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 September 08, 2024 (Mobile users need to click off the image to hide .gif video popup.)

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 were 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 circumstantial 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 or implied accusation. 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 the victim. The resulting rift between the people may not be possible for the victim to mend (forgive) without the help of psychotherapy. Then of course becomes the issue of the family's resistance to the victim family member receiving therapy which may inevitably reveal "dirt" on the family ... release the skeletons in the closet, so to speak.
† There's most likely numerous articles written about the term, but here's: Just World Phenomenon: Definition, Examples, and Why It Happens.

In my psychotherapy, one of the things that was brought out of me was that I was subjected to a "public humilation" type punishment when I was a pre-adolescent, and then was phyically abused later at home because I embarrassed my father during the punishment. Another instance, when I was a young man, my father had waited with a softball bat for me to come home one night and attacked me (body-slammed me) when I walked through the front door. My mother came downstairs and tried to break us up and then my dad yelled at me to not hit my mother. I was like WTF? That incident ended in me being held to the floor (or actually laid out on my back on a short staircase in tri-level house) and my dad choking me with the bat. The projection onto me that I was the violent one and everybody else was always innocent, well my mom was, she broke us up. There were a couple instances in my later life, however, where my older sister went completely berzerk on me and started hitting & scratching me. I had no defense and she forced me out of the house on both occassions, one of the instances I was living with her, and paying her rent. I was originally living there and paying rent because she wanted me there to help them. My older sister's main issue with me is that I never had children & a family of my own so I'm the worst kind of P.o.S. failure, as far as she's concerned. Her and my parents have ensured that the younger generations in the family are convinced that I'm the most stupid, weak, ingrate that ever walked the face of the earth. Their narrative is (of course) that anything bad happened to me in my life was merely my own fault, and (of course) they insist that I exaggerate or just make things up. (We're all aware of the controversy of therapists "implanting" memories. My family members haven't made that accusation, directly at least, but they have me to scapegoat.) If my family do openly talk about the past it is either about some dirt that they can hold over me (I drank a lot and got in trouble with the law as a result), they will describe some abusive act against me as if I was such an extraordinary person that they had no other choice but to be extraordinary cruel. I was different so I needed to be treated differently, is their narrative to this very day.

My counselors were actually impressed with the fact that, along with my military service (where I did mostly fairly high amount of physical labor type work), I also worked mostly doing construction plumbing. One therapist paraphrased back to me that the kind of work I did when I was younger was difficult, physically demanding and even dangerous at times. Another counselor broke down and cried when I talked about some dangerous incidents that I experienced at work. Both of these (state licensed) counselors referenced the fabled concept of Cinderella (as embarrassing as that is for me, being a man & all), but it's not an uncommon family role. Even recently I had mentioned to my mother (& maybe my sister) that the skin cancer that I had, a small spot on my upper nose by my eye, was caused by the synthetic (latex rubber) material of the nose pads of my old glasses. I had let the pads wear to the point to where they were discolored and my nose would itch in the spot of contact (sometimes it would kind of stick from sweating when I exercised too), so I was sure that is what caused the Basal cell carcinoma. I mentioned that to the dermatologist too. That information could be beneficial to a lot of people. I saw a young indigenous man, obviously homeless, who had a big silver dollar sized spot of the same cancer on his forehead ... maybe from the core webbing of a hard hat because maybe he worked on oil-rigs ... but see neither one of us were giving any of the women anything that they really wanted so who really gives a flying fuck ... why blame others & shit, is always their posit (is mere platitudes & rebuff).

On politics & related sociology

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.
† I guess the scientists didn't create the cells, but used live human & mice brain cells to create "DishBrain": Live Brain Cells Playing Pong in a Dish Could Illuminate Mind's Mechanics - CNET. It won't be long until people decide to try to connect the two technologies, though.

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 reappear. 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.)

