Maybe You Can Get An Answer…

Originally published February 7, 2012.

Updated and republished September 13, 2015 after a web host transfer.

This is an email I sent to Rachel Maddow, Reverend Al Sharpton, MoveOn.org, and OurSilverRibbon.org. NOW President Terry O’Neill appeared on Maddow’s and Sharpton’s shows in the fall of 2011. The National Organization For Women participated with MoveOn.org in the Silver Ribbon Campaign in January 2012. The subject line for my email was “Maybe you can get an answer”.

Email Message

Are you aware that the National Organization for Women creates inequality between women? Equality means equal access and equal opportunity.

Read What The New Feminists Look Like” in the November 2010 issue of More Magazine. Once upon a time, Jessica Valenti worked for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Valenti told More that,

“Whenever there was a photo opportunity, all the young women and women
of color would be ushered to the front. But when it came to inviting us to
important meetings, that just wasn’t happening. When push came to shove,
no one really cared what our opinions were.”

Valenti left NOW and started feministing.com, a blog with readers and contributors from around the world. Feministing apparently has more readers than Ms. Magazine had in its heyday. The National Organization For Women does not even have chapters in every state.

NOW trains only state and national leaders to work on feminist causes. They claim to have “a dedicated network of grassroots activists” that takes action around the country. If NOW trains only state and national leaders, who are the “grassroots activists” in its dedicated network? Not the ordinary women who by definition are the grassroots of a cause. Instead of grassroots action, NOW takes grasstops action. NOW denies ordinary women equal access to training and equal opportunity to take action.

NOW President Terry O’Neill sends frequent emails asking “contributors” for money. (NOW Presidents like to always to be referred to by their title.) NOW President Terry O’Neill never explains how she uses the contributions. It seems to me that NOW uses the money so state and national leaders can travel around the country and socialize with each other while taking the training that is denied to the people who make the training possible.

For the 2012 presidential election, the conservative group Smart Girl Politics had online activist training that any member take. Minnesota Concerned Citizens For Life organizes a fall tour around the state offering training that any member can take. SGP and MCCL provide equal access to training and equal opportunity to take action.

During the 2012 election, SGP regularly sent out surveys to ask members their opinions. I have never seen a survey from NOW, and I signed up for emails years ago. The opinions of ordinary women, young feminists, and feminists of color are unimportant and meaningless to NOW leaders. Ordinary women like me have neither equal access nor equal opportunity to express our opinions.

The women behind Feministing give ordinary women equal access and equal opportunities. Ordinary women can submit posts to Feministing’s Community site. Some of the Community posts later appear on the front page of the Feministing site.

I began pushing NOW to create equality between women with a  letter I wrote in January 2010.  My pushing seems to have had some effect. Since my letter, the phrase “NOW President Terry O’Neill” did not appear on NOW’s old home page quite as often. (I once counted “NOW President Kim Gandy” eight times on NOW’s old home page.) In her frequent emails asking for money, NOW President Terry O’Neill has begun to acknowledge that the ordinary women donating money are part of any success NOW creates.

I’ve also left phone comments about emails from NOW Action Center. The “action” is forwarding “Your letter” to a politician, an email written by NOW. “Your letter” used to include one of these phrases:

“As a supporter of the National Organization for Women”

“As an active supporter of NOW”

“I am writing to you as member of the National Organization for Women”

Those phrases were often at the beginning of “Your letter” so that NOW got its organizational advertising in right away. After forwarding “Your letter”, contributors were also invited to send even more money.

After I left a message on their comment line expressing displeasure about those self-serving phrases, the inclusion of those phrases mostly ended. I hope other women complained about NOW’s blatant attempts for attention. Since self-promotion is most important to NOW President Terry O’Neill, she has never encouraged contributors to write their own letters with details from their own lives.

I plan to keep writing blog posts about feminist leaders because I want equality and feminist leaders are creating inequality.

If you want equality, ask NOW leaders why they deny most women equal access to training and equal opportunity to take action. I can think of only four reasons.

First Reason

SGP leaders and MCCL leaders are smarter than NOW leaders. (They train thousands more people to take action than NOW leaders train, so they are in a better position to influence outcomes.)

Second Reason

NOW leaders think most women are too stupid to train.

Third Reason

NOW leaders think most women are incapable of taking action.

Fourth Reason

NOW leaders are glory addicts who want to keep all the glory of taking action for themselves.

You could also ask NOW leaders why they deny most women equal access and equal opportunity to express their opinions. The reasons would be similar to those above.

Rachel Maddow and Al Sharpton should interview Jessica Valenti. Valenti has left Feministing, but the other feminists running it should know how to contact her or would probably be great interview subjects themselves. The interviews would also provide insights into what feminists from around the world are thinking and doing.

I am not trying to get on television myself. I have endured enough thoughtless and insensitive comments, questions, and advice concerning the tragedies I survived to last the rest of my life. If I appeared on television, even more people would feel they had a responsibility to bombard me with thoughtless and insensitive comments, questions, and advice. I am writing books that I will publish myself so that I can do only radio interviews to promote them.

I sent an email to about 45 state NOW chapters. Only one state president responded, and she decided I was off-putting. Since people in your organizations are on speaking terms with NOW President Terry O’Neill, perhaps a few of you could ask those questions about equal access and equal opportunity and get answers. NOW President Terry O’Neill would not answer those questions if I asked them.

Please consider asking NOW those questions so all women can enjoy equal access and equal opportunity.

Update February 2012

On February 16, 2012, NOW Action Center asked supporters to send “Your Letter” with this first sentence:

“As a supporter of the National Organization for Women, I am concerned
about the growing number of attacks in Congress and elsewhere on birth
control – which is basic  health care that should be available to all women
without controversy.”

Obviously, NOW only took a break from its organizational advertising. Details of real women’s lives still do not matter to the leaders of the National Organization for Women.

Update September 13, 2015

Nobody responded to my email.

“What the New Feminists Look Like”
More Magazine News & Politics Editors
November 2010

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

For a wide ranging selection of articles on feminism and other topics,
see The Zawadi Nyong’o Daily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As an American, I have freedom of speech.

As a woman, I have the right to express my opinion about anything the National Organization for Women claims to do for women.

In 2016, I started adding the section below to all of my new Feminist Leader blog posts. I also added it to all posts published before 2016.

The National Organization For Women
Silences Women

National NOW has blocked me on its Facebook page. I wrote comments based on my blog posts. All of my blog posts are based on a wide variety of evidence. Much of the evidence comes from National NOW’s website, emails and posts from NOW presidents, and emails from NOW staff members. I use no hostile language, no slurs, no profanity. I do use the phrase “glory addicts” in reference to NOW leaders. I also use “glory addiction”, “glory fixes”, and “a dedicated network of glory addicts”. Dr. Marsha Vanderford (Doyle) identified the glory needs of pro-choice leaders in her 1982 dissertation.

Feminist leaders have been silencing women for decades. bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf got together for a conversation that was published in Ms. Magazine in 1993. The discussion included why women choose not ta call themselves feminists. Did these four feminist leaders working for women’s equality ask women who choose not to call themselves feminist to speak for themselves? Of course not! The four feminist leaders silenced millions of women by speaking for them without first requesting permission to speak for them.

Imagine a group of women who choose not to call themselves feminists getting together for a conversation to be published in a magazine about why some women call themselves feminists. Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree with nonfeminist women denying them the opportunity to speak for themselves? Of course not! Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree that nonfeminist women had the right to speak for feminist women without their permission? Of course not!

My feminist leader blog posts provide evidence that feminist leaders still create glory for themselves while relegating supporters to “secondary importance”. Dr. Vanderford used the words “relegated” and “secondary importance” in her dissertation. Eoin Harnett of University College Cork in Ireland used the same “secondary importance” phrase:

“Throughout the ages, women were frequently characterised
and treated as inferior and of secondary importance to men.”

