto month-to-month lease since eventually I might be provoked into saying something that they could hold against me. (I have an old woman friend who would get me to be comfotable with sharing my experiences with her and she'd portray understanding but sometime later, usually when drunk, she'd go off on me and twist around what I said to her prior in such a way to imply that I'm deceitful, weak or even delusional, etc.)

So I mentioned the two basic states of being as certainty and uncertainty and in that I can explain people's tendency to sabotage their lives in some way when in some distress or conflict. I would venture to guess it might be more of a phenomenon for a person that experienced trauma since their feelings of acceptance are precarious. There is the term "passive-aggressive" that is relatable here in that in a passive way a person can attempt to make someone else feel a certain way (sympathetic, usually) and within that is the aggressive part. Oddly enough I have seen articles written by people in the human/social services profession that will define that term differently, as meaning more as passive and subsequential (physical) aggressiveness. I'm not sure why that is when another common cultural expression that is analogous with passive-aggressive is "laying a guilt trip" (on someone). I often mention that the "silent treatment" is a simple way to describe passive-aggressiveness. My point is that self-sabotage is an action undertaken by someone experiencing an uncertain state, feeling like they're on some precipice, and their "resolution" is to "give up" in some way in an attempt to reach a state of certainty. In a way the person can feel or outwardly express a mindset of "facing their fear" but if that consists of some real physical action that would inevitably be detrimental to them then it's crazy to see that action in some positive way. Maybe my point here is that the behavior of self-sabotage is somewhat acceptable for women (damsel in distress posit) and so is a gender role & expectations difference.

While on the topic of VA employees I wanted to mention that there was another social worker type that I spoke with, who worked in the evaluation role to assess a veteran's need for services, and he pointed out the aspect of family and friends (social dynamic) and the expectations and hindrances posed by those nearest a veteran can be difficult to contend with (basically) and that was a relief to me since that was congruent with what other counselors have explained to me. They'd bring up the fable of Cinderella, explaining that if you set the gender of the person aside, then it's the most analogous allegory to the concept of a family scapegoat. (We can be a poignant community!) The Wikipedia article: Identified patient is relevant, and if considered in light of PTSD, then the applicability doesn't need to include any stigma of weakness. In the history of western psychiatry there were many veterans who were abused more than they were helped. Of course the cultural position is that people are quite aware of that which is why it doesn't really happen anymore (in their own mind) & we just need to find a way to mix it all together so pharmaceutical corporations can make lots of money for their wealthy shareholders (or whatever).

Note: There's also the term "Freudian slip" (or "parapraxis") that abusive people will attempt to browbeat a trauma'd person into blurting out, and if they don't get exactly what they're looking for then they'll resort to deliberately discombobulating the person and misinterpreting whatever they can get. Oftentimes those in the "mentally ill" demographic will always avoid vulgarity. (That word, "vulgar" is used in philisophical works where it's associated with non-intellectuals because of their common rudimentary assumption that other people only think in terms of violence or sex.) Trauma'd people can be subjected to bullying by other adults, even family and acquaintances, and it's frustrating and confusing since it's obviously immature of them, everyone becomes aware of that, so probably out of pure shame the bullying is only continued and even escalated to get a desired reaction so as to justify the ill-treatment. There are many of cases, now with video evidence, of a "mentally ill" person wielding a knife (for example), threatening violence, and people in general either are completely oblivious to the fact, or take part in purposeful denial of the fact, that the person is afraid and feeling threatened themselves, and it can be assured that their reasoning would seem rational to any normal human being if the complete context or circumstances considered. I was acquainted with a woman for a short time who had an adult son who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. There was more to this particular woman which placed her in a minority and vulnerable demographic, she understood that and took advantage of gov't assistance offered her. In the course of the conversation that I had with her and her son she was vehemently critical of her son, verbally berating him in my presence while insinuating that I would agree. I interjected a little in defense of her son so she'd at least understand that I was not about to take her side. I kept in contact with her on social media and one day she messaged me directly, saying that she was with her son in the hospital because he had stabbed himself in the neck. I'm not sure if he survived that or not because that's when I cut contact with her.
So hence the: certainty & uncertainty & self-sabotage, in a simple form is what the good young man provided U.S. ... do you see?

tangibility, motivation (ambition), amorousness, & coerced sympathy

Along with a biological need for jealousy between the genders it could be inferred (for sake of argument) that women have inherent biological need for experiencing what is tangible to a greater degree than men. To go full philosophical here, & cover every conceivable aspect, I would point out the obvious that men can still experience a degree of pleasure in a sexual way without a woman participant but what only really serves for what women require is a man; anything else is a compromise that some women will make. (The equivalent compromise that some men will make I will leave aside for now.) What can be problematic for men is when women are in an amorous state can have a desire to educate men about what they really want, perhaps thinking to motivate them(?), or a man's resulting jealousy is exciting at the very least. (The previous point is my speculation anyway, but a mentor told me that "if women can't get a man jealous of her sexuality then they try to get them jealous of their abuse (of others)", and that latter part can make rational sense (for a woman) since it'd render a man powerless unless/until he rescues (whomever) by giving the abusive woman what she really wants (as close as I can figure). A woman in that mindset who isn't self-aware will inevitably coerce other males into sympathizing with her (contradicting) position and even defend her. I mentioned the problems that I'd encounter with women apartment managers, that they'd all be rather consistant with attempting to lure me in to talk with them in person, and I thought of the analogy of the gambling game of Faro, but played by so-called house rules which means that cheating & misdirection is an expected part of the game (but of course don't get caught), and that was their attitude in conducting business. It may sound like exaggeration by me but there was the company, Mission Rock Residential, that wouldn't fix a handicapped door opener. It was broken for over a year and my unit failed inspection (that I had requested from HUD for the purpose) in a two year old building because of their refusal to fix it. Of course my father sympathized with the company's employees, and my HUD technician did too at first, but to bring the point home here they were working on the door the day I was moving out. It seemed like pure vindictiveness to me. I'm a disabled person and their point is that if I'm unhappy with their failure to even attempt at keeping the property properly maintained then I needed to pack up and move. Being a good tenant who paid my rent on time was completely beside the point. It was their business paradigm to be obtuse and abusive.

I'd like to include here (at risk of being redundant) that there are (what I call) "levels of jealousy", or to jump ahead, induced jealousy (or a woman deliberately cuckholding a man, i.e., by purposefully creating a "love triangle"). If we consider a scenario where a man and woman are in a committed relationship but one day the woman cheats on the man and then tells him that the other relationship "is just sex", expecting to now continue with an "open relationship" since he is free to do it too. The man isn't happy with that idea and decides to end the relationship. That's not what the woman has in mind, though. She escalates her objective of wanting the man to be jealous by making a point to socialize with mutual friends and even sets up an event to where he'd be coerced into meeting the woman's new lover. At that point the man would be angry and of course his anger would be deliberately misconstrued as him jealous because of her new relationship. That is not the (main) issue for the man though. What is the problem is that the woman put some time & effort into arranging some humiliating encounter for her ex because it would be dramatic and exciting and their friends will outcast him. Let's even venture to include that the man is a charitable, helpful person that is appreciated by many people and his fear of being discredited and his work dismissed is overwhelming since the woman he loved and trusted would rather him not be helpful to anyone and blame him for the failure. There's the "induced jealousy" part and I'm not sure how else to phrase that concept. It'd be sadistic behavior though, and you know what they say about "a woman scorned"?. Well who's to say that the "scorn" was really her own skewed interpretation of the man's work.