• self-effacing, attempt to use humor or colloquial speech
• admit, concede to committing analogous solecism
• share information on relatable topic ("Now that I have your attention"...)
• (attempt to) use analogy to emphasize importance
• make concession that I can understand their reasoning based on limited information

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.

Stigma of schizophrenia

I need to get this in here somehow. I get involved in social media arguments although I try to avoid it. 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.

Oh, I might as well mention that voices that a schizophrenic may hear can be attributed to tinnitus, but their thoughts in their executive functioning† are "coat-tailing" on the tinnitus "sound" and provide an added layer of words or whatever. Consider the analogy of staring at a lighted pattern (like a paned window) for a period of time and then looking at a blank wall. The "after image effect" pattern will show up for a bit of time. It's common for people to report having old songs "play" in their heads, as well. A person labeled schizophrenic and experiencing tinnitus may have been told that it's impossible for them to really have the condition since there isn't any cause for such a condition (something damaging their hearing) in their background, e.g., loud working conditions or whatever. (In that article it states "While the exact causes of tinnitus are not fully understood...") The person experiencing "voices" may have been influenced in some way to think of the auditory hallucinations (paracusias) as words or talking, trying to listen is something to do when alone, and so it's something that they become accustomed to‡. It's already been determined that the idea of multiple personalities is simply a person who invents another persona in order to provide their own "support" or reinforcement of their posit. The other persona could be one that is cynical or provides a critical perspective of themselves so as to preclude or forestall (preempt) someone else bringing any of it up. They could've been influenced to embellish on the idea too, of course. It's not as common anymore and was really based on only anecdotal evidence as it was.
† Meta-cognition is another term for executive functioning, but it's our "thinking about thinking" or thinking about someone else's true motives, etc., while involved in conversation with them, for example. If you're driving and notice that a vehicle in front of you has a burnt-out brake light, that thought takes place in meta-cognition. An area or something may "remind you of" another area or some other thing, respectively, and that memory thought association takes place in a person's meta-cognition.
‡In the 19th century there was a man, Jakob Lorber (1800 to 1864), who claimed to hear a voice that was spiritual in nature and he transcribed what he heard. He wrote about ten thousand pages in his life. What is odd is that he was accepted as genuine for awhile, even by religious people.

Another misconception, and deliberately exaggerated & associated with physiological varibles that are dismissed in the process, is the medical phenomenon of problems with thermoregulation or "dysregulation of body temperature" that is considered a symptom of schizophrenia. There was an observed commonality among many schizophrenic patients where they would layer their clothing, and often dress "too warmly" for the immediate environment. Of course the people making the determination of what would be considered "normal attire" have never been forced outside by family members in the freezing cold and have not been victims of child molestation, etc., so why would they take any of that into account if there's no proof? When there are people that are supposedly educated, but unaware of their own bias, who are dictating the narrative for people who were abused to make it more palatable and to justify pharmaceutical corporation involvement, the end result can be articles upon articles of invented "explanations" that really only amount to "it's God's fault & that's why we hate Him".

I'm not sure if I've covered the other aspect of personal relationships that I'm sure people are aware of is that anyone is capable of being mean or cruel to another person, but of course whether they are or not is an attribute of character (for lack of better word here), and by that same token a person can be nice to everyone with the exception of one person. Someone who presents an amicable demeanor to most everyone could possibly treat another person or people horribly in private or in circumstances that the abusive person feels in control and comfortable. A kind a person that I'm describing might be considered "narcissistic", is a label popular psychology social media discussions. Of course there are varying degrees of the anti-social attributes, clear into the spectrum of sociopath and psychopath although I'd admit that I can't provide a definite differentiation between the latter two terms. Just about anyone is capable of emotional outbursts and for some people that can be associated with a physical attack or abuse of another, either once or repeatedly. It's been established that verbal abuse of someone in a close relationship is legitimately damaging (traumatizing) but there'd most likely be some form of physical abuse involved in such a relationship, maybe indirect (the way I will describe the concept), but the simplest example is causing the victim to become so frustrated, feeling powerless, that they self-injure in some way. A person in a subordinate role to a "narcissistic" person becomes their scapegoat. That same social dynamic is carried up through the layers of interpersonal relationships all the way to general oppressive & oppressed, which I associate the term imperilism. (To be clear, the concept of critical race theory is also relatable to the dynamic although there's implication in that term that white (or Caucasian) all benefited equally, or could have if they were smart and ambitious enough, so it's a poor white person's own fault that they're impoverished, is the insinuation... but I digress.)

So while I'm (back) on the subject, & out of risk of redundancy, I can elucidate the idea of "Just World" bias† as it relates to abuse within a family, extended family or similar proximity, where the victim is burdened with knowing the truth, keeping it to themselves, and forced to forgive given their circumstances. Their plight could even go as far as to where any behavioral aberration they exhibit, i.e., temper tantrums as children, they're held as being culpable (blamed) by an adult, who may or may not be the same abuser but an influential adult. The fact that the victim is put into such a place of humilation within the family is, in turn, used to stigmatize them. Something else that needs mentioned is that many people may not realize that sexual abuse may also be intended by the abuser to not be sensual but be painful, and maybe to the extent as to physically damage a child to where their future with their overall health in tact is threatened. If all the previous variables are combined of the victim forced into humilating position within the family by being socially inept (outcasted publicly), and the victim is a forgiving person, then no matter what they do they'll be stigmatized as weak, unless they take the route of abusing others and affecting a pretense of tough. Of course just about anyone can also take on a persona that's intended to intimidate others without ever doing any kind of relatable physical activity to warrant such an attitude. ← There lies an area to project onto an actual victim of childhood trauma an idea that they're faking (for sake of bevity). There can then get to be a posit by others to want to instruct or guide, educate, etc. the victim, scapegoat them, and others outside of the person's immediate circle will treat the person in similar fashion. As a natural progression and escalation the victim can be stigmatized as abusive themselves (or potentially so, but not self-aware enough to know), especially if they're male.

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.

Near Death Experiences (not to be confused with out-of-body experiences)

First off, I'd have to admit that I inadvertently associated the two terms, near death experiences (NDE) and out-of-body experiences. Maybe I'm not the only one that did. When I first wrote what follows here in this paragraph I was thinking about out-of-body experiences but I also understood that people (women, in this case) would also describe a feeling of being outside of their body in the midst of experiencing sexual violence. So by that it could be stated that they experienced both the types. The out-of-body experience is often associated with an hospital operating table death for a short duration. There is stigma, that I can see, of elaborated reports, or invented for sake of attention or notoriety. So there is a cultural appropriation, and false reporting which dilutes the concept to begin with. "False reporting" though may be an unfounded accusation but the anecdote may be exaggerated or retold through a layer of embellished perception (with spiritual or religious associations), and even grandiose, so the result is that the term, out-of-body experience, is taken with a grain of salt. I associated the two terms so anytime I saw mention of them I wouldn't pay much attention, unless the term was used while the person was decribing a rape, and I knew that wasn't the same as the "operating table" kind. Wikipedia's article points out that people have described both positive and negative experiences so I feel validated for my way of assessing the phenomenon.

The cultural appropriation stymies the use of the phrase, as is common with about anything that stems from the human condition and experiences. The term, NDE, is also usually associated with an event of extreme physical violence, injury or risk of immediate direct injury, or is associated with out-of-body experience. The Wikipedia also mentions that they are subjective phenomenon resulting from "disturbed bodily multisensory integration" that occurs during life-threatening events. Maybe the other issue that I have is that although it's human nature to want to share anecdotes about decidedly positive experiences, and so therefor ones that could be considered negative are suppressed but it's the latter that can be helpful for sake of catharsis. I'd have to admit that reading tales of people feeling like they left their body and saw a light became a cliche to me, mere histrionics.

I was once asked, in an evaluation at a detox facility, what the worst thing I ever experienced was. After I told my story of the main traumatic event that I experienced the nurse paraphrased to me "So you had a near death experience". I said "yes, you could call it that I suppose". What that particular experience entailed though was the threat of death wasn't exactly immediate because someone deliberately attempted to infect me with hiv (he thought it worked). That wouldn't be difficult for someone else to understand that there would be thought of suicide and so there is clear association with death. By that reasoning, a person could conclude that the associated shame that is felt by someone who has been a victim of sexual violence could cause them to consider suicide, so the NDE could be two-fold for some victims; the violent event itself and the aftermath of emotional turmoil. When I attempted to talk to my father about my fear (I thought it possible that I mitigated the viral infection and it wouldn't be positive in standard tests but I was a carrier of the non-detectable strain) his response was that I needed to help the family by getting rid of myself and I should take all of my belongings to the landfill and leave my vehicle parked it a high crime area so as to erase my presence from this world as much as I possibly could. I was convinced that a demon was speaking through him. That is how I could contend with that. My therapist pointed out that wasn't true that my father was posessed when I told him that. That may sound strange that he'd say that but he was confirming what I already suspected. (I once gave a friend similar "advice", almost instinctively after she told me that I had infected her with the virus, so I know that what my dad said was from him. She was understandably pissed by that.) I wouldn't let it go that there was possibility that I could be the cause of a non-detectable strain and my plan was to work up a rapport with my psychiatrist and therapists so that I could bring the subject up again, hoping they'd be receptive to the possibility. I'd like to also mention that since that time there has been a report of a person that had supposedly completely eradicated a hiv infection. Admittedly, the report may not be true, but in reality even the fact that the report was published with a degree of legitimacy should be taken into consideration. The article (on NBC News, no less) is dated Nov. 2021 and my case preceded that by twenty years, even at the time that I was attempting to talk to doctors about it. They would just smirk at me, all smug. It wasn't them so why should they care? They were sure that the problem would work itself out and they'd get paid fairly well for sitting there staring at me, so why worry?

I'd like to point out here that I've refined my personal definition of "near death experience" as an event, that may take place over a period of time, which causes a person to fully cognitively realize their own mortality and fragility in this world. The experience will motivate a change in the person, whether the change be beneficial for the person or destructive, unintentionally so or not.

More on my relatable medical history

If someone actually reads this, please understand that the medical community gets very obstinant, many of the people in the medical field had fairly sheltered childhoods and they'll project that idea onto psychiatric patients that their childhood wasn't much different. In a way some people in the field will merely assume a role of another family member in the patient's familiar dysfuntional family, and make it a point to stigmatize, rebuff, even mock the clients in their care. One such person made it no secret that she was religious and, although she wasn't a licensed therapist, she got me talking about my spirituality in a presumably casual type of conversation. I opened up and shared my views, which was/is actually based on Quaker tenets (although I wasn't aware of that at the time), and I told her that I believed that everybody has a spirit or part of God, or soul, and He is going through a process of examining Himself, in a way. I said that He is indignant (and I mentioned that the Bible explains that using the word zealous) and He is working through His tendancy to be volatile. I also mentioned that the Bible indicates that there are other gods like Him (Genesis 1:26 KJV "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...") and our God didn't want to be in conflict with them (in so many words). I didn't know this at the time, but there was already an established theological concept of a malevolent God from Gnosticism, Yaldabaoth, and there's reasoning has to why a benevolent God would allow bad things happen to innocent people. I most definitely shared that aspect too, since I wasn't just relaying my belief system (which I pointed out was eclectic and maybe I even used that word), but I was doing my best to convince her of it's legitimacy and also that my beliefs were still grounded in established religious doctrine. My belief system brought me comfort and hope. The woman reported what I said to the mental health team (I was living in a adult group home facility at the time since my family outcasted me), and she surely would've changed the narrative to make me sound as confused and fantastical as she possibly could (she didn't like me because she was younger than me but she was morbidly obese). As a result of the two issues of my beliefs and my fear of an undetected hiv infection, they labeled me schizophrenic. I was originally diagnosed with major depressive disorder before that time. (So there you have it!) They'd rather sympathize with my family because I didn't disappear like I was supposed to. I didn't have much hope for my future so making long-term goals was superficial for me. I liked to avoid converstations about my future plans. I was working at making it through day by day.

There's other aspects of my family history that are pertinent to my values and is relatable to the anecdote above about talking to the obese religious woman working as staff in a community mental health adult group home. (It's called "transitional housing" or a step towards independent housing assistance, but now that term will probably be misconstrued to mean something else.) I did not judge her on her weight problem though, although obvious (and it was summer so she was wearing leather sandles, with no socks... so her feet stunk), but to be a good sport I still chatted with her. I knew men who would've got up and walked away, mind you! One of my grandmothers was morbidly obese, is the thing, and she was effectively mostly bedridden because of her size. I knew at a young age that something bad happened to her when she was young. I've hence been able to transcribe a short biography of hers to a digital text format. She relates in it her story about being mature for her age (of fourteen, is where she starts her tale) and she began dating an eighteen year old man who assumed she was sixteen. After a couple weeks her father found out, and being the mean Irish Catholic he was he took his anger out on her. He physically beat her to the point where she was bruised and couldn't walk. She began gaining weight then and was never able to lose it. She had numorous health issues as she grew older and so I understood at a young age that people's medical issues are personal and it was bad form (disrespectful) to talk about any kind of human medical condition without understanding the issue.

There's an example from recent popular culture where a comedian, Chris Rock, made a joke about Will Smith's wife regarding her hair loss condition, associating it with Demi Moore in the movie "G.I. Jane". Will got up from his seat there at the Oscars and ran up to the stage and smacked Chris. My grandmother would've been appalled by Chris Rock's cruelity. He was basically associating Jada Smith's condition with an actress in a role in a movie where the character was a sexy woman who shaved her head. The reason Demi was chosen for the role is because she was one of the era's most sensual women. My grandmother would have most certainly sympathized with Jada Smith, is the point. There is no way that I could ever see that event in any other way than to defend Will's action. I've learned not to be dismissive of others' medical conditions since there can be complications and co-morbidity issues that can exacerbate their overall health problems. I'm not living in other people's skin, is the point. This grandmother is the same one who encouraged me to read a lot. She was big on education and I took that to heart. She was an ally of mine in the family.

I had other physical problems during the time that I was worried about the undetectable hiv infection too. I had gained a lot of weight (I have since lost it), and for a number of years I had a case of wry-neck, or Torticollis. I paid eight hundred dollars for a MRI to determine a cause and the result was that the test results were completely ignored. My physician that I brought it up to wasn't interested at all about that problem that I was attempting to consult him on and he didn't care about any MRI that I paid for. He prescribed me cholesterol lowering medication and sent me on my wry-neck way. I was on disability and the medical community basically stole almost a thousand dollars from me. A psychiatrist later suggested that I try Botox treatments. It is a new experimental procedure for the issue, she explained, that might work for me. I told her no, I didn't want Botox injected into my neck muscles. She said that I must not want help for it then. I'm supposed to not care and allow myself to be experimented on. If something went wrong and they would have to immobilized me for months (at the very least) until the toxin wore off then it'd all be a moot point since nobody would ever have to be accused of, or admit to, any sort of malpractice since my family doesn't give a flying fuck about me. They must have good reason for their indifference, is what is assumed. The thing is though that my overall experience isn't all that uncommon. My counselors also made it a point to "teach me what they knew" which even in this context seems vague, but they also pointed out that the reality was that I was in a demographic (and I am disabled under federal law) that historically has been exploited and our Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of law is disregarded. That sort of equal treatment is not applicable for us and people will go on and talk to others about us right in front of us like we are ... see, there I go & get all emotionally distressed & go-offy. I have documentation of what kind of thing that happens ... & sure, kind of minor issues, inconveniences, although the issue with me not being given access to the online rent payment system put me at greater risk of physical injury, or violence out in the world since I needed to travel public transportation to buy money orders since personal checks are all but obsolete. The managers wanted me to go visit with them so they could share with whoever else is around what I pay and all that. I'm a man and white and middle aged (and with a reconstructed ankle completed by a man with a medical doctorate who was sporting a silver oak leaf...) but I need to be taught that life lesson, is what's figured, the life lesson that they're in the position to teach me a life lesson. I wasn't doing anything for them personally, is the thing. So they had absolutely zero use for me... I could be their audience or whatever.

And now I (still) advocate...

It's the apartment managers of some of the state licensed realtor broker owned property management companies, even from out of state, that made it their point to treat me like dirt ... but I have documentation (online, mind you) of a regional level manager having me sign a "non-disclosure agreement" that she attched to an official state form that was submitted and accepted, but was modified because they're wanting to conceal the fact that they were refusing to fix a handicapped door, failed inspection, and still wouldn't fix it until the day I was moving out ... you think I lie? It's federal law that they're supposed to (at least try to) fix it if it stops working but it was a door that went out to the street, opposite end of leasing office, and it didn't go into the parking garage. Only the losers and delivery people needed to use the door & the latter should want to stop by the office and say hi (or whatever). I never expected any of those people be charged with a crime, mind you, although in reality they were committing crimes against me as a disabled person. That idea of their actions being definite crimes is not out of my own mind but what was explained to me by my counselors. The simplified indication of actual crime is by using the thought experiment of a gender role exchange or reversal where if they were male managers and I was a female tenant then their behavior would be sexual harassment. I don't exaggerate there because one time they called me into their office for no other reason than to show me a check that the state sent to their main office in Atlanta, and they in turn mailed it back to the on-site manager just so that they could show me this check. (When I signed the lease they were emailed the info on how to enable the electronic funds transfer for the state's assistance amount.) There were two woman in this little office that I was called into and when I sat down they motioned for their maintenance man to block the doorway. He was prepared to walk in and shove his groin up against my shoulder (like something like that has never happened to me before ... I'd never expect that) ... and then if I moved suddenly the woman could exaggerate and "misconstrue" my movement as aggressive and then they made a point to make an example out of me. That was the incident that I put in a complaint about to HUD equal rights and it made it up to the third tier (regional) of their process. I first spoke with a young lady and was then emailed some questions and I explained to all of these people that I had experienced serious trauma a few times in my life and I'm disabled. The complaint was denied.

The complaint that I worked hard on, and (by matter of course) I included the fact that some people in the human services field spent a lot of time & effort helping me, & teaching me, & I most surely included that when I ended up in the mental health system I was appreciative and participated, etc,. etc. I was no ingrate. I also pointed out in my complaint (because I was supposed to) that the people who helped me explained to me that I didn't have the same opportunities that other males had in my demographic. I was physically abused a few times, etc., so I was disadvantaged. I most certainly pointed out that I didn't want anything other than that the managers treat me as equal to other residents, as well. After the complaint was denied I did a simple internet search for the person's name and found out what happened to her daughter, Miki Manigault. I had later filed a complaint with the state's department of regulatory agencies and I mentioned that prior complaint, and its outcome, to the woman that called me for the "intake interview" and she wanted to know what the woman did to her daughter, mutilating her, had to do with the way she did her job. I said it was a conflict-of-interest, being that she violated her own daughter's civil rights. Nothing ever became of that either. Again, I would make it a point to explain that I wanted none other than to have the issue resolved ... a strongly worded letter from one of those gov't agencies would've been just awesome... but no. Nothing except reinforcement of the cultural posit that the people working in these offices deserve my sympathy since they have to interact with me.