NOW leaders even relegated two of their supporters to secondary importance. The supporters responded to my last two comments on National NOW’s Facebook page with comments supporting NOW. NOW leaders silenced those supporters by removing their comments along with my comments. Instead of creating equality, NOW leaders treat other women the same way patriarchal men treat women:

NOW leaders silenced at least three women on Facebook while posting claims to be creating equality for women. Secondary importance is the opposite of equality, as women throughout the ages could testify.

In-House Rhetoric of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Special Interest Groups in Minnesota: Motivation and Alienation
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982
Marsha Vanderford Doyle, Ph.D.
(Now Marsha Vanderford)
Quoted words on page 350.

“Let’s Get Real about Feminism: The Backlash, the Myths, the Movement.”
hooks, bell, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

A Dedicated Network Of Glory Addicts

Originally published September 12, 2011.

Updated and republished September 13, 2015 after a web host transfer.

Sign up to receive emails from the National Organization for Women (NOW), and you will periodically receive emails about their “dedicated network of grassroots activists” that NOW President Terry O’Neill describes as “unparalleled”. NOW President Terry O’Neill (NOW presidents seem to prefer being referred to by their title) continually asks for money to support these unparalleled grassroots activists. I sent an email asking how NOW would use my money if I donated. No one responded. I searched NOW’s website for any information about how NOW leaders use donations. I found no information. I also sent an email to NOW asking how someone becomes an activist. No one responded.

I wrote a long letter to NOW about all of these issues. I also wrote that when I first started paying attention to now.org I thought NOW existed to promote former NOW President Kim Gandy because I was astonished at how often her name appeared on the home page of NOW’s website.  (Since I started writing blog posts about feminist leaders, NOW has changed its website.) One email from the NOW Action Center included “NOW President Kim Gandy” 5 times. I received no response to my letter, though NOW President Terry O’Neill puts her name on the home page less often than she used to. Also, in one of her emails asking for money, she assured readers that our money would always be put to good use. She included no details about what the good uses are.

Some months ago, NOW President Terry O’Neill started using the word “allies” in emails asking for money. She never identifies any of these allies. NOW President Terry O’Neill is consistently secretive about how she spends donations, who can be an activist, what activists do, and who NOW’s allies are. I finally found some information on a page at NOW’s website, but that information is no longer on NOW’s website.

Under “Key Elements” was the list below for “Empower Activists”. It is no longer on the web site.

Train new and seasoned activists:

Conduct a political assessment of the community.

Build supporter lists.

Get media exposure.

Plan local actions.

Organize rapid response teams.

Raise funds.

Sounds innocent and useful, right? Then why the secrecy? Why hide what they do with the money and whom they do it with? Who else hides what they do and whom they do it with? Addicts. NOW President Terry O’Neill, the dedicated activists, and the allies are all glory addicts. They get their glory fixes from situations that make them feel important and meaningful. They are a dedicated network of glory addicts.

This glory addiction goes back at least two decades. Eleanor Smeal, president of NOW from 1977 to 1982 and again from 1985 to 1987, sent out a letter around 1990 that began with the sentence, “For the past 20 years I’ve fought for women’s rights.” In exchange for completing an Abortion Rights Questionnaire and sending a “generous contribution,” Smeal promised that “at least four times a year we’ll notify you of pending actions nationally and locally and let you know what action steps you can take.” Smeal added the underlining. In that letter, Smeal succinctly described the purpose of the National Organization for Women and her Feminist Majority Foundation — to give glory to feminist leaders while keeping ordinary women silent, passive, and waiting for permission to speak and act.

In an October 7, 2010 email NOW President Terry O’Neill wrote:

“With your help, we can support our grassroots activities in the states where
feminists have the most to lose.  States like California, Pennsylvania, Florida,
Washington and North Carolina. We can return our friends to Congress and
bring them reinforcements as well, but only if we have the resources.
Contribute today.

With the elections less than a month away, there is absolutely no time to waste.
NOW’s nationwide network of grassroots activists are making phone calls, going
door to door, and urging voters, especially women, to get out and vote — but we
cannot do it alone.  Contribute today.”

Notice that NOW President Terry O’Neill does not ask ordinary women to participate in the “grassroots” activities. We are only supposed to send money so that all the glories of being important and meaningful go to the glory addicts.

More clues are in an August 10, 2011 email from NOW President Terry O’Neill:

“But this time around was different! In the run-up to the siege, the National
NOW Action Center worked around the clock, placing hundreds of phone
calls to supporters in the Washington, D.C., metro area, coordinating rides
and trainings, and welcoming NOW grassroots leadership from around the
country into our neighborhood.”

First, the activists at the National NOW Action Center got their glory fix of importance and meaningfulness. Second, the “NOW grassroots leaders from around the country” got their glory fix of importance and meaningfulness. What do you want to bet that donations paid for the travel expenses of those “grassroots leaders” so they could get their fixes of feeling important and meaningful? It is only a guess, of course, because NOW President Terry O’Neill keeps the details of what she does with the donations a secret, that classic sign of addiction.

One of my favorite examples of what NOW leaders, dedicated activists, and their allies will say to justify feeding their addiction is this statement from an article about a spring 2005 State Presidents Training Program:

“In addition to elected leaders, 33 activists from 14 states braved the chill of
an extended Washington, D.C., winter for intensive training in the area of
their choice.”

Telling themselves that they “braved” the chill of an extended Washington, D.C. winter made them feel important and meaningful. I live in Wisconsin. An extended Wisconsin winter is far colder than a “chill”. Would NOW leaders, dedicated activists, and their allies give me the glory of feeling important and meaningful for braving long Wisconsin winters to go about what I do to create equality for women? Never. They are grasstops who cannot allow a real grassroots movement of ordinary women to show up their “bravery” as a sham.

Somehow, ordinary citizens who believed in Barack Obama managed all by themselves to contact people, organize meetings, and urge people to go out and vote. NOW leaders, dedicated activists, and their allies seem to think that ordinary women who support equality do not to have the same abilities as the ordinary citizens who believed in Barack Obama. According to NOW President Terry O’Neill, ordinary women who support equality need leaders, dedicated activists, and their allies to speak words and take actions. What is unparalleled about this dedicated network of glory addicts is its system of excluding ordinary women from taking real grassroots action.

Feminist leaders, dedicated activists, and their allies need ordinary women to remain silent and passive to guarantee a steady supply of the importance and meaningfulness that satisfies their glory addiction. NOW leaders, dedicated activists, and their allies will employ all the secrecy they can muster to keep feeding their addiction. If any of them read this post they will do what any self-respecting addict would do — deny, deny, deny.

I challenge NOW President Terry O’Neill to explain her secrecy about how she spends donations and chooses activists. I challenge NOW President Terry O’Neill, the dedicated activists, and their allies to explain why they prevent ordinary women from taking their own — and real — grassroots actions.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

For a wide ranging selection of articles on feminism and other topics,
see The Zawadi Nyong’o Daily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As an American, I have freedom of speech.

As a woman, I have the right to express my opinion about anything the National Organization for Women claims to do for women.

In 2016, I started adding the section below to all of my new Feminist Leader blog posts. I also added it to all posts published before 2016.

The National Organization For Women
Silences Women

National NOW has blocked me on its Facebook page. I wrote comments based on my blog posts. All of my blog posts are based on a wide variety of evidence. Much of the evidence comes from National NOW’s website, emails and posts from NOW presidents, and emails from NOW staff members. I use no hostile language, no slurs, no profanity. I do use the phrase “glory addicts” in reference to NOW leaders. I also use “glory addiction”, “glory fixes”, and “a dedicated network of glory addicts”. Dr. Marsha Vanderford (Doyle) identified the glory needs of pro-choice leaders in her 1982 dissertation.

Feminist leaders have been silencing women for decades. bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf got together for a conversation that was published in Ms. Magazine in 1993. The discussion included why women choose not ta call themselves feminists. Did these four feminist leaders working for women’s equality ask women who choose not to call themselves feminist to speak for themselves? Of course not! The four feminist leaders silenced millions of women by speaking for them without first requesting permission to speak for them.

Imagine a group of women who choose not to call themselves feminists getting together for a conversation to be published in a magazine about why some women call themselves feminists. Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree with nonfeminist women denying them the opportunity to speak for themselves? Of course not! Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree that nonfeminist women had the right to speak for feminist women without their permission? Of course not!

My feminist leader blog posts provide evidence that feminist leaders still create glory for themselves while relegating supporters to “secondary importance”. Dr. Vanderford used the words “relegated” and “secondary importance” in her dissertation. Eoin Harnett of University College Cork in Ireland used the same “secondary importance” phrase:

“Throughout the ages, women were frequently characterised
and treated as inferior and of secondary importance to men.”

NOW leaders even relegated two of their supporters to secondary importance. The supporters responded to my last two comments on National NOW’s Facebook page with comments supporting NOW. NOW leaders silenced those supporters by removing their comments along with my comments. Instead of creating equality, NOW leaders treat other women the same way patriarchal men treat women:

NOW leaders silenced at least three women on Facebook while posting claims to be creating equality for women. Secondary importance is the opposite of equality, as women throughout the ages could testify.

In-House Rhetoric of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Special Interest Groups in Minnesota: Motivation and Alienation
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982
Marsha Vanderford Doyle, Ph.D.
(Now Marsha Vanderford)
Quoted words on page 350.

“Let’s Get Real about Feminism: The Backlash, the Myths, the Movement.”
hooks, bell, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

Married To Share Life, Or Married To Satisfy Needs?

Originally published August 21, 2011.

Updated and republished September 13, 2015 after a web host transfer.

For thousands of years, people have married each other for all kinds of unromantic reasons — political alliance, financial gain, social climbing, escape from abusive parents, the legal right to stay in a country, etc. Another reason people marry is to satisfy behavior style needs. People who have already found healthy ways to satisfy their own behavior style needs marry to share their lives — their feelings, experiences, and dreams. People who do not know how to satisfy their own behavior style needs often do not know how to share feelings, experiences, or dreams. Three types of marriages are possible:

Both spouses marry to share feelings, experiences, and dreams (sharing life marriage)

One spouse marries to share feelings, experiences, and dreams; one spouse marries to satisfy needs (sharing life/seeking satisfaction marriage)

Both spouses marry to satisfy needs (seeking satisfaction marriage)

Only a sharing life marriage will be good for both spouses. Each spouse wants to share in the other spouse’s feelings, experiences, and dreams. Because they want to share, they pay attention to what matters to each other and make what matters happen. By making what matters happen, they keep each other’s needs satisfied. These spouses marry to share life and benefit from keeping their needs satisfied as well.

In a sharing life/seeking satisfaction marriage, both spouses will be disappointed. The sharing life spouse will feel unloved while the seeking satisfaction spouse will feel unsatisfied.

In a seeking satisfaction marriage, both spouses will feel unsatisfied. Their unsatisfied needs plus the inability to share their spouse’s feelings, experiences, and dreams will damage their marriage.

The following examples illustrate the differences between the three types of marriage. All three couples are real couples who used to be part of my life.

Sharing Life Marriage

The spouses in this marriage are from different racial groups. They shared their feelings, experiences, and dreams through all of their ups and downs. The wife helped the husband cope with the discrimination he endured for their interracial marriage before the Civil Rights era. The wife had been unable to get her driver’s license when she was young, so her husband helped her overcome her fears and learn to drive in her forties. When the husband had to get up at 3:00 a.m. to work long hours an hour’s drive away, the wife got up with him so they could have time together. If one of them did something for the other, the other one responded with the same, as in trading back rubs.

In later years after their finances improved, they shared their dream of traveling far and wide. After decades of the wife having to make do with a very tight budget, the husband made sure to buy her a piece of her favorite jewelry on every trip. As the wife’s health worsened, the husband did more and more of the housework and cooking. He also changed his work schedule to make daily life easier for his wife. This couple will share anything life brings them as long as they have each other. Along the way, they have kept each other’s needs satisfied.

Sharing Life/Seeking Satisfaction Marriage

The husband had dated little when he married to share his feelings, experiences, and dreams. The wife had been far more sociable, but married to satisfy her need to improve her social and financial status. For a time, the wife enjoyed being married to her husband. His career gave her a better social status, though his salary would never be high. After the babies started coming, the husband had to choose a profession that paid more. His new profession lowered the wife’s social status, but there was little she could do about it. The one thing she could do was to make him work extra hours to earn even more money. The husband had expected to share the feelings, experiences, and dreams of his children. Instead, he found himself spending time away from his children in order to satisfy his wife’s need for more and more money.

When their children were older, the wife took a job at a company that allowed her to advance further than her husband had been able to advance. After several years, her salary was greater than his. She had improved her own social and financial status. The husband had to bury his feelings and set aside his dreams because his wife didn’t care about his dreams. She only wanted her husband to work long hours to make as much money as he could. The wife considered herself superior to her husband and felt that he had failed her. The wife did not share in her husband’s feelings, experiences, and dreams. Instead, she punished him by treating him like a servant, expecting him to do whatever she asked. In this sharing life/satisfying need marriage, the unloved husband became an alcoholic and the unsatisfied wife became an abuser.

This is my parents’ marriage.

Seeking Satisfaction Marriage

The man felt his father had never given him approval. He lived across the street from his father and parked a fancy car in his driveway, hoping to prove himself as a man to his father. The woman had an artistic profession that she lost because of a crippling illness. She became depressed and turned to alcohol.

The man and the woman met through the man’s friend, whom the woman was dating. The woman and her boyfriend had a long distance, rocky relationship, and both were alcoholics. When the boyfriend’s drinking led to his sudden death at age 50, the woman threw herself into the man’s arms. Less than three week’s after the death of the man’s friend and the woman’s boyfriend, the man and woman were sleeping together. Within months, they were engaged.

This couple married a year after the friend/boyfriend’s death. The husband married his wife to satisfy his need for his father’s approval. He thought if he married an alcoholic woman and made her happy enough to quit drinking, his father would have to see he was a good husband and give him approval as a man. The wife married her husband to satisfy her need to have someone take care of her while she drank herself to death. She thought that if she acted helpless the husband would have to take care of her.

The husband had stopped drinking and doing drugs years before he met his wife. The wife sweet-talked her husband into drinking again so she could continue drinking herself to death. The husband became abusive to his wife, laughed about the abuse to a friend, and talked about suicide to a friend. Both husband and wife felt unloved.

Neither spouse married to share feelings, experiences, and dreams. The husband stayed focused on his relationship with his father, using his wife as a prop to improve that relationship. The wife stayed focused on herself, using her husband as a caregiver while she drank herself to death. Their use of alcohol and drugs further prevented them from sharing feelings, experiences, and dreams.

What to Do

If you are married and concerned about your marriage after reading this, there is something you can do. Look through the information at smilessparksuccess.com to help you identify and learn how to satisfy your behavior style needs and your spouse’s behavior style needs. If you feel your spouse married you to satisfy his or her needs, your marriage may never give you the sharing you want. But do not immediately decide to end the marriage. Using what you learn about satisfying each of your needs, identify activities you could do with your spouse that would satisfy both of your needs. You will then be able to make an informed decision about how much your spouse is willing to share or not share feelings, experiences, and dreams with you.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Value Clues For Romance: Whom To Run From, Whom To Run To

Originally published May 12, 2011.

Updated and republished September 13, 2015.

You can find basic information about Spranger guiding values (including ranking all of your values), DISC behavior styles, and relationships at smilessparksuccess.com. You will get the most out of this blog post if you look through that website and read through the free PDF downloads. See also the blog post “Behavior Clues for Romance: Whom To Run From, Whom To Run To”. See page 14 in S&R_Keys for a little background on Spranger guiding values.