Again here for sake of argument, let me assert that human amorousness is a powerful motivator and if a person is taught to be creative and has a fair amount of basic knowledge of the different aspects of human civilization then they can focus their ambition on something that would be useful for people in general. I'd like to point out here that there exists a romanticized (idealized) perspective of the lifestyle of nomadic indigenous people but if you consider the absolute reality then it'd be apparent that the native people would not be able to continue that way of life indefinitely, even with unimpeded access to as much territory as they wanted since they'd understand that people lived in solid permanent structures with heat and running water and toilets. They'd want that too, wouldn't they? There again is possible fundamental attribution error when people who think in vulgar terms will assume that any action a person undertakes will be immediately and directly associated with their desire for sexual affection to where they'll even (falsely) accuse somebody of all sorts of sordid behavior. When I was young I'd come home from a construction job and have a girlfriend bombard me with questions about what I was doing all day (when it was obvious considering the state of my dirty clothing). I eventually realized that other men would go on & on about some job they had where they were tasked with pleasuring a rich young woman all day (or some shit) and women are influenced by such attitudes. The idea of advocacy for people who have experienced abuse or violence, even if they're other women, is secondary to a hedonistic primary motivation but of course they could never admit to such conflict of interest, they'd deny it to a bitter end (so to speak).

Another point here that I can mention that is relevant to the subject is the acts of human sacrifice that were committed by ancient peoples. There's quite a bit of undeniable evidence that different cutures throughout history practiced some form of it and the victims were innocent of any wrongdoing, hence the designation sacrificed. If you have ever watched documentaries about cultures that were determined to have engaged in the practice, the narrator will inevitably phrase the information in such a way as to condone the act as being an accepted part of their lives and the implication is that it would be wrong to consider it as unjust. Even if the victim thought of it as an honor or whatever, there'd still be other people affected by the loss of their loved one. Another perspective of the act could be by considering it as evidence of a culture's decadence. If it is theorized that the particular culture lacked an adversary or rival culture to focus on combatting or overpowering and so instead would resort to the abuse of their own people, then the action becomes more logical. I'm not sure about that point and I'm just surmising here, but I point that out as a way to exonerate isolated cultures that practiced the act so as not to unwittingly stigmatize a minority race. (To be more specific here, I would like to quickly point out my theory of the decline of ancient South American cultures, and the abandonment of cities built, could be attributed to declining available natural resources and increased sanitation related problems which caused their society to "break down" to the point of committing violence against each other. The people left would eventually scatter and migrate to other regions. What their ancestors experienced in the process would be "generational trauma" as I'd like to refer to it. That concept could apply to many cultures and ethnicities throughout history.

Since I'm on a roll here covering some theories related to events and human amorousness, I'd like to clarify popular misconception of an exemplar case of a young woman who was found deceased in a water tower (reservoir tank) that was mounted on a hotel roof. My argument is that the young lady, Elisa Lam, was feeling amorous in her inebriated state, but was alone and possibly she'd experienced trauma in her life that caused her to become introverted. She found her way to the water tower and figured she'd take a skinny dip of sorts, and drowned. I suppose some would find that embarrassing or whatever but there's no shame since she didn't hurt anyone else in her death (aside from her family and friends, I should include). There is another contemporary event that's a popular tale for people relaying stories of mysterious deaths. Briefly, it's the anecdote, the Dyatlov Pass Incident, about the group of Russian hikers that were found frozen and scattered about their campsite. It's been awhile since I've looked at the details, but I think the most believable reason was that they were attacked by some animal but there's some contradicting evidence to that idea (hence the mystery). The point is that there was something else going on within the group dynamic that was a precursor to the eventual chaos that was sexual related and jealous rage by one of the men ensued. Women in a situation like that which becomes sexual will only want the men most endowed to touch them, the other(s) are ridiculed and even coerced into self-abuse and violence. The less desirable men are considered expendable and women will reveal that kind of contempt for some men (and people in general) in the way that they converse in their daily life. They will tend to defend actions they undertake or attitudes they hold on to by attempting to discredit others and will refuse to acknowledge exonerating evidence.

There is a point to take advantage of the luxury of being able to blame (white) man for every injustice they experience or that exists in the world and if some average white man failed to take full advantage of white privilege offered them then it's their own damn fault (type thing). I once walked away from a good job because I was expected to participate in scapegoating a native man for some damage caused by a new white employee that was friends with a popular coworker. I had no other reasonable choice at the time but it is an event that a sadistic person could question and scrutinize ... I must be lying and virtue signaling, or whatever. The idea would be that there is no way that I could be that kind of good person to make that kind of statement (a protest) without some sort of added incentive or support, etc. The indigenous man that they wanted to blame was the coolest one there. I was friends with him and even visited his house. I'd also like to point out that women are women regardless of race and so it would make sense that women of color could be just as critical of "their" men and so the ordeal is not isolated to white men. Women can be downright cruel and that fact is ubiquitous across the anthropological spectrum. There would most likely be a retort that "men can be downright cruel too" to which I'd reply ... you guessed it!... "Yes. Now you're beginning to understand!".

I suppose that what I am attempting to establish here is that women can objectify men just the same as the other way around, but it isn't so simplistic as as mere aesthetics. The point being that women who work in some capacity to where interaction with men is inevitable then they need to have a self awareness to understand their bias so as not to surrender to it. I think there needs to be personality tests developed to detect that tendency, for people in general. To put things in perspective as to how relevant all of this is to our contemporary world, there are biologists that have managed to create simple organisms and got them to play pong... now that is freaky! So technology like that coupled with artificial intelligence could make the sci-fi horror trope of disgusting malicious creatures, that are designed to kill human beings, a reality. The thing that people may be unaware of though, is that from what I have read there is already the introduction of established philosophical works that are included in the neural network experimentation. So human tendency toward sentiment, pride and whatnot that can have impact on decision making is being considered. The reality is that human amorousness is a motivator for us that a computer couldn't grasp since there is nothing definite to compare it to as reference. Probably the best that a computer could ever do is list possibilities if attempting to determine a person's future decision making or goals, for example.