Learned behavior (ideology) of entitlement

I was thinking that since humans form their worldview perspective by what they see & hear, etc. as they mature, and so it's by parental guidance & teaching, extended family, friends (& maybe their families), and professional teachers, etc. that children learn. Mass media also has an effect but that would lead back to the former set of instructors to unravel the subtly included subliminal (type) messaging that is based on market research and designed by people with knowldge of psychology and sociology. (By subliminal I mean the use of wording (language) combined with imagery.)

My thought was a scenario where a mother gives a child an orange. The child wasn't aware of there being oranges in the house, so out of naivety and inherent natural inquisitiveness, the child asks about the origin of the fruit "where did this come from?". It would stand to reason (or hopefully, at least) that since children will treat others in a way similar to how they are treated that the parent would know to give a direct, succinct response to the simple question (and not start laughing, which some parents would). Let me point out that the child understands their inferior role (or subservient) to their parent so in a scenario to where they consider another person in an inferior role to them, i.e., a younger sibling or friend, the child would speak to the person, and react to their response, as they learned from their parent talking to them. That learning would extend out along the lines with my list given, although it would stand to reason that their discourses with parents would be most instilled on them. The way their parents talked to each other and to siblings would follow, etc.

In the question of the orange, the parent responds with "I went to the store earlier while you were at your friend's house.". To add a realistic variable to this thought experiment, there could be a sibling present who pipes up with "from a tree, dummy. Oranges grow on trees!", but then in a moment of clarity immediately turns to their mother and asks "where is the tree?". The way the mother responds to that question would be important to because now, in reality, the two children are venturing in on a philisophical discussion, more specifically the metaphysics involved with that orange being taken of an unknown tree and to the store. The children are starting from a generalized "form" of the mysterious entity of national produce market (Theory of Forms thing) or general concept of buy food at grocery store and venturing into a more specific (or intricacy) of the general form.

Even already it can be surmised that there could be hidden lesson that are learned by the children. How the mother responds could impact (or at least, influence) how the child approaches their own educational future. If the parent responds with a subpar explanation and dismisses any resistance by exclaiming "that is what I send you to school for" (or similar) and laughs it all off as something too complicated to explain then the message is that, as regular people, our access to information is restricted and our ability to understand some system is too limited so the best thing is to not worry. The added message is that only some professional person has the ability to know about such things and so it's best to compartmentalize the entire mystery until a person who is being paid can talk about the process. The message is that "it is not within our means to discover so forget it" so obviously that message would stifle natural curiosity, incentive to self motivate, ambition, etc.

To conclude (for now), lets say that the mother immediately merely responds with "there are tree groves on farms and they are similar to that area we sometimes go to to buy produce from, the "farmer's market", remember?". To that the children may connect the dots but then wonder about the people themselves that actually picked the fruit off the tree. There are big harvestor machines that they use so the actual work (manual labor) that the people do is minimal, the parent explains in words the children understand. The childrens' respect for (and trust in) the farm workers then is in the hands of the parent and will emulate the parent's attitude. Maybe the parent realizes that issue and points out that the workers still need to do some work themselves, but the machinery makes it easier for them. The (positive) message there is that technology can be of real help to people in a fundamental way.

This is what I really wanted to lead up to with my scenario of the children and unripe orange. The first child holding the orange observed that the orange wasn't very soft and probably not ripe and explains that concept to the mother, but maybe not so succinctly. The child hands the orange back to the mother and how she responds to this information may be critical for the child's attitude about the world in general. If the mother responds to the information of (possible) unripeness with a grievance, and includes the pronoun "they", as in "they always pick the fruit before it fully ripens because it takes time to transport" then the message is to assign blame in the process. The reponse was true enough, but it could've been worded as to not assign blame so much, but instead include an explaination of the general metaphysical reality of the national produce market.

