Life - What I learned over the years

[jenn]

What's On My Mind
Chapter One - I'm an Observer (part 1) 7/22/07

I am an observer. I'd like to say that I'm a 'participator', but my reality is that I learn by observing what other people do. Why do people do what they do, and what makes them respond so differently to similar problems or circumstances?

What makes a group of people come together and with a like mind reject another group of people? Why do people who talk about tolerance become the first ones who are intolerant of people who are different? Does our basic human need to belong force us to reject others, or are we just brainwashed into believing that our worth as human beings depends upon being accepted by someone else?

Why don't more people stand up for what they believe in and become leaders instead of becoming followers who find it easy to blend into the group as if they all had the same heart beat?

Don't get me wrong, here, I'm all for unity and functioning within a group setting especially when it is a healthy group with a defined goal that is beneficial and good, but I'll be the first one in line to stand up and say I'm not going to follow the group if I believe something is wrong. I have a conscience that speaks to me louder than the buzz of human acceptance. I simply can't be quiet and not speak up when I feel the tide has turned from participating in a healthy group to participating in a group that has become nothing more than a herd following an ideology. When that happens, the group will do anything to protect its status quo.

I find it freeing to be on the outside looking in because it is only when a person can separate themselves from that collective heartbeat of the group that they can see clearly what the collective group represents. If it's true that "you can't see the forest for the trees" then it is even more true that when a person sells their heart to a group mindset that they truly will never have an unbiased perspective in regards to the groups goals, behavior, and effect on others.

Not only will groups like this have an effect on those people they reject, but groups such as these become a living, breathing and functioning entity that enables people in whatever behavior the group accepts. The group becomes the drug that people can't live without. The group thrives on our basic human need to belong. The group has control, not the individual.

It's no longer about the individual person, it becomes more about the security of the group. It is no longer about being tolerant and accepting people. Disagree with the group, then you endanger your acceptance from the group. The group is not tolerant of rebellion, but the group enjoys control over its members by the threat of rejection. The group bolsters it's power by providing an environment where people will become dependant. Dependant people can be controlled through their dependencies, and their dependencies cannot tolerate rejection. Therefore, the group is dependent upon creating in its members a fear of being rejected.

This fear of rejection generally keeps members under control, but I've always seen those people who are within the group who aren't controlled by such a need to belong that they are willing to give up individuality for the group. Those are the people who ask questions. They disagree with the status quo. They make the group feel threatened. Once the group feels threatened, they will do whatever they have to do in order to protect their status quo. The group is never wrong - the individual is always wrong.

(to be continued)

I’ve heard it said that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, but I would say, “Real power is in the hands of those who have the inner strength to express individual beliefs and thoughts in the presence of total opposition.” Some of the greatest minds known to mankind faced constant opposition to their ideas and thoughts, yet, that is the source of some of our greatest achievements throughout history. Someone had that inner strength and fortitude to stand up and go against the grain of the status quo even if it meant being ridiculed and rejected. That is the point in human character where integrity and honor exist - that point in time where a person makes that decision to believe in themselves enough to stand alone.

Anyone can be successful when they lick the boots of the group, but that success is limited to their small world. Bear in mind that any success a person gains has to be maintained in the same way it was achieved. A group’s success is dependent upon how committed each member is to the group’s existence, and the level of integrity and honor that a group displays is also dependant upon the willingness of the group to allow a standard moral. The more lenient the group moral – the more the group sees itself as being above the law. Others may be required to obey the letter of the law, but true believers only are required to obey the spirit of the law set forth by the group. Those who rock the boat are held to an even higher standard. Eventually, those who have sold their integrity to the group become unable to see clearly that a double standard exists. In fact, they break the very rules they hold dear in an effort to preserve the group’s utopia.
------
What is the purpose of rules? The most logical answer would be that rules exist for the purpose of keeping order within the group, and they lay a foundation of what will and won’t be tolerated within the group. The reality is that rules can become blurred lines drawn in the sand – existing for a while, but changing with the next strong wind. Rules then serve the group and change with the whims of the group. Rules become dependent upon the needs of the group and have nothing to do with logic, integrity, honor, or truth unless those who control the group are committed to a moral standard for the group. Otherwise, rules will serve those who are in control by providing a platform to bolster their egos, validate their need for recognition, and support their instinct to control others.


(addition)
Have you ever noticed that some people never abide by the rules, yet they will be the first ones to complain when someone else breaks the rules. It's the perfect place to study human behavior - the group setting ... It's like a mini country where certain people get into power and decide what sort of utopia they will create. Anyone who gets in their way or challenges them, well ... those poor unsuspecting participants will either lose who they are and give up their individuality, or try to protest the wrongs they see and become a target for the disciplinary actions of every sold out believer.

I've never seen so many people jump on one person at the same time over some of the silliest issues. One would think they were visiting a chicken house and all the birds were pecking to death the weakest bird in the flock. I'm not sure I'll ever understand why they go after certain people with such determination. I sit and watch from the outside looking in and am privy to conversations that morph from an interesting topic, to nitpicking, to down right "let's go after the jugular and try to destroy their reputation".

I tend to come to the conclusion that the stronger people within a group like this will usually be the ones who end up being picked to death. Why? Weak leaders can't afford to have stronger people in their group because that will threaten their place within the group hierarchy, therefore, it's common to see weak leaders concentrating their disciplinary efforts on those members of the group who they perceive to be stronger. It becomes a common goal of the group to break down the perceived stronger group members in order to achieve equality within the group. If the stronger group member can't be controlled by group pressure or discipline, then the group steps up the pressure to the point of totally rejecting members who were once considered to be valued, well respected group members.

What are some of the methods and practices that groups use in order to control their members, what is the purpose of these methods, and what is the goal groups aim to achieve by using these methods on their members? A few methods I have observed in many groups are: command and control, manipulation, fear, intimidation, character assassination, accusations, rejection, shunning, tag team attacks, labels, guilt by association, and negative comparisons, to name a few.

What is the purpose and goal of using “command and control” techniques on group members? First, leadership has to establish who is in control. Some people believe that in order for a group to function properly there must be discipline equivalent to that of military service, unquestioned obedience to the leadership, and steadfast loyalty to the group. Therefore, strict rules are set in place in an effort to let the general membership know that behavior and consequence are directly related. Often times a new problem then arises when the leadership has a core group of people who become close. They then begin to reap the benefits of rubbing elbows with the powers that be. Close friendships begin to bond along with affiliations based on beliefs, and at this point the rules and enforcement of the rules becomes an issue of fairness and integrity within the leadership. Is everyone held to the same standard at this point, and does leadership require the same level of obedience to the letter of the law for his or her favorite members or do friendships get a free pass?
---
It is human nature to favor ones friends, but within a group setting favoritism will cause friction within the group. People will become defensive, easily offended, and their ability to communicate effectively will begin to diminish due to that friction. Group members will divide by affiliations, beliefs, and loyalties will arise based on a need to protect some unspoken allegiance to either the group or to specific members of the group. Where a group was once about open communication, favoritism will turn a healthy group into an almost inwardly spiraling out of control slam-fest.

One problem with the “command and control” method of managing groups is that it simply doesn’t work. No one responds very well to being “told what to do” as opposed to being “asked”. Effective communication is a give and take. Quite Often, many people don’t realize the time and effort that they will have to invest in another person if they intend to understand that person, but then again the “command and control” method isn’t necessarily about effective communication or understanding other people. It is more about controlling ones environment, setting rules, and enforcing those rules. “Command and control” seeks to literally CONTROL the group members’ behavior and responses in an effort to create a specific environment for the group. Additionally, “command and control” lays a foundation within a group that enables and can even encourage those in authority to overstep their bounds which inevitably leads to abuse of group members even to the point of psychological manipulation, emotional intimidation, and mind control.

If the group is inclined to pressure a member in a specific direction, “command and control” believers will have no qualms about their method or techniques of achieving their goals to control that group member.

A persons need will always dictate how much independent thought they will be willing to muster up within any group situation. Therefore, if a person has a need to achieve the groups approval then that need for approval will far outweigh that persons willingness to think, reason, or even react outside of the groups approval and they become vulnerable to shunning.

Shunning is a control method done by groups who want to control someone else's behavior, how they think, or how they respond. These groups first allow a group member to become well established within the group, and initially will attempt to make group members believe that they are part of a big “family”, and therefore feel all the same emotional ties to that group that they would feel towards a loving family. The goal is to allow people the belief that the group is their home away from home, and in creating this type of environment it gives group members a sense of belonging. As with many families, this type of group has a hierarchy, too. Unfortunately, it can be very disappointing when it comes to actually being able to be ones self as is normal within a family structure. Essentially, group members are told the group is their home, but they are also told in no uncertain terms that they are the children who must obey those people who have set themselves up as the parents of the group.

If this member were to express themselves in a way the group disapproves of, the group leadership will try to manipulate that persons behavior, how they think, or how they respond by threatening to shun them, or disown them as a valid group member. Group leadership knows that group member has emotional ties to that group, and counts on that emotional tie and need to be a part of that group to pressure that person into submission to the will of the group leadership. It's a form of mind control, and a very effective form of manipulation that many groups use to control their members, and it can be a very cruel method to use on some people who depend upon groups for emotional and other such support.



On the other hand, if a member’s independent thought, action, or response goes against what the group deems to be acceptable, that becomes due cause for the “command and control” believers to confront that group member. Confrontation can be very subtle, but if subtle doesn’t work, the group will escalate in an attempt to modify the response or behavior of that group member.

There are just some days that I sit back and watch people and just shake my head at how some people behave. How can a person be part of a group one day and overnight be thrown away like a used paper towel? "People" should be the last things on this earth that we would even consider throwing away, yet there are some groups that don't think twice about throwing anyone away.

I'll never understand how cruel and proud some people can be all at the same time when they feel that they've finally expelled someone from their group for good. Do they realize that they are rejecting a human being that was created in the image of God, while at the same time they pat themselves on their own backs for their success. Perhaps I am still a bit naive to believe that everyone is unique and there is always the possibility of finding something in common with someone who might be a challenge to get to know, or even at the very least, finding some sort of value in people who challenge me. It seems that there are just too many people in this world that are willing to write off another person simply because it might take more effort to understand them or to get to know them.

I believe most people just want to be heard, listened to, and understood and most misunderstandings arise when one party just gets impatient and unwilling to go past a certain point, so they stop listening, they don't want to understand and then they put the blame on the one they are rejecting and tell them that they are just not worth the time.

It is my experience that those people who are going to like you, will like you just as you are, and the same holds true for those people who aren't going like you-they won't like you no matter what you do. However, liking a person shouldn't be a requirement for interacting with that person and respecting them and treating them with that same degree of human kindness that you'd treat a good friend.

I've come to accept the idea that close friends are few in numbers, but they are worth their weight in gold. I've also learned to beware of the people who tell you they care, but at the first sign of trouble they will side against you. True friendship takes time to develop and it takes trust that is granted by both parties involved. One on one relationships are complicated enough to maintain, but when relationships accumulate into groups, that group dynamic can become almost like a drug to the people who need that sort of support system.

There is nothing essentially wrong with support systems in and of themselves, but unfortunately everyone who becomes a part of a support system or any group has to sell a part of themselves to the group. The collective conscience of groups then can really be moved by the collective emotional state of the group.


What is a group? What does it consist of? Are they large, are they small? How do you know if you are pursuing a group that is healthy or if you are pursuing membership in a group that will eventually become disturbing, painful, and destructive? Is anyone exempt from ending up in a group that wasn’t meeting their highest expectations. No, I think anybody can end up in a group isn’t healthy.

In an unhealthy group you have to fit into the box that the group assigns you. In a healthy group you fit into the box that you assign for yourself and usually that box allows for growth, change, and expansion. You get to take on and even encourages it's members to grow.

What are some of the rolls that various people play in groups? One might be the group “mom”. Another might be the group needy person. Another might be the group antagonist, and another might be the group disciplinarian. One more might be the group psychologist and everybody person plays in that group.

Just as you can take a roll in a group that suits you, others may assign you a group persona based on their interpretation of who they believe you are whether it’s true or not. They may label you the group conservative or the group nut or the group troll. Once you are labeled in a group like that it’s very difficult for people to see who you really are because all they can see if your assigned persona.

New people tend to take the word of the people who are the core believers – the core people who control the group. New people will take their word that you’re a troublemaker. If the person that's been assigned a lable disagrees with the core group then all hell breaks loose. Anything you disagree with at that point is seen as being a troublemaker and at this point any valid point you may have gets lost in the label that people have placed upon you.