This is a good place to point out too, that from our scientific knowledge about how human senses work, it is obvious that humans have to process sensory input on a physical level, meaning that we have no choice but to allow external objects, etc. to affect us physically in order to be aware of them. The simplist example is sound because the sound waves will vibrate three tiny bones in our inner ears in order for us to hear. Colors are processed in our brains in a similar way to where if a person looks at an "eggshell" colored wall they have to process what they are seeing because light rays physically penetrate our eyes. Once you grasp that as reality you can see that the idea of controlling someone with a (subtle) bombardment of sensory information could become plausible. Of course by the same token there could be technology developed that would help a person overcome trauma. I'm not promoting a dehumanizing approach of using computers to mimic a therapist, but there is room for occupational therapy assistance to help people be focused and motivated. (It's critical for me to mention here that the idea of occupational therapy is to help someone understand that they're worthwhile regardless of what they're able to produce. The ideology that a person can feel better about themselves by being useful is projection. Of course a person could very well feel better by contributing in some capacity, but it's important that humans understand and accept their own intrinsic worth.

education → employment, neurological developement & related social dynamic

Just for context here, I've (probably) mentioned that I've been trauma'd in my life and that assessment, incidently, someone with a masters degree, a state counselor license, & decades of experience in the human/social services field has acknowledged to me. One event (that's pertinent here) was that I was physically abused by an adolescent female babysitter a few years older than me. By the time that I reached high school, tenth grade at that time, I was already experiencing social problems and then was physically abused by a male teacher toward the end of the year. I subsequently dropped out in the middle of the following year and attempted to return for what would be my senior year (& try to catch up) but was ridiculed by a girl that I was seeing because I showed up to school without sleeping well (I was out of town, traveling) and my facial deformity (I have circle bags under my eyes much like Edward Norton, Gary Sinise, & Steve Buscemi has) had become more prominent over the course of the trip. My friends I was traveling with, one in particular, would bully me and he had gotten me to pick at them & I ended up making them worse. That's one of the most difficult things for me to share.) I dropped out, officially, and took the test to receive my GED. I did that without my father being aware that I did and he was actually upset with me because I couldn't return to public school. Serious. He was like that. There was the point that I was made aware of (and is common education for people in therapy) is that all of the previous events in this paragraph happened when I was a minor so I really can't be blamed for my lack of being able to tolerate high school. Of course my father never validated any abuse that I endured and considered me a failure. (To his credit he probably later acknowledged my initiative of getting my GED.)

Humans don't reach full maturity with their neurological developement until the age of twenty-five. (There's lots of references available for that information.) I needed to include that but I don't know how to segue back into my current subject of employment. Of course I wasn't aware of that information at the time, or wouldn't have been able to understand what it meant for me. (A person would tend to develop better impulse control in early adult years, it'd stand to reason.) I actually started working for pay before I was in high school. My father paid me to help him with his many home improvement projects so I was already becoming accustomed to doing physical labor for pay. My counselor pointed out that my father expected too much of me along those lines, a friend's father pointed that out to me when I was younger too, but in a way there was a conflicting education for me in that aspect since my father also pressured me & was critical of me where my schooling was concerned. My father excelled in math & physics (electronics) and he expected me to as well. (I had also tried to get him to allow me to transfer to an alternative school but he said that'd be too embarrasing for him on account of his work with the local public selling insurance.)

What I really wanted to point out here was that I was expected to earn my own money to buy a car and also go to school. That isn't uncommon for my demographic (at the time). I was friends with the son of a neighboring city's mayor and by saying that (he even said something along these lines to me once) a person would assume that he was wealthy and had a car provided for him to drive since his dad was a mayor. His father had the same mindset that mine did about that and my father wasn't about to raise me to feel privileged or entitled. My friend, John Thomas (was his name), had a keener understanding of the social dynamic that we faced than I did at the time. He was rather outcasted too, is the point. He was actually rather thin, homely and smoked cigarettes. He is most certainly already dead. I can say that with confidence since most of my oldest friends are dead. I wanted to include in this document that if there was ever any study done, it would be apparent that there was an abnormally high mortality rate for my demographic (male generation X, I suppose), in relation to my region. It's possible that it's equivalent to what would be similar demographic now, but if that is the case then it's something that should be acknowledged in our society.

So I worked part time in a construction job while in my first year high school, and continued working it after I had quit going to school. I had a vehicle of my father's to drive during that time. I eventually quit the construction job and was unemployed and not going to school for awhile, much to my father's dismay. I did begin going to the employment office during that period of time and I remember working different temporary jobs. When I mentioned that to one of my old counselors he was impressed by that. I was motivated and understood the reality of my situation. It was also during that time when a friend tried introducing me to the idea of intravenous drug use. What became difficult for me in those years was that I'd continuously be entangled in other people's debasement, it was implied that was what was expected of me. People will seek reinforcement of their debilitating behaviors. It would frustrate me since I still cared for my family & grandparents and didn't want to disappoint them. I never wanted them to think that I didn't appreciate what they did for me. My parents had also lost a baby (my older brother) to a medical mistake and so I never wanted them to be devastated by something I did. It is at this point that I can include that what was explained to me by my counselors (with masters degrees & decades of experience in the social/human services field) is that I did not have the same opportunities as others in my demographic (at the time), I was disadvantaged. My father began denying me access to the house at times even before I had turned eighteen. Technically I was already experiencing periods of homelessness. It wasn't because I didn't want to work or go to school, either. One of my friends had joined the military. I had actually first tried to when he joined but I had a ganglion cyst on my wrist so they wouldn't take me. Our family doctor told me that lancing it wouldn't work, it'd just re-form. He said that if it were broken somehow (like in the course of work) then it probably wouldn't re-form. A few months later I fell down a mountain (drunk) and it was gone when I woke up the next day. I was relieved, to say the least! The friend that was trying to get me to shoot up got busted for armed robbery by that time and a mutual friend of ours got shot in a shootout with police. After I had shared that information with one of my counselors he said it dramatically changed his perspective of people going into military service as a career pursuit.

The other important aspect of my experiences in my early adult years that relates to gender issues is that there was a clear disparity between what was available, and fitting or culturally acceptable, for me as employment compared to what was available for young women. Contstruction was strenuous and a bit dangerous but it paid better than retail or food service work. Young women could still get babysitting work and work retail or food service which is more clean and safe. The reason I mentioned any of that is because one of my therapists went through this part with me. He said that young women that I knew were also creating a problem for me because there were some that were deliberately trying to make me jealous of their access to a lifestyle that wasn't available to me. They'd make it seem so easy to live luxuriously or excitingly, the old concert groupie or biker chick archetype. The point here is that there is a bible verse (Romans 14:13) that instructs people to not put stumbling blocks in the path of others and so by that it implies that if a person makes a point to brag about their access to a lifestyle that others are unable to obtain, with the purpose of the boasting to make others jealous, then the resulting jealousy that they seek to induce isn't due to immaturity. I pointed out what I call levels of jealousy and the point with this is that it's insinuated with the person's open bragging that I shouldn't be jealous because anything like they've experienced is freely available to me too, if I would just be more motivated. I was motivated though, but understood the reality at the young age I was that I was going to need to plan for a future. I can reference this point to what I have mentioned about certainty, uncertainty, and self-sabotage. People wanted me to completely destroy my life and render my mother heartbroken, etc. just to feel a bit better about who they were. The real point here is that this experience of mine in my early adulthood isn't too uncommon.

