Your prose is electric. It reminds me of Jeanette Winterson, when she really gets going.
I'm often trapped into these roles, as well. I think a lot of intelligent females are (I begrudge calling myself intelligent, of course). We don't fit the common picture of what a woman Should Be, so they compartmentalize us into bites they can chew and down peacefully. Perhaps the pieces are reflections of themselves they like to see mirrored.
Dr.Phil says we're only friends with people because they fill a need in us. He's full of shit, but that's a nugget of wisdom that can't be debated. It seems a lot of people either need validation or are sadists who like to be shredded by our disgust (and then show us how hurt they are; shame on us).
It's gross, and I find that I withdraw from new people because I just assume they want those two things.
Seems accurate enough. I'd wager it's partially unconscious, partially sadomasochism, partially a burning need for validation. But this is just my (likely hypocritical) pattern-finding.
It's a fairly ubiquitous problem, but in my particular cirmcumstance(s), I can identify a "type". It makes me cringe to confess that it's usually women, and they're usually much older than I am. In childhood, I can accept some degree of blame for it; I had a "fixer" personality and collected instability without even realizing it. I've withdrawn from that element over the years, but it still "trickles in" facelessly, and by the time I can identify the problem there's already been a tremendous degree of investment involved. At that point, it's also somewhat inclined toward the erotic ... meh, I'll probably make a seperate post later about compartmentalization and "role-filling" that's rooted in lust. Because with these people described in the OP, it's usually more than that -- though they tend to overlap.
Reminds me of the post I made on "caricaturization" several days ago, albeit in more words. In one view it might be considered shitty, "dehumanizing" perhaps in the parlance of some, but on the other hand it's for the most part completely unconscious and arises as a natural response to the fact that people have no real motive or incentives to see people as ends rather than means. They don't see themselves as doing this, but there are plenty of signs. For example, it's pretty conspicuous that I have acquaintances who will never, ever ask me how I'm doing, or if they do so it's purely in some ceremonial conversation-making sense. They just want me to listen to their stories, or help with their homework, or validate their worldview, or whatever else. I don't begrudge them this, as I tell myself that I've no reason to expect or desire anything more, but it can be somewhat exasperating to hear about how oblivious people are from them
( ... )
Yes, it does make sense. This behavior (your "caricaturization" view) often manifests in subtler, less destructive symptoms in the majority of people -- it's often harmless and well-intentioned, if mildly annoying, so I'll typically allow it a pass. In this post, however, I'm discussing extreme examples; extremes for whichever reason in my life are mainstream, and I'm trying to pinpoint the source ... even my possible culpability involved. I'm discussing the "It's hell for me? You fix it. No, it does not matter if you're working tonight. I've deemed you as my watchperson, and you are thereby obligated to bolster my banality; otherwise I will delegate you to Suicide Watch duty." -types.
The ends vs. means analysis is interesting, as they don't (usually) intend to manipulate, and there's usually no conscious desire to armtwist you into situations; they just want their own pain, or mundanity, or whatever, to stop. The dilemma arises with certain types, however, when they don't simply want the effect of your action, but your action.
( ... )
So people would label you... see you as only a script of sound bytes and nothing more... use THAT perception of you to judge you and even feel better about themselves...
and fail to see the person in front of them rather than some daytime soap personality they wrote for you in their mind.
If I've read that right - I'm sorry. And I certainly hope I havent added to that pile.
interesting style of writing by the way...engaging...
Yes, you've interpreted it correctly. There's definately more to it -- in which the circumstances evolve/degenerate into an explosive type of character who desires something far more serious from you, but yes.
It's the delusional aspect of it that has always really fucking disturbed me.
It's just irritating that some of the things I want to respond to this with will merely ~*fuel some fires*~ for people and I have to bite my tongue for our mutual sanity.
BAH GAWD MAYBE I'LL EMAIL YA. We need to catch up anyway.
Indeed, this is pretty much what I was delving into: how within these circumstances, the line between needyness and abuse becomes almost ... semantic. Even more interesting how pathological the average relationship is when you fit in within this particular framework, but I digress. What's especially troubling is when these types zero on in you at the exclusion of everybody else; they cannot be referred to a seperate person, and best of all, you can't actually make "it" better !
The with-or-against-me mantra afflicts a hefty number of my correspondences, which is irksome enough to where I actually prefer a reasonable amount of detachment from many; I'm easily suffocated by sketchy, codepedant vibes, and I'm not particularly thrilled with playing defense on top of my offense. What I mean by this is that some will become positively stymied when I dissent from them, pondering my duplicitiousness and targeted cruelty instead of interpreting it as my general character, and attempting to force me into ... justifying myself, but only if it
( ... )
Comments 13
I'm often trapped into these roles, as well. I think a lot of intelligent females are (I begrudge calling myself intelligent, of course). We don't fit the common picture of what a woman Should Be, so they compartmentalize us into bites they can chew and down peacefully. Perhaps the pieces are reflections of themselves they like to see mirrored.
Dr.Phil says we're only friends with people because they fill a need in us. He's full of shit, but that's a nugget of wisdom that can't be debated. It seems a lot of people either need validation or are sadists who like to be shredded by our disgust (and then show us how hurt they are; shame on us).
It's gross, and I find that I withdraw from new people because I just assume they want those two things.
Reply
It's a fairly ubiquitous problem, but in my particular cirmcumstance(s), I can identify a "type". It makes me cringe to confess that it's usually women, and they're usually much older than I am. In childhood, I can accept some degree of blame for it; I had a "fixer" personality and collected instability without even realizing it. I've withdrawn from that element over the years, but it still "trickles in" facelessly, and by the time I can identify the problem there's already been a tremendous degree of investment involved. At that point, it's also somewhat inclined toward the erotic ... meh, I'll probably make a seperate post later about compartmentalization and "role-filling" that's rooted in lust. Because with these people described in the OP, it's usually more than that -- though they tend to overlap.
As always, your insight is appreciated.
Reply
:*
Reply
Reply
Which is like, the last thing I ever thought I'd be doing to you. Ha!
Reply
The ends vs. means analysis is interesting, as they don't (usually) intend to manipulate, and there's usually no conscious desire to armtwist you into situations; they just want their own pain, or mundanity, or whatever, to stop. The dilemma arises with certain types, however, when they don't simply want the effect of your action, but your action. ( ... )
Reply
So people would label you... see you as only a script of sound bytes and nothing more... use THAT perception of you to judge you and even feel better about themselves...
and fail to see the person in front of them rather than some daytime soap personality they wrote for you in their mind.
If I've read that right - I'm sorry. And I certainly hope I havent added to that pile.
interesting style of writing by the way...engaging...
Reply
And no, you've never done this to me. No worries.
I appreciate your compliment.
Reply
It's the delusional aspect of it that has always really fucking disturbed me.
It's just irritating that some of the things I want to respond to this with will merely ~*fuel some fires*~ for people and I have to bite my tongue for our mutual sanity.
BAH GAWD MAYBE I'LL EMAIL YA. We need to catch up anyway.
Reply
Go for it, the email I mean. Or if you want to discuss it here, I can f-lock the post. Either way.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The with-or-against-me mantra afflicts a hefty number of my correspondences, which is irksome enough to where I actually prefer a reasonable amount of detachment from many; I'm easily suffocated by sketchy, codepedant vibes, and I'm not particularly thrilled with playing defense on top of my offense. What I mean by this is that some will become positively stymied when I dissent from them, pondering my duplicitiousness and targeted cruelty instead of interpreting it as my general character, and attempting to force me into ... justifying myself, but only if it ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment