This past year, in one of the virtual academic conferences I was invited to, a fellow scholar introduced the idea that each man's soulmate has a vagina that was made just for his penis. That when he finds her, his penis is back "home". He based this on the verse "you are now flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone". This scholar's analysis of the Hebrew word for what is translated commonly as "rib" indicated that Eve was possibly formed from Adam's bone in his penis, not his rib.
Just to check, do you think that human men have a penis bone, is this a particular belief that Adam had a penis bone and that human men do not have one, or was this all more metaphorical?
Why would I not keep an eye out for that?
When I was in grade school I was s straight A student, known as the "smart girl". The boys in the class who considered himself the "Alpha male" because of his height and size tripped me on the stairs to try to humiliate me in public. He attacked me because he saw me as a threat (an intelligent girl).
And that has been the story of my life throughout middle school, high school, college and adulthood. I have been teased and verbally attacked by men who felt threatened by my academic achievements and intelligence. Women too. Social class warfare against academics is a real thing. Hech, even my first husband waged war on me in part because of my academic achievements. Marshall always made me feel like an "other" too because of our educational disparities. You would think men would be supportive of their wife's ambitions.
But nope.
Unfortunately, studies show that when a woman has more academic achievements than her husband she is more likely to be the victim of mental/psychological abuse through power struggles the husband provokes. The same is true of women who earn more than their husbands, studies say. Ironic, since you don't see women doing that to men. Women see men with education and money as more desirable providers. Oh, the bullshit!
Okay, all of that is irrelevant spleen venting, so I'm just going to skip it and jump to
When someone treats you differently than another person and the difference between you and them is your academic achievements, it's obvious. When people makes cortical comments that have no foundation in facts, it's obvious their motive. I can discern motives very easily. I listen to what people say and can discern when they are being envious and when they are being just disrespectful.
Mel, you are not good at discernment in general. You have lept to many bizarre assumptions about people in this thread alone, and your ability to read and comprehend what other people write is quite evidently lacking. You are making an assumption that people are envious of you and then an assumption that said envy must be because of your meager academic achievement.
My children are happy with me. They give me gratitude and praise me as "the best mom ever!" on a weekly basis out of their own free will.
Ah, yes. Appeasement. A common survival strategy in children of certain types of parents.
That's not what "moving the goalpost" is. "Moving the goalpost" is when someone is being narcisstically abused. You can't "move the goalpost" on yourself.
EXAMPLE of "moving the goalpost": Narcissistic Husband mocks and yells at Wife for not having the house tidy and dishes out of the sink by the time he gets home. So in order to appease him she consistently gets them out of the sink and into the dishwasher and house just how he wants it before he comes home from work. Then he yells at her for not being presentable and ready for sex the moment he walks in the door.
"Moving the goalpost" is a narcissistic abusive tactic where they dangle a carrot of approval over you so no matter what you do, you're not going to be good enough.
Moving the goalpost is not exclusively a Narcissistic abuse tactic, there are many ways a person can shift their own goalpost, and it happens a lot when a person fails at something, doesn't want to admit to failure, and so changes the conditions of winning ad hoc. It was adopted as a term for what Narcissists do, both to other people and with regard to their own actions and endeavors after it existed as a common term for shifting the rules to create a win out of failure.
Your use of this article as a parallel shows that you have poor reading comprehension.
One thing most of you keep overlooking is that Narcissism does NOT happen in a vacuum. In order to be a Narcissist, you have to be projecting abuse at another person.
100% incorrect. A narcissist in solitary confinement is still a narcissist.
Narcissism is not a state of being, it's a way of interacting with others in which the Narcissist repeatedly launches abuse onto others.
No, Narcissism is a personality disorder. It absolutely is a way of being, of looking at the world. How a Narcissist interacts with people is a consequence of this viewpoint.
Speaking with others is not narcissism. None of you are being narcisstically abused by me. You're clinging to pop psychology and throwing labels at me without dissecting facts. "Narcissist" is now a pop culture word which is often substituted for "I don't like how you think or act".
And that is not how it's being used in your case. You display all the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissistic abuse is merely something a Narcissist can do to a chosen victim. It is not what defines a narcissist nor is it something they do to all people at all times.
The article is also a poorly written mush of psychology and moral philosophies thrown around. Typical of blog writing. It lacks the critical elements of academic style. It's word salad and word vomit.
She said, throwing out the same vague objections she always has.
I've never failed at anything because I knew something from a very early age: you can't control what other people do.
I set realistic goals and I don't have the Christian mentality that it's my job to control, change or fix others.
When you can part with the belief that you can control others, you will understand the concept of not failing.
Actions out of your control can still cause you to fail. Failure is not a moral judgement or an indication of being wrong. It is possible to do everything right and still fail.
The definition I gave is right out of the dictionary.
Yes, and? That doesn't counteract anything of what I said. The dictionary definition doesn't care if other people are involved or not.
Someone else attacking you to veer from your course of action is not "failure". The word for that is "victimized".
The action of attacking you can be victimization, but that doesn't change that the outcome of that attack can be your failure.
This is one of the main differences between popular psychology and The Torah. In The Torah, the Victim never absorbs the consequences, blame or sin of their Attacker.
Failure is not a moral state. You would not be responsible for the failure, or for the attack, but you would still have failed.
The Victim remains innocent and the Aggressor/Attacker pays 100% of restitution to their Victim.
For causing them to fail, yes. Also you really should stop capitalizing common nouns. I know you think they are proper nouns but they aren't. They aren't even being used as substitute proper nouns (Victim A, Accuser B, etc.), but they absolutely are not and you just make yourself look silly when you insist on it.
Your analogy with the car race also lacks the consideration of the element of time. If person A has goal B and person C does action D to prevent person A from arriving to goal B, then person A can make another attempt to arrive to goal B. So person A may have been unable to complete a goal in the first attempt but by distancing themself from person C they can still reach their goal "B" in the second attempt. Same goal, two attempts. Is this first attempt "failure"? No. It's victimization.
The first attempt was a failure, yes. Victimization is irrelevant to that fact. It is explanatory towards it, but does not void it. Also in the race analogy person C is not attempting to do anything. Person C could have been a part failure. Because as I said last time and you somehow missed, inanimate objects can also fail.
From this conversation, from the way you talk about your success, from the way you talk about your previously dismissed lawsuits, it's very obvious you have a very strong aversion to the concept of failure, or of being seen as a failure, perhaps. Letting yourself admit "I failed" might actually take a lot of weight off your shoulders, Mel.
I always knew that women's sole purpose to exist was to be a warm cock sleeve. How empowering.
Yeah, I noticed that too. it always gets me how strangely dehumanizing a lot of Melinda's "empowering" ideas come across.