The group will more or less dismiss any valid points that you have if those points disagree with the core groups opinions because the core group can and will convince other people that you actually ARE the group nut. It can get to where the truth has nothing to do with who people really are … the truth about a person will become what the core group says the truth is. In order for the core group to remain in control they have to maintain the status quo, therefore, they have no other choice then to continue to see people in the light that they have presented to the group. So, once a troublemaker … always a troublemaker. Once a nut, always a nut ….. If the core group ever changes their mind then the only reason they do change their mind is because they have managed to change the person into what they can find acceptable.
---------
Some people set themselves up as the resident wise person, resident scholar, or resident mom who gives everyone advice. Their advice is law with the group or you are seen as being rebellious for not agreeing with their advice.
A Side note:
I've always believed that if I tried to do what was right by people, that in the end things would turn out good. I mean, isn't it true that people of character and personal integrity who stand by what they believe can be trusted with much bigger tasks in the future?

How do I maintain my belief that doing the right things by people will prove in some way that I have integrity even in the face of attack and possible personal loss? It seems that wanting to do right is so out of being politically correct that it has become the target of hate and rejection by many people. After all, people may not agree, but is that a real reason to respond in such a way to others?

Rules are only rules these days to the people who are under them. Those who rule over others don't feel the need to follow their own rules that they set up. Even people who have what they believe to be a small amount of power allow it to corrupt their own abilities to make choices based on what is right, and instead they make choices based on how much they can hurt someone else. Control and command management may get results, but only by force and intimidation. What sort of personal character does a person have to have in order to maintain their position if they have to manage by this method?

I am at a cross roads toying with the idea that defending others at my own personal risk may just not be worth it. I may defend someone for the right reasons, but at what cost to me? Should I become like others who duck for cover when it is time to be tested? Should I just become more cynical and put up an ever higher guard against trusting anyone?

I don't understand how people can just 'delete' someone from their lives and move on as if that person never existed.... I don't understand people who so want to control the thoughts and expressions of other people that they are willing to do anything to get what they want, and that is to silence that person. When you silence people you more or less are saying their lives don't matter - their existence needs to be forgotten - they are, in essence, worthless.

I'm left with something to ponder, and now I wonder if I will have the strength and fortitude the next time I'm faced with the option to stand up for what is right, or will I choose to just duck and hide to cover my own backside. Maybe those in power are happy with how they rule over others. I don't think I'll ever understand why it takes an iron fist to manage any group of people.

I believe adults should have the freedom to say what they want, although, I personally don't enjoy hearing alot of cursing. Most people will discuss their beliefs and work out their own problems if given a chance to do so. In debate type groups there will always be someone who gets offended.

The conclusion I draw is to allow people to discuss their issues so they CAN come to an understanding with those they disagree. If we cut people off when it gets heated, we cut off the chance for people to communicate effectively because only after we overcome what is emotionally difficult for us to deal with, can we move on to understanding one another.

I don't agree that any one person has the right to tell another person what is appropriate when it comes to his own behavior unless he is just blatantly being abusive and using foul language and threatening people. That would be
an obvious indicator of foul behavior. Have those of you who consider yourselves to be "well respected" had exemplary behavior and never been guilty of doing what you accuse someone else of doing, or even worse? I hazard to say that those who tend to judge others so harshly usually do so with their own ghosts hidden away in their closets. The only difference between some people is that some people believe they have the authority to either reject or show mercy - your ghosts and fopahs are hidden. If those who judge others were to be put under the same microscope, would they all also be found sitting outside the established "well respected" club simply because they didn't meet up to the spoken or unspoken expectations of those who are in control?

Authority is a funny thing - in the hands of a person who has no need to prove their authority you will find much mercy. The opposite is true of those who feel a need to prove to others how powerful they are...

But, I stray from my point........ Who decides who is worthy of being ‘well respected’? There is definitely a difference in definitions of what is involved in being 'well respected'. On that matter alone, it is generally a personal preference and in a group setting it is the ruling of the powers that be in control that determines who is allowed to be thought of as being 'well respected’?


New Entry:

On the subject of authority, I find myself wondering why some people believe that they have any authority at all, let alone have the authority to tell another man or woman how to think, how to respond, and what to feel. Additionally, I've known people throughout my lifetime who have felt that it was their sole duty to try to change another person. I'm amazed still when I see certain people try to bully or intimidate others in an effort to coerce that person into a behavioral mold.

What possesses an individual to believe that they have any authority in someone elses life that isn't granted to them by that individual? For example, no one has any authority in my life unless I give them that authority in some way. An employer would be one example who has authority in someone's life. The police will also have authority, but both only have such authority under specific circumstances. If you work for someone, that employer can make rules that apply to your work behavior, and even the way you dress. Likewise, if you break the law, then the police have authority to excercise their authority in your life.

Even relatives, friends, and various other people who we come in contact with will have some authority in our lives, but only that authority that we grant to them based on their position in our lives. A friend only has influence to the extent that you respect that person, therefore, an aquaintance would more than likely have less or even no influence in a persons life. Yet, so many people allow others to control and manipulate them because they mistake coercion for valid authority.

In other words, no one has any authority in my life except for those people who I have granted that position. Authority and influence go hand in hand. The more influence we allow others to gain over us as individuals, the more authority we give them in our lives to influence us. Some people use this authority and influence for our good, yet others will use this to control, manipulate, and hurt others.

Those who use their authority and influence to control and manipulate others will inevitably meet up with people that they can't control. When that happens, false authority meets real authority head on.


Why do people fight?

Here is a list of possible reasons:

1. unrealistic expectations not being fulfilled
2. the feeling of being treated unfairly
3. personality clashes
4. communication gaps
5. just plain meanness
6. fear
7. intimidation
8. power struggles
9. grudges
10. power & control
11. to silence people
12. a need to dominate others
13. poor self image
14. to defend others
15. to defend ones self

How do we get to the point where we can overcome the need to fight? I believe we have to talk, and keep on talking. We need to analyze why we fight, why we disagree, and why we feel offended and then overcome all of the "why's". The problem is way too many people don't want to do what it takes to get past all the reasons that we fight. They don't want to make the effort. It's too hard ... they don't have the time .. they feel they are right and the other person isn't worth it.. etc, etc. Why can't we all just get along? Well, we can't get along because we simply stop talking.

There always seems to be someone higher up in the hiearchy of authority who just wants to shut everyone up and provide some sort of mythical owassis where everyone can talk, but no one ever gets their feelings hurt, and no one ever really comes to understand anyone else. Most groups just end up only talk about topics as long as they can get along with each other. Don't step on anyones sacred cows or you'll end up food for the wolves who feel they deserve to be your authority even if you haven't granted them any authority in your life.

[jenn]

I fancy myself as the sort of person who is an observer. In other words, I can sit for hours and just watch people come and go and observe their behavior. Since much of my observing over the last few years has been online with people in chat rooms and newsgroups, it's been like a lesson in how to fine tune the art of reading where people are coming from....... Along with that, I've done some reading and study about various personality types and how they act in various situations. All in all, I've learned a little bit about how people get to where they are, why they do and say the things they do (sometimes), and it's given me a reason to be more patient with people when I just want to quit trying and write people off.

Mind you... there hasn't been too many people in my lifetime that I've written off or given up on, but the few that I have let go that way left me sad because I couldn't find any way to communicate effectively with them. They never thought of me as an equal in any way, so there was never any level ground to have a meeting of the minds in order to really get to know each other as people. It's sad when that happens because I find that just about everyone has a life story that I could benefit from, but there's just some people who never open up enough to let anyone get that close to them. Sometimes, I think if I just wait long enough and be patient enough there will come a point in time where me and this difficult person will have that AHA moment and we will cease to butt heads, but I can be stubborn and not really want to let go and give in to the idea of failure. And, yes, I do see it as a failure if I couldn't find a way to get through to that AHA moment because if I just tried a little longer, maybe I would figure it out. I really don't want to write anyone off, but I guess that's just the way things are sometimes.

People can be so stubborn, even more so than I am stubborn, because they get stuck in their own ruts and beliefs and the idea or notion that they could see a person from a different perspective is not something they would even consider. I want to look past the surface of a person and see what is at their heart. Why are they being mean... why do they lash out... why do they attack instead make an effort to communicate? I've spent my life asking those questions of the people around me because it was the only way I knew to survive how mean and hurtful some people can be. My way of coping with difficult people is to look for the root of their behavior and if I could just understand "why", then maybe I could bear having just a little more patience for that person. After all... I'd want people to be patient with me if I was having a bad day.