You may not understand just how incredibly delusional women can get in their ideas of what an average man can potentially accomplish in his life if he'd "just put his mind to it". I know now that type of ideology of women's is out of their (unprovoked) jealousy. I also know that it's really the epitome of what I brought up about Theory of Forms rudimentary philosophy .. it's a projection ("transference" is the apt term, actually), but I realized that anytime people start thinking or talking in the terms of what a person should think or do, or how a person must feel, etc., or rely on platitudes in arguments, it's clear indication that the person is stuck at that level of (non)intellect. The person's point in arguing then is only to ad hominem. Everything I've actually accomplished in my life that is good or beneficial to others is really just the opposite (somehow in their mind) and it's their job to make that apparent to anyone & everyone. (A king is a king, save his own castle.)

Anyway, my proof of my claim here ... wait for it (I know you've been patient). When I was around nineteen years old this woman, a friend of my older sister's, actually looked me in the eye and told me that she didn't see why I couldn't just become a male gigolo and live the life of fun & luxury, having sex with rich beautiful women. She pretty much made it clear to my sister that she should be ashamed of me. I obviously was some kind of sick, weak, deviant that had no business existing in this world if I wouldn't come to terms with that hidden potential of mine & make it happen. I am not exaggerating, here! The woman was off her rocker, crazy! Maybe someday my sister will acknowledge that event to me, I don't know. I'd like to reiterate here for context, that at that time in my life I already knew that my parents had suffered tradegies, loss of their first born son, etc., and so my rage that I felt towards that woman (and her husband) for talking to me like that was normal. They gave me a ride in their car a few miles from my sister's back to my apartment that I shared with my girlfriend (at the time) and when I got out of their car I kicked their door as hard as I could, putting a fairly good dent in it. I was a construction plumber, that was my trade at that time. I was not "weak". The people brought that incident up later, about me kicking their car, and said it just went to show how ungrateful I was. They were like "spiritually enlightened Christians" and I expressed interest in spirituality, that was an established, known characteristic of mine that I made no secret of, so that was their reasoning to make a point to visit me so as to mentor me. Of course they scrutinized my relationship with my girlfriend and that was the catalyst for the woman to go into her speil about me being a gigolo, I wasn't true to the Christian form, see? I was already a "sinner" and obviously (she kept using that word and it's why I do a lot now, a private joke thing) ... but I wasn't aware enough of any of that, etc., etc. So why not just be a hedonistic playboy type? WTF was wrong with me? (I loved my grandmothers too, they were fine with who I was and respected my girlfriend.) The point is that those people got off easy with me just kicking their door. I had a new bottle of beer in my coat pocket to give to my girlfriend so there wasn't much more I could do at the time. Of course now I woulda just got out of the car & started yelling about how these sicko people had a chomo cult that they wanted me to join and their friends woulda thought "oh, we missed the Rapture" because I coulda made them disappear. (I don't exaggerate on that point ... the local cop-shop was around the corner & they thought the world of me ... I kid not! & There is an open-space area behind there that I'll never go into at night.) My executive functioning is working just fine these days, thank you very much!

So to finish this part I could include the fact that I was a charitable man and helped people out with my physical labor thoughout my entire life. My counselors wanted me to understand that the reality was that I am a good person, worked hard, and was responsible so I would have succeeded in my life (with my own house, etc.) if it weren't for the trauma that I had experienced in my life. (There were other instances in my life where, without provocation, I was physically attacked and brutalized, too.) I have directly given (relatively) large amounts of money to some women friends of mine and would share housing with them so they/we could have nicer places. The reason I mention this part is because, again, my counselors made it a point to tell me this, that my women friends were taking advantage of me and that was his educated assessment of my circumstances. A couple of women lured me into a roommate living situation with an implication that we would have intimate relationship but then they'd explain to me that wasn't the case. They'd put me in a potentially dangerous situation, even. It wasn't dangerous for them, my counselor pointed out. They used me and now here I am an older man, people will see me walking down the street and figure that I must be lazy, irresponsible, stupid, or whatever since I'm walking down the street, alone. The women that I mentioned are still friends of mine, though. I'm not resentful or anything. The sociology aspect of it all is what is enlightening.

my "Quakerism" & exonerating others (for sake of harmony)

I'm not sure if I've covered the point that in my family we had a practice of exonerating others, and it was meant as to not be prideful about being right (or feeling superior), although I didn't know the word for it (exonerate) but I think my grandma(s) did. My paternal grandma was the more intellectual one and she read a lot. My maternal grandma & her sister, they were a set like that, were both petite and so from them I learned to be aware of a woman's physical stature and how they'd be affected in their lives. I would need to talk in a softer voice around them so as not to startle them and as a result of that other men would ridicule me when I'd "slip" into that mode of talking. Oh, I even had a coworker (supervisor) who would deride me continuously. Discombobulating me was just way too funny to resist the temptation to do! A friend (shipmate) told me once that he understood that I was different (in intellect) so he could only assume that I was inferior ... but I wasn't, & he figured it best to leave it at that (& I appreciated that). (Incidently, that man had actually known the serial killer, Candyman, and he said that he figured out early on that the man would send the boys he befriended on wild goose chases ... give them some pointless task to do but insist it was some critical thing that needed done & reward, or maybe punish. The tactic would be to instill feelings of acceptance so they'd feel safe within his group.)

I still need to explain what I mean by "exonerate". The simple example is in the course of an argument, like let's say the subject is towing children or adults on snow sliding devices using a vehicle. I'm adamant that people shouldn't do that, at all, and it's also illegal (here but the news articles never mention that part - oh, it gets my goat!). The reason it's illegal is obvious once you read about some accident. The other aspect is that even it's on private property (since the law concerns public roads) then it'd be negligence and I'd point out that if there was a law made to address the issue that could arise on private land too then it would be reasonable that there could be some criminal charge. If it's adults being towed that'd be more difficult, admittedly. Whether it's a full sized (passenger) vehicle or an atv of some sort then that'd be another variable, but in that case a simple physics "thought experiment" would reveal that a danger exists regardless. ... So that's the argument and maybe (God forbid) the person actually exclaims "OMG the person being towed wouldn't have any control and could run into just about anything, including the tow vehicle!", but then they'd include "but most people aren't idiots like you and your family are... we're cool & shit like that so it's no problem. Can't wait for a snowstorm! Now I want to be pulled around on a sled, dammit!" ... (Ok, now I have to exonerate them in the hope that they won't be so defensive and make a point to try it out just to spite me.) So I'd say, "But you're thinking that whoever you talk into towing you will be sober and will be able to handle the vehicle in the snow." (Whew! Wasn't sure what to do there. I guess the few hurdles will help.) Anyway, I'd attempt that route as a way to avoid making the person feel dumb or irresponsible since my goal is not to prove them wrong (gloat) but pass along the information. Quakers are pragmatic by our culture. The Society of Friends has the basic tenet that all humans have "spirit of light" (for me it means a part of God) and the details of religious belief vary and it's been proven in history that religion can be corrupt. The best way to attempt to prevent that is to consider human welfare first and what is morally right by God will present itself as we encounter the events in our lives. Attempting to distract people or give them wrong information is not conducive to the priority of human welfare. Quakers's "religion" is really spiritual based sociology.