The orange may have been ripe enough, and maybe the mother relates as much to the child, but the orange is still not wanted. It may be apparent that the child is feeling a bit guilty (appreciative) of the farm machinery-assististed exertion of the farm workers. My point here is that there could be various possible discussions about other people that could be intertwined in the main topic of the orange. The parent may respect the child's decision to pass on the fruit and ask if they'd like something else, for example. That response would resolve the issue for the moment. The parent could also instead repudiate the child's refusal as being irrational, and even expound on the idea to get the child to concede to accepting the fruit. The child's feeling(s) about the whole situation may be confusing for them. The child might wish to contribute in some way to the overall process themselves in order to feel worthy of receiving the fruit. Contributing to the process may alleviate the uncertainty of trust involved with accepting food that an unknown person handled. The child may want to validate the farm workers' contribution in some way prior to accepting the fruit, is what is revealed to the mother. The parent's response to the complete scenerio could be an example of how a child may develop a reasonable perspective or instead develop sense of entitlement that is unreasonable and depends on oppressing others.

intellectualism, non-intellectualism, and religion

With the above scenario of the possibility of a child wanting to validate (thank) a farm worker for their effort involved with the production to market process of the orange it could result in another discussion which shapes the child's worldview. There is a critical point of sociology that any general grouping of people shouldn't be expected to be homogenized. There will always exist dissension on some issue or another and it's likely there is a legitimate reason for the disagreement. In general I could surmise that the debate could be about what is finacially viable and/or what is efficient vs. what is expedient. In any event, the reason I include that here is that any discussion of "religious people" can be condensed to a stigma of consisting of only non-intellectual people when that isn't true. In a similar vein is the assumption that academia is completely populated by intellectuals, but the definition of "intellectual" isn't precise since it describes a human. There are people in the educational field that are there for job security since it's a nice, indoor work environment for them.

My (paternal) grandmother gave me a similar analogy to what I'm expressing here but she used military enlisted and officers in her example. The other aspect of her anology was, how she put it, "whether or not a family would consider owning an encyclopedia set as important, as much as a television". She would go on to explain that (civilian) people will assume that the military can be divided up in that way very easily to where the enlisted are non-intellectual and officers are intellectual. She said that officers are college educated but whether or not they have desire for further education is another question. Most probably did & do, in some aspect. Her point was that the enlisted people were mixed. Some enlisted were non-intellectual but some of the enlisted personnel specialties that they would be engaged in were in highly advanced technology fields. Much of the same technology is used in civilian sector too, so the enlisted person's education was/is transferrable to civilian careers (in theory). My grandmother may have included that because she understood that taxpayer civilians were resentful of gov't military spending and so would question the enlisted person's training as to it's applicability in civilian sector.

So as to the possibility of the child's wish to thank the farmworker, that issue might be handled by a parent in a variety of ways. Their route would depend on whether they were intellectuals or not and religious or not. A non-intellectual may insist that they take the child to personally meet a farmworker, who would be a "stand-in" for the orange grove worker, and personally thank them. That's crazy, but you'd have to respect the fact that the parent wants to nuture the child's compassion and sense of appreciation of other people's contribution. My point here is that religion could provide a different avenue to validate the child using the association of charity work. By similar token a secular person might research family involvment in a charity organization as a way to show appreciation for other people's contributions.

Incidently, the analogy of the child & orange made me think about if it were me as a child and both my mom & dad were there to answer the questions. My father would've definitely been all in stitches and would have difficulty speaking for laughing so hard. My mom of course would initially laugh with him ... their posit would've been that I should know all of that already or else who cares or something or another about the economy or whatever because my dad is good at math. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating! There would've been a more acceptable (and reasonable, I grant you) answers to the questions posed after a period of their theatrics, but even my dad ridiculed me. This was the era of Bill Cosby† hosting the reality type show "Kids Say the Darndest Things" and my dad was one to go along with that kind of popular television programing. Nobody stopped to think "but we're laughing at children for being naive" so they're being laughed at for being their normal selves. How can adults who feel that it's acceptable to laugh at normal children be trusted with raising any?
†I guess Bill Cosby reprised the concept and was first a thing in the sixties. It was revived again in the ought-twenties for a couple seasons.

  ...

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.