Some people are easier to read than others, but when you lack the body language of real life interaction you are forced to observe, more or less, an essence of who people are based on how they communicate like what goes on in newsgroups. Various personalities emerge, and people often try to hide who they really are by playing a part, but if observed over a long enough period of time, who they really are takes shape. I never take people on face value of what they are saying in text... I'm always looking beyond that in order to see a clearer picture of who that person really is, why they are the way they are, and what their goals are when they communicate with others .... Most people just want to be heard... some people will be willing to listen... and even more people have no idea what it means to really listen... they are just waiting for their turn to speak in hopes that someone will listen to them.

[jenn]

Newsgroups are an interesting entity in and of themselves. We, by our very nature, want to be around people who are of a like mind, but there will always be the individuals within the group who fit about like a square peg fits into a round hole. Granted, people of differing points of view can and do get along quite well in such groups, but there enters into the picture the issue of "control", and who is going to be in charge of the group.

As a rule, grown adults generally feel like they are well able to communicate with one another as grown adults, but the individual within the group who feels they need to be in charge often ends up becoming a little Napoleon in an effort to maintain order and enforce the rules that some nebulous ultimate power has written for the group to abide by. Now, I'm not one to always be in total rebellion to the rules. Rules can be a good thing, but they also can end up just becoming a tool of control and manipulation to weld over the people within the group.

I'm of the mindset and belief that if you allow us adults to communicate long enough, we will generally figure out where the other person is coming from and learn how to deal with or how to respond in an effective manner with each other. However, the balance of the newsgroup world can be skewed in a matter of milliseconds when someone believes they have the right and pseudo-power to tell other grown adults how to behave, what to think, and even how worthless they are if they don't tow the party line. The only instance anyone has a right to any authority over another person is if that person grants them that right. (Injecting some common sense here would obviously exclude breaking the laws of the land...That authority exists by governmental means and is another topic altogether.)

Newsgroups can end up being a miniature version of a political party with all the power struggles, and drama, and to top it off grown adults allow themselves to succumb to the party line and end up submitting their individuality and personal freedom in exchange for being a group participant. Once a participant has submitted themselves to the groups rules and leadership within that group, they have given a piece of themselves away to someone else and surrendered their ability to express their thoughts freely - a right that many people over the course of history have given their lives in order to defend that freedom of expression and thought.

We all want to belong and feel that we matter and have other people count us as being worth their time, but how far will we go in order to have that moment of fleeting acceptance from another human being? What are you willing to give up in exchange for being accepted? I don't know that I'm willing to give up my individuality, personal freedom of thought and expression, or my ability to be autonomous and stand up for what I believe without fear that the group will decide my worthiness doesn't measure up. I'm worthy regardless of someone elses yard stick, and you should be, too.

[jenn]

Words .... people so often don't really pay attention to the words that come out of their mouths. Do you believe what you are saying most of the time, or do you just say what sounds good or what you think someone wants to hear?

What about expectations? I've heard it said that the expectations that people put on each other can be the root cause of alot of discontent, disagreements, and strife amongst people. I'm not so sure it's just the every day expectations that are the source of the problem, but the "unrealistic" expectations that weigh everyone down and become the source of much frustration in so many people.

Newsgroups are a good venue for observing such things and how the different levels of expectations weigh on people. Since I've been on the inside as a member, and also on the outside looking in, I have seen how unrealistic expections not only mold the behavior of the group, but also influences how people see the world outside of the group. Rules that are set up for a specific group become the common morality that is expected from everyone, whether the person is in the group or outside of the group. The idea of independent thought or expression becomes a rejected societal behavior instead of what the world would consider normal free expression of independent thought.

What happens to people who see these newsgroups as a home away from home and have accepted a set of rules imposed by some other individual who owns their virtual space? Some who are sold out to the idea that the rules of the group are more important and real than real life itself seem to lose all perspective and ability to discern the difference between real life freedoms, and what is meant for recreation and fun interaction. The exchange of free thought by individuals is squelched in preference to conforming to the group rules. What once began as an idea of having a space available for the free exchange of topical discussions has fallen prey to unrealistic expectations that everyone everywhere should abide by the same standard of rules, else they be deemed unacceptable as individuals.

At such a point in time where real life freedoms meet up with imposed virtual rules and expectations the dynamics can be either quite entertaining, or unpredictable and volatile. Who has a right to impose rules except those who are given that place in someones life to do so? If persmission does not exceed a given personal space in any one persons life, then those rules have no power, yet, we so often believe that our authority extends beyond the plane that authority has been granted. Why is that?

[jenn]

The Family Dynamics of Groups

Despite all the pushing and pulling between people on groups, there appears to be a natural ebb and flow of personal clashes with measured periods of time when people just get along for no apparent reason. People who formerly have fought like mortal enemies will find themselves in agreement over issues no one would have ever guessed. Are they finally friends and buddies? I've found myself standing back and wondering if anyone can be trusted because at one minute they are for you, and the next moment they are against you with such fervor one would think you have committed racial genocide.

In all the time I've been observing people and group dynamics I'm still surprised at how human nature can just throw such major curves into relationships, and still those relationships can be as volatile as a match is to gasoline. And then there are those people who believe they are sneaky and sly and try to present themselves so they can manipulate an entire group of people to feel one way another about an issue or even a single group member. Trust is a real issue for many people within group settings because everyone has their own plan of how they believe the group should function, and their plan doesn't include how the next person might feel about it.

It is all that normal to go for days at a time arguing over an issue and then right in the middle of a good fight people suddenly begin talking about the weather and birthdays and anniversaries? After what seems like a momentary visit to sanity, everyone just goes right back to the power struggle of each person trying to express themselves. It is a reasonable expectation that everyone involved would like to feel that they somehow make a difference in someone elses life and just being part of the group somehow validates our existance? We are sharing our lives with other people regardless if the time spent is done so by arguing deep topics or relating to someone else a story about planting the spring vegetable garden. We are such social beings, and that being part of how we are made, the ultimate harm that we can do to each other is simply to reject someone. Such rejection from the group can be so devastating to some people who have a deep need for social interaction, but other people still thrive despite similar scenarios of rejection within a group setting. We all have an innate ability to survive what we are handed in life, but some of us are more fragile than others when it comes to getting through that deep dark black hole in life that happens to us from time to time.

Is it that we are all simply destined to find each other and form groups despite the struggle it takes to stay together? Some would say that such group struggle would be disfunctional, but I'm beginning to believe that there is no such thing as a disfunctional group of people as long as they are interacting in a healthy way with each other, and that includes spending a good amount of time arguing and fighting for position within the group. What some people would consider to be frustrating and irritating is really very normal behavior when it comes to the complex interactivity that happens within a groups dynamics(personality struggles and clashes, too). Perhaps, it could be said that very few people are abnormal because normal is such a relative conclusion that is based on societal acceptance.

Families have much the same dynamic ... People fight for position and they argue over everything under the sun, yet, they will also share your life with you and validate your existance both in the good and bad times. Just like families grow and change and even adopt new members into the fold, so do groups, and when that happens there is a period of time where people struggle with the idea of someone new .. an outsider ... who doesn't belong because they have no prior history within that group. BUT, as time goes on history is re-written and adjusted to include the new member.

Why do we all struggle and persist to remain as a participant instead of preferring to be loners? Being a loner would be much less complicated than having to deal with the foibles of multiple clashing personalities within any group. There has to be some sort of emotional paycheck that everyone recieves no matter what part they play with the group.

[jenn]

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to say exactly whats on your mind to that person who just grates at you the wrong way? How would everyone else react to it, too? Normally, you try to ignore all the little digs, insinuations, and innuendos for the sake of being civil within a group, but what if you just took out a week of your time to let it all fly? It's obvious there is a standing 'dislike' between you and someone else, but does it do any good at all to just say nothing while the other person constantly finds ways to slip in those little details in the conversation that make you want to smack them right up side the head. We've all had someone in our lives who grates on our last nerve, and I'm no different in that area. It's probably all too true that I've been the source of someone else feeling the same about me, even!