I can point out here that the moniker "Quaker" was ascribed to the English group, headed mostly by George Fox (1624 - 1691), by a judge. I think in England at the time the Quakers were caught up in between the Catholics & Protestants, who then found themselves a common enemy and wanted to burn George & them at the stake. Serious! The best that I can figure is that William Penn and his group (of which my direct ancestor was a part) was able to get out of England before it reached that level. In any event, I wasn't raised to identify as part of that culture, but the basic tenets, which are recognizable to me when I saw them in writing, were very much instilled on me. In short, I wasn't supposed to be proud of anything, except patriotism but only by the condition that our country's goal is racial equality, and it hasn't been completely achieved yet. (My father doesn't understand his contradictions as conservative, but by the same token, the current Quakers are not supporting Israel and that is freaky for me since the Jewish people have had more than their fair share of generational trauma and being required to live among people who would just as well kill you in a heartbeat if given the chance is terrifying. The best that I can figure is that the contemporary Quakers will take the more unpopular side on the issue and that's my way of exonerating them. What I know is that a liberal Jewish man, Bill Maher, and my father are in agreement that the Jewish people have a right to their sanctuary, their own nation, is my way of putting it.

So come to find out, I'm actually descended from a "disowned" branch of the American Society of Friends, Free Quakers, and my ancestor was in the Revolutionary War. My grandfathers served in WWII, one served two tours, one retired and my step-grandfather was a paratrooper & got injured. My great uncle, & great aunt served in the war, too. My father served eight years, his brother retired USAF (as their father did), and my first cousin is retired Army. So what I understood growing up was that we were from a military family, but of course not to glorify any violence, but it was because of our position of a goal of racial equality. I realize now that the military provides their USMJ which gave us more protection from other white people. Betsy Ross was also considered a Free Quaker because she married outside the community of Quakers and it really isn't too difficult to see that even they can be hypocrites in their overall platform. I wanted to point out though, that (of course) recently it was discovered that Betsy did not have any part in designing the first flag(s), or not as much a part as what was attributed her, but there was a point to memorialize her for some reason. There still may be some unknown information as of yet concerning her but I think it might be partly due to some missing historical context in that people of this era may underestimate the amount of correspondence that took place, or the range of interaction that took place. Her role may have been exaggerated, but even for the sake of brevity or like a composite character literary device, type thing. Oh well, she got nullified!

I was going to go more into the aspect of exoneration that I mentioned that I do and listed some ways that I do that. It depends on circumstances, the topic, etc. as to how I'd go about it. I wanted to make note of these for now and I will be sure to elucidate later. (Of course an alternate take on the habit of mine is that I'm acceptance seeking, but it seems that a lot of other people immediately start in with gloating ridicule if they happen to be correct on some issue.)




I'd first like to go back into basic tenets of Quakerism (Society of Friends principles) and it's important to point out that women's equality was always a goal, and the meeting houses would sometimes have a woman in the role of "minister" (is the word I'll use). I don't claim to be any kind of theologian but I will also point out that from scripture, the reference that I know of to reconcile with the position, is when Jesus stopped the group of people from stoning the adulteress. Probably not the best example, but the reasoning is that the men there were sinners too, and in that they were not superior to her. They were not in any position to pass judgement on her. The other reason that I can give, but maybe a bit more vague, is that His followers included both men & women, and He did not treat women as inferior. So of course I consider my women friends, etc. as equals even though some of them consider me inferior. It's obvious with the women that idealizea a hedonistic lifestyle, like it's all there really is. To think that's there is ever going to be any more than that possible, an afterlife or whatever, is fantasy, a lost cause. Oh they don't deny that the possibility exists for them (even still) but nothing like that will ever be for the likes of me. I was one of those men that figured I'd have to work for a living and now there's the point to teach me that I wasted all my time, wasted my life. Look where it got me... I'm not rich or have a hottie wife so their suggestion is that I go to hell in a handbasket. I'm not worthy of anything more since I don't have a hottie wife to show for what I've accomplished in my life. Serious! From my experience I can firmly attest to the fact that women enjoy debasing nice men. The ones that despise Christianity are the ones that would rather feel free to abuse single men. Also in my experience some women will overtly feign piousness or relatable spiritual crisis in order to lure some unsuspecting man to trust her, of course they'll be led down a path into debauchery as to face their own arrogance. A decent man can be exploited too, is the point, so I have to risk being considered cold-hearted or not cool or whatever.




I need to get this in here somehow. So I get involved in social media arguments but try to avoid it, although there will be posts (like promotional advertisements, almost) that are in a guise of "public service announcement" regarding mental health issues, i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. Sometimes I will put my 2¢ in, usually I just comment with an excerpt from a (favorite, respected) sociology textbook "A Sociology of Mental Health and Illness", but I try to leave it at that. I will comment on psychologytoday.com's Facebook posts too, and rarely do I end up arguing with anyone. The aforementioned posts can be a problem since there are obviously people commenting that have or had a "mentally ill" family member (or friend) and vehemently defend the culturally accepted psychiatric paradigm of schizophrenia, which is especially a problem since it inevitably will be associated with violence. The stigma and the issue with vigilantes that trauma'd people have to endure is completely ignored. It becomes about sympathizing with abusive parents, etc. and denying that the "mentally ill" person had suffered anything.

At any rate... In the discussions online regarding schizophrenia there will usually be a parent (mother) commenting that their son committed suicide because he stopped taking his meds, or some reason that implicates the system, etc., blame shifting and misdirection. There will inevitable be sympathy expressed by people for the mother and nobody will stop and consider an important point. There are probably many people that have thought about ending their lives but the thought of their mother would prevent any follow through. If a person doesn't know their real mother, or are estranged and carry unresolvable resentment, then it'd be understandable (maybe not perfect word there) that the idea of their mother wouldn't make a difference. (In the event that the person's mother has already passed then this all could still hold up since the person may feel like they're accountable to their mother in spiritual way.) If the person has interaction with the mother on daily basis however, then the question is who is it exactly that the son or daughter is escaping? Society or their own mother? In that light it is easier to see how a mother could make it her goal in life to seek out reinforcement of her assertion that it wasn't her fault.


Well, I need to go back through this article because I'm not sure if I've covered the concept of false imprisonment. I haven't used that term exactly in quite awhile, the last time was probably in some reply comment I made about my current governor on a localized discussion on social media (somewhere). The story is simply that when this govenor was a businessman back in the day he had this assistant working for him, a woman who shared my surname actually, but he found out she was using the business credit card for personal things. Sure, she was embezzling, and he could have turned her in but didn't. Instead he gave her two weeks to leave. On the day that was to be her last she called him from the office (he was elsewhere) and told him that she was going to take some paperwork that was valuable to his business. He rushed back to the office and caught her there. She tried to rush past him, swinging the bag of paperwork stuff and hit him in the arm. He then pushed her, she backed into a file cabinet and was bruised by the cabinet hardware. She then got under the desk (or otherwise completely trapped, I forget), and she got the phone and called police. He disconnected the call, prevented her from using the phone, and then he called police. He help her there until police arrived. It's a great example of false imprisonment, since he didn't have the authority to trap her in the office. Of course somebody would exclaim that he couldn't just let her leave with the paperwork! ... Obviously. I didn't mean that. If you think about that reality though, that it was business paperwork that the vast majority of people wouldn't even see the point of keeping. It isn't like she could go pawn it or find a fence to sell it. These people ain't the mob. That was part of my argument about the incident. The other thing I'd bring up is that he knew she was a bit unstable so why didn't he have his business paperwork secured? It was ultimately his responsibility as the owner of the business. The fact that the woman's dismissal resulted with him trapping her in the office is indication that he wasn't very conscientious. A judge exonerated him though, and the assistant was charged with theft. Her sentencing included mental health evaluation/treatment and I'm not going to disagree with that (that's a separate issue) but the judge assigned some arbitrary worth for the paperwork she was threatening to take and that's absurd! A nominal cost to recover the hardcopies (they had computers) would be sensible but implying that the paperwork was worth anything more than printed paper & time to reprint it wasn't realistic. He should have changed the combination to the safe, or whatever.

  ...




Note: This page/article that I'm writing here is still in unfinished state. Please check back in mid July 2024 for updated content. There are other points that I'd like to bring up and I need to make references to some of my other articles/pages, as well as external resources. I'd like to get what I have here published online for the time being.


Back to Top


Nina St Anger

I understand that the point is to convince me that I am wasting my time. I do my best to steer clear of social media posts that are ostensibly like "public awareness campaigns" about "mental illnesses" but the ones that promote the biomedical paradigm (or genetic) cause for the conditions will inevitably have plenty of comments from people that sympathize with family of the afflicted people. The implication is that everyone involved is innocent except the "mentally ill" person since they "won't stay on their meds" and everyone knows that they won't since that is why they will still have problems ... in other words the "mentally ill" person would not have any problems whatsoever if they would just take their meds. Sure, everyone else has problems but their problems are legitimate and not just a result of not taking meds & so on ... same old bullshit.

Occassionally someone will comment something that is just too unrealistic like insinuating that a schizophrenic person has never been victimized by anyone because they would have proof if they were. That sentence may seem like exaggeration on my part but it's a typical assertion, but maybe expressed in convoluted, obfuscated ways. I will work on this more later but it is important to note that this person that I'm arguing with in the following screen captures brought up "multiple personality disorder" in the context that it was a legitimate condition that is just manifested out of nowhere as a result of a person's "mental illness". It is important to note that the condition can be demostrated in the way that I end up handling these types of arguments ... using three separate accounts. The person with "multiple personalities" is really just providing their own support system ... of course there will probably be one that is critical but the point would be that the person is self-aware and aware of how others may perceive them... preemptive strike, in a way. (To preclude a Kafkatrap trick.) The condition would be a step away from the person becoming catatonic. It's tragic!

There are duplicates in the images but I have them in a fairly accurate order. (She edited one of her comments with "you and the other guy..." so she couldn't tell that I was the same person. I make no secret of it.) Oh ... There is a singer with a similar name, Nina Lee, so I just used "nina" for the presentation purposes.

The plain text of the post.

Jexy S
How do know if it’s schizophrenia or someone harassing someone and denying it or someone dealing with gang stalking and violation of their constitutional rights?

--------------------------
Author
MyDepressionTeam
Hi Jexy,
We created MyDepressionTeam so no one has to face it alone.
Join for support and advice from an understanding community of others who have depression. Sign up here: xxxxxxx
Depression Support Online | Depression Social Network - MyDepressionTeam
MYDEPRESSIONTEAM.COM

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Jexy S. proof.

--------------------------
Erfahren Reyndur
A crime is only a crime if there is proof, Nina Lee St. Anger, otherwise it is delusion? Maybe people with schizophrenia were all abused as children but the abuse was both physical and psychological to the point to where the victim is unable to verbally articulate the experience(s) ... That possibility is completely impossible? Or if there is slightest chance that is true then people (and entities) that promote this biomedical model of schizophrenia being a "mental illness", that requires lifetime medication, are defending and covering up child abuse. (There is no blood test or other definite medical test to verify the condition and it's all just about (mis)interpreting what the patient says and putting it in writing to make the person seem as crazy as possible so the workers justify their pay.)

The plain text of the post.

Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur they weren't all abused as children. It's often genetic and onset can suddenly occur around 25. I know one who this happened to and it's one of those things that's easily researchable. There are actually MRI's now.

--------------------------
Erfahren Reyndur
When including the prison population, Nina Lee St. Anger, people of color are disproportionately represented with diagnosed psychiatric disorders. So the promotion of "genetic causation" is racist. I didn't come up with that myself, a researcher doctor did. People also assume that (physical) "child abuse" is always by parents but reality they may unwittingly help cover-up somebody else's crime. True "scientific method" has it that theories have to be challenged, considered not fact until they cannot be proven wrong. Pharmaceutical corporations circumvent science for $.
Racism Under The Banner of Science - Ordinary Times

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur that's not how racism works. My aunt didn't want to believe the genealogy research that showed we were mixed and nearly died insisting she was white because they didn't know to test for sickle cell anemia as she gave the wrong medical history. Both her refusal to acknowledge her heritage(her father-my gpa was racist against black people as well so she thought this was somehow proof) AND the lack of proper training in medical staffing to note indicators of mixed heritage is the result of racism. Of course people of color are disproportionately represented with psychiatric disorders. The risks go up, the more categories of victimization you fall into. They're not "misdiagnosed" per se, though the symptoms are often undiagnosed for a minimum of 10 years after onset regardless of race.

--------------------------
Erfahren Reyndur
"Schizophrenia" isn't tested for the same way sickle cell anemia is. You actually confirmed my point with that example. There is "confirmation bias" involved in diagnosing psych disorders since the doctors don't want to be wrong. I have reiterate, Nina Lee St. Anger, the racism aspect is that there are still people who support, defend eugenics. I didn't include that part. Maybe that one point will give you pause. Again, now you are arguing against a doctor researcher's (life's) work, @jayjoseph22 on X ... You see my point but are defensive, is all.

The plain text of the post.

Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur schizophrenia shows up in an MRI. The fact that they commonly go by symptoms rather than expensive testing is the result of a lack of attention to Healthcare needs overall. A common symptom of schizophrenia is anosognosia. The inability to recognize their own symptoms or their severity. That goes hand in hand with delusional thinking. It's common in bipolar disorder as well.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger Erfahren Reyndur if you're going to go into abortion and ignore the slavery aspects of not giving women choice, then you're ignoring reality. Re: eugenics
--------------------------
Suzie McMillian There are so many psychiatrists that are young & grew up with sheltered lives (often white) upper middle class, Nina Lee St. Anger, and assume that anyone has the same ability that they did to make good choices and follow through with goals without any impediments. The real world is that "nobody is an island" and someone (who's been abused) can have friends/family that make deliberate attempts to drag them down to justify their contempt of them. (The "contempt" is result of embarrassment since an abused person can get overly emotional and there is a "fundamental attribution error" - see Wikipedia article on that.) An abused person fears non-acceptance.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur it's a fact that black people and other minorities are overrepresented in criminality and the reasons DO come down to racism. The math could not possibly support 13% of the population being that "criminal" without police dedicating time and resources to attempting to convict the demographic first and foremost. The oppression certain demographics experience affects their health. Whether physical or mental. That oppression is also racism.