I'm not usually the type of person to just straight out curse at anyone or call them some name just for the sake of it or because it's part of my daily vocabulary, but recently I decided to give myself a week or so off being nice to that person who just seems to enjoy getting on my last nerve. I gave myself permission to say what I've always wanted to be able to say, but decorum would never allow for it. A week, give or take, is what I assigned myself as a goal from beginning to end to let it fly. What happened was kind of interesting to say the least.

I didn't feel all the guilt that I thought I would feel, but I did feel relieved that I finally gave myself the opportunity to let my guard down and be human. I expressed anything I wanted to say, not only to that person who loved to get on my last nerve, but also to anyone who didn't understand and wanted to somehow fault me for speaking up even though that sort of approach was something normal for them to do. I got it off my chest, finally, and for approximately a week or so, I didn't shut up because someone else thought I should... I didn't stop debating because someone else thought the topic had gone past the 'beating a dead horse' stage, in their opinion, and I actually allowed myself to test those people who said they were my friends, which I had always been terribly afraid to do.

Friendship is an extremely complicated issue and everyone has their own idea of what a 'true' friendship means, including me. That's another entire story all to itself, though. At any rate, allowing myself the freedom to tell so and so that they are a raving lunatic, or even a sorry SOB of a jerk has both it's benefits and drawbacks. People won't understand you ... why you feel that way and often times even your friends will turn it against you... at the same time you feel relieved like a weight has been lifted off of your shoulders and despite having a need to blow off steam you give yourself permission to do so because you know that everyone else is just as much in the same boat as you are when it comes to wanting to be a part of the group and fit in with the general ebb and flow without losing your individuality.

The first time I struck back at that 'get on my last nerve' person, it felt really unnatural and awkward because it WAS unnatural for me. Of course, those observing my efforts, the majority of them being men, did not let it go unnoticed and spent alot of time making light of everything I would say. It didn't matter to them what it was as long as they could get a laugh out of it. At the time, my goal was to just let out what I wanted to say for a very long time along with the frustration I had felt. However awkward I looked to others, it felt even worse to me because it was an adjustment going from 'trying to respond the RIGHT way' to responding to the innuendos and insinuations that were used to dig at me and cause that last nerve to stab at me. I'm not cool by any means when it comes to 'come backs', so I just decided to stick with how I felt and say it even though it didn't sound all that great. Someone mentioned I needed better script writers for my part in that particular play in life, but alas, I was stuck with myself in that instance. LOL

At any rate, along the way others who were observing my adventure had various reactions to it... some totally ignoring me, and others being critical, and still others using it for their daily entertainment. If they could have only taken the time to look through my own eyes for a short while, perhaps they would have understood the process that I was deliberately allowing myself to go through... anger ... frustration ... hurt ... being vulnerable ... taking risks ... opening up ... enabling myself to feel and express those emotions without fear ... amongst other things that people go through when they allow themselves to not only be seen as human, but to be seen as a female in a world dominated by men who often times will only accept a woman in their midst if she responds to the world like a man would. That's not to fault men for doing that .. it's just that in this world we live in society has skewed those characteristics in both genders that should be seen as normal and good and now we are all expected to behave like some sort of generic gender race that is equal in every way and we're to ignore our very own natural physiology. It is now seen as weakness if men acknowledge that women are created differently and should be treated with some amount of gentleness just as women are seen as weak and betraying their own gender if they display what used to be considered to be attributes of the virtuous woman.

I could easily go along with the flow and become stoic in the idea that my own femininity is now outdated and an undesireable trait, but the very idea of doing so rails against the idea that God created me as I am and I have nothing to be ashamed of for being true to being female. Some men will never come to an understanding of the opposite sex, and that's probably a normal thing, but I have this idea inside of me that somehow if I just open up and tell them what's it like for me being a woman in a mans world that possibly someone might sit up and take notice and show the women in their life what many women long for but just don't have the right words to say to make the men in their life understand. I, as a woman, want to embrace who I am... I don't want to be ashamed of how I was created because I'm emotional and have a tender heart. There's nothing wrong with me because I am this way... Add to that, I want to be accepted as an intelligent human being capable of doing whatever is put in front of me, just as you men are.... I don't want to be a man, and I don't want to act like a man, either. I find men to be wonderful examples, most of the time, of strength and courage and I am amazed quite often at what you can do and what you've achieved....

<to be continued>