The plain text of the post.

Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur it's a fact that black people and other minorities are overrepresented in criminality and the reasons DO come down to racism. The math could not possibly support 13% of the population being that "criminal" without police dedicating time and resources to attempting to convict the demographic first and foremost. The oppression certain demographics experience affects their health. Whether physical or mental. That oppression is also racism.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Suzie McMillian certain behaviors are still indicative of mental illness once they no longer have that abnormal environment. There are types of mental health issues that can be ameliorated because they're situational. That's not to say that no one is misdiagnosed or that people are that commonly misdiagnosed. It's common for biased people to refuse to acknowledge any malady and call it "criminality" or bad behavior or the reverse. Whatever leaves that person they're biased against with the least amount of power. That's the indicator. Are they LOOKING for a reason not to properly treat? How are they excluding symptoms or what they're attributing them to? That kind of thing. Schizophrenia is pretty hard to mistake for other things at this point though.

--------------------------
Scott H
"Psychiatrist's notes" for: Nina Lee St. Anger - Has a fixed belief that she is a medical professional and implies that she has decades of experience personally interacting with people diagnosed with "schizophrenia". She exhibits delusions of grandeur and is prepared to wager anything and everything she has on her contention that nobody who's been diagnosed with schizophrenia has ever been sexually abused so there can never be any correlation between the condition and being survivors of atrocities.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger Scott H. you just totally misrepresented everything I said, so what kind of professional are you trying to masquerade as?

The plain text of the post.

Scott H
"Psychiatrist's notes" for: Nina Lee St. Anger - Has a fixed belief that she is a medical professional and implies that she has decades of experience personally interacting with people diagnosed with "schizophrenia". She exhibits delusions of grandeur and is prepared to wager anything and everything she has on her contention that nobody who's been diagnosed with schizophrenia has ever been sexually abused so there can never be any correlation between the condition and being survivors of atrocities

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger Scott H. you just totally misrepresented everything I said, so what kind of professional are you trying to masquerade as?

--------------------------
Scott H. How did I "totally misrepresented everything you said" Nina Lee St. Anger ?

-------------------------- Scott H.
you found yourself a scapegoat to badger, Nina Lee St. Anger , didn't you?

-------------------------- Scott H.
figure scottY must have had easy life & all that, right? Nina Lee St. Anger

--------------------------
Scott H.
I knew a man diagnosed with schizophrenia that stabbed himself in the neck, Nina Lee St. Anger, & so you would say "because he was off his meds" but where is your "proof"? Seriously! The man's mother was a nagging witch!

The plain text of the post.

Nina Lee St. Anger
Scott H. I don't know why you think I'm the one seeking info. I'm well aware of these things. A woman who remembers where she was isn't in a dissociative fugue, but might be passive aggressively self harming. That doesn't mean it's as common as you think for things with very specific symptoms to be misdiagnosed. I grew up with a girl with DID (formerly known as multiple personality disorder). My daughter's grandmother on her father's side also has it. We had a former about to go pro football player who was slipped acid and never came back from his trip/became schizophrenic in our small town. He eventually committed himself after he went off his meds and harmed a woman thinking she was a demon. That had never happened before. He'd never been violent in all the decades prior no matter how many times he went off his meds. Another one who was a Vietnam vet. Most aren't violent. I've known about a dozen or so, some very well. One was a personal friend who started to develop symptoms of schizophrenia like his uncle around 26. He realized it and purposely put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and I had to go to his funeral. I'm VERY familiar with the mechanisms involved in all of these things because I've been exposed to them often as well as having been exposed to situations that easily could have led to me developing them had I not figured out how they worked.

--------------------------
Erfahren Reyndur
" A woman who remembers where she was isn't in a dissociative fugue," Nina Lee St. Anger - You are not understanding. There was a state licensed counselor, with a masters degree, there in the room when she said this & it is the term she used. What are your credentials? The woman broke down and cried (with relief) when she realized what was happening. ... she is a good person. You are not. Go away! (Oh , you most likely never would experience "crying with relief" or some other person wouldn't have that human capacity or ... omg ... just on & on & on & on - You're friend suffered YOU!

The plain text of the post.

Scott H.
I know a woman who would find herself walking on railroad tracks in middle of night because she suffered "disassociated fugues" Nina Lee St. Anger, and she was convinced that it was because her inner most being wanted to be there for a specific reason but I pointed out that many of the tracks around are either obsolete or rarely used so you might just wander off a main road sidewalk to get away from traffic. She would go on walks at night when she couldn't sleep but apartment living was an issue for her. The counselor spoke up and said that she wanted to regain her sense of privacy.
So whatever ... I've spent over a decade researching and interacting with people, both in person and internationally online. Go to "Mad in America" website to find or refute the "proof" that you are seeking. Take care!


Excerpt from 'A Sociology of Mental Health and Illness' (3rd edition) page 153 by Anne Rogers (Author), David Pilgrim (Contributor)
Who is psychiatry's client?
One of the ambiguities surrounding psychiatric work is whether or not the identified patient is the actual client of the service. Clearly, some party other than the patient is being served under those sections of the Mental Health Act which empower professionals to remove a person's liberty and/or impose treatment interventions against the patient's will. Coulter's work (described in Chapter 6) on decision making about madness in the lay area traces such a process. Professionals are summoned in order to resolve a distressing drama to those around the patient. Similarly, when members of the public contact the police about a person acting bizarrely in the street it is clear that the client of the police-psychiatrist 'disposal' is not the patient, although quite who psychiatry is serving in this instance is ambiguous. Is it the distressed and perplexed member of public making the first police contact, is it the police themselves, or is it both?
Clearly, if a person is detained without trial, and they are interfered with without consent, then it is difficult to conceptualize them as 'customers' or 'clients' of psychiatry. Instead, the terminology favoured by the psychiatric service users' movement would seem to be more appropriate, of 'recipients' or 'survivors' (see Chapter 11). On the other hand, if a person chooses freely to make contact with a mental health worker, to seek help with a personal difficulty, in this instance they would seem to have a genuine 'client' status.
However, even with this voluntary contact there is still a sense in which the client does not enjoy the same rights and privileges as other types of customers accessing a service industry.
Copyright (C) Anne Rogers and David Pilgrim 2005
'A Sociology of Mental Health and Illness' (3rd edition)
scanned image of excerpt from "A Sociology of Mental Health and Illness" "real clients" pg153 3rd edition

The plain text of the post.

Erfahren Reyndur
" A woman who remembers where she was isn't in a dissociative fugue," Nina Lee St. Anger - You are not understanding. There was a state licensed counselor, with a masters degree, there in the room when she said this & it is the term she used. What are your credentials? The woman broke down and cried (with relief) when she realized what was happening. ... she is a good person. You are not. Go away! (Oh , you most likely never would experience "crying with relief" or some other person wouldn't have that human capacity or ... omg ... just on & on & on & on - You're friend suffered YOU!

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur I understand what you're saying and I'm saying as someone who has both witnessed and experienced them that this isn't consistent with the DSM. Unless you're saying that she was in a dreamlike state? Your description does leave much to be desired, you know.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur you appear anxious to attack and mischaracterize what I'm saying. What could be motivating that?

The plain text of the post.

Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur I understand what you're saying and I'm saying as someone who has both witnessed and experienced them that this isn't consistent with the DSM. Unless you're saying that she was in a dreamlike state? Your description does leave much to be desired, you know.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur you appear anxious to attack and mischaracterize what I'm saying. What could be motivating that? You and the other guy keep addressing me as someone who hasn't reverse engineered symptoms on my own. That's the issue. I speak like I know what I'm talking about because I do in fact know.

--------------------------
Erfahren Reyndur
I figured it was obvious that I was showing how your words could be misrepresented. Some psychiatrists and some other people in the field will do that and will make notations in the patient's medical record to that effect, Nina Lee St. Anger ... You figure all medical people that come in contact with "mentally ill" people really look out for the patient's best interest? Or maybe it's a decent paying job that's inside.
At least watch one of Paula's - I chatted with her a bit but she passed away. Dr Paula J. Caplan on YouTube

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur I've been in and out of therapy since I was 2 years old and subjected to many types of extreme abuse. I'm well aware of how things can be mischaracterized. You don't seem aware of the fact that I've already stated that and can still disagree with you on certain points.

The plain text of the post.

Erfahren Reyndur
I figured it was obvious that I was showing how your words could be misrepresented. Some psychiatrists and some other people in the field will do that and will make notations in the patient's medical record to that effect, Nina Lee St. Anger ... You figure all medical people that come in contact with "mentally ill" people really look out for the patient's best interest? Or maybe it's a decent paying job that's inside. At least watch one of Paula's - I chatted with her a bit but she passed away. Dr Paula J. Caplan on YouTube

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur I've been in and out of therapy since I was 2 years old and subjected to many types of extreme abuse. I'm well aware of how things can be mischaracterized. You don't seem aware of the fact that I've already stated that and can still disagree with you on certain points.

--------------------------
Nina Lee St. Anger
Erfahren Reyndur the reason why I said what I did regarding her "dissociative fugue" states is simple. The subconscious calculates things. Primarily, risks. Her nightly wanderings are a "problem" because they can disrupt other areas of her life, cause her injury or even "physical death". The subconscious knows this and deemed it acceptable...to my mind there is not one, but 2 types of death. Physical and psychological. Psychological death, one way or another, leads to physical death because the person simply doesn't WANT to exist anymore. (So if that's the case, the mind-body connection will start to respond and I call it the "Kill-switch". ) So..either her subconscious deemed her wanderings a necessity in order to prevent psychological death which it calculated to be a higher risk than physical death OR...its a sign that physical death has been deemed acceptable by the subconscious. Or even both because the two things can be present at the same time. So what you see as a lack of empathy is merely experience and awareness of the common elements.

The plain text of the post.

Nina Lee St. Anger
Scott H. I don't know why you think I'm the one seeking info. I'm well aware of these things. A woman who remembers where she was isn't in a dissociative fugue, but might be passive aggressively self harming. That doesn't mean it's as common as you think for things with very specific symptoms to be misdiagnosed. I grew up with a girl with DID (formerly known as multiple personality disorder). My daughter's grandmother on her father's side also has it. We had a former about to go pro football player who was slipped acid and never came back from his trip/became schizophrenic in our small town. He eventually committed himself after he went off his meds and harmed a woman thinking she was a demon. That had never happened before. He'd never been violent in all the decades prior no matter how many times he went off his meds. Another one who was a Vietnam vet. Most aren't violent. I've known about a dozen or so, some very well. One was a personal friend who started to develop symptoms of schizophrenia like his uncle around 26. He realized it and purposely put himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and I had to go to his funeral. I'm VERY familiar with the mechanisms involved in all of these things because I've been exposed to them often as well as having been exposed to situations that easily could have led to me developing them had I not figured out how they worked.

--------------------------
Erfahren Reyndur
" A woman who remembers where she was isn't in a dissociative fugue," Nina Lee St. Anger - You are not understanding. There was a state licensed counselor, with a masters degree, there in the room when she said this & it is the term she used. What are your credentials? The woman broke down and cried (with relief) when she realized what was happening. ... she is a good person. You are not. Go away! (Oh , you most likely never would experience "crying with relief" or some other person wouldn't have that human capacity or ... omg ... just on & on & on & on - You're friend suffered YOU!

Back to Top



Other Notes

(Note: I re-use my previously made pages as templates and the following I had already included in it so I kept it in here.)

Oh, "Only the gov't can violate people's rights..." argument? See page 8 of this aticle on Stanford Law website:


"We want and are entitled to the basic rights and opportunities of American citizens: The right to earn a living at work for which we are fitted by training and ability; equal opportunities in education, health, recreation, and similar public services; the right to vote; equality before the law; some of the same courtesy and good manners that we ourselves bring to all human relations."
~ (Dr.) Martin Luther King, Jr. from August 6, 1946 letter to editor of Atlanta newspaper.



The biggest danger to our rights today is not from government acting against the will of the majority
but from government which has become the mere instrument of this majority...
Wrong will be done as much by an all-powerful people as by an all-powerful prince.
~ James Madison



Class conflict is another concept which upsets the oppressors, since they do not wish to consider themselves an oppressive class. Unable to deny, try as they may, the existence of social classes, they preach the need for understanding and harmony between those who buy and those who are obliged to sell their labor. However, the unconcealable antagonism which exists between the two classes makes this "harmony" impossible. ~ Paulo Freire


To impede communication is to reduce men to the status of "things" - and this is a job for oppressors, not for revolutionaries.
~ Paulo Freire

Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both. ~ Paulo Freire


"Only a lively appreciation of dissent's vital function at all levels of society can preserve it as a corrective to wishful thinking, self-inflation, and unperceived rigidity"  The Wrong Way Home : Uncovering the patterns of cult behavior in American society | by Arthur J. Deikman, M.D
ISBN 10: 0807029157 ISBN 13: 9780807029152



Force has no place where there is need of skill.
~ Herodotus





Photograph of my old department crewmembers & I displaying our
Battle Efficiency Award onboard the now decommissioned USS Wabash AOR-5


1986-WabashAOR5-Supply-Divs-Battle-E.jpg

One of my more recent projects was converting scanned magazine articles to digital text and a Colorado history magazine (printed in 1973) included an article about Junius R. Lewis. There was an injustice committed against him that entailed gender issues as well as the racism that he had to contend with. It's a fascinating story! (The article includes references so converting it to EPUB3 with audio reader capability is an aspect that needs work.)


Back to Top

site part of:
holypsych.org

Contact me

(Screen captures included here in conformance with fair use in this criticism.)