Any individual set of guiding values is affected by life circumstances, physical health, mental health, and emotional health.

Years ago I filled out an index that gave me a detailed explanation of my value ranking. It was only partly accurate. I have not found a free online assessment for ranking values. You will have to use what I created for the S&R_Keys download. See pages 16 through 18.  I created a ranking that explains all of my values accurately. I hope it explains all of yours.

When you understand your own and other people’s guiding values, you can identify whom to run from (romantic duds) and whom to run to (romantic dynamos) for romance. Keep in mind that most of the people in the world will be romantic duds for you. Also keep in mind that you will be a romantic dud for most of the people in the world. Since you would like the rest of the people in the world to treat you with respect, remember to treat your romantic duds with respect.

Using your relationships with family, friends, and former romantic partners as guides, you can identify your:

Run to value passions for romance

Run from value passions for romance

Possible run from value passions

Value passions to work on

Eduard Spranger identified six values in his 1928 book, Types of Men: The Psychology and Ethics of Personality. I use different words to describe each value and have added the negative and positive expressions of each value. I explain some of them in the S&R_Keys download. I will explain each in detail in a book that is still in progress, Success & Relationship Keys: Opening, Closing, Or Slamming Doors To Personal & Professional Success.

Usefulness, Universal or Unbiased

Knowledge, Know-it-all or Nurturing

Harmony, Heedless or Hand-in-Hand

Belief, Bully or Balanced

Helping, Heedless or Holistic

Position, Priority or Purposeful

I will use my own experiences as examples for this blog post. My value ranking is:

First Value          Helping             Guiding Value

Second Value      Knowledge       Guiding Value

Third Value         Belief                 Situational Value

Fourth Value       Harmony         Situational Value

Fifth Value          Usefulness        Split Value

Sixth Value          Position            Negative Value

When you rank your values, start with your guiding values and think about the other values for a while. I learned about Spranger values from a company that told me I would have two guiding values, two situational values, one negative value, and one neutral value. Trying to rank my values according to their definitions, I ranked two of my values incorrectly. It took me years to stop thinking their way and start understanding how all of my values worked in my life. You probably will have two guiding values. After that, you could have any combination of situational, split, negative and/or neutral values. The split value designation comes from my understanding of the Usefulness value in my own life. Take your time to get it right.

See pages 16 through 18 for value ranking worksheets in the S&R_Keys download.

Run To Value Passions

Helping Value
My first guiding value is Helping. I learned to be passionate about helping people from my father. We lived in a middle class northern suburb of Chicago from the 1950s into the 1990s. My father somehow adopted a black family from the south side of Chicago during the 1960s. The black family owned a second hand store. At least once a year, my father invited the black family to come up from their black neighborhood to our white suburb to pick up everything he had saved for them to sell in their store. They gratefully drove away with a full pickup truck after every visit. I can remember the smile on my father’s face as he waved goodbye. I can remember the smiles on the faces of the black family the entire time they were at our house.

Helping value passions are positive when they are holistic. The Holistic Helping value helps people by taking several factors into consideration, including:

What the person in need sees as their need

The situation the person is in

The other people in the situation who affect what the person in need can do

The helper’s own needs and situation

My father practiced Holistic Helping. The black family saw themselves as continually needing items to sell in their secondhand store. Their situation meant they were continually looking for items to sell. In the 1960s, most white people from any part of the Chicago area would have nothing to do with blacks living on the South Side of Chicago. My father had grown up in poverty. He wanted to help other people get out of poverty because he needed to feel he was making a positive difference in someone else’s life. His situation allowed him to make that positive difference.

Knowledge Value
My second guiding value is Knowledge. I also developed the passion for knowledge from my father. Knowledge was a situational value for him. He encouraged us to do well in school. He hung a small blackboard in the dining room so we could learn new words. He kept telling me I should get two college degrees and teach. As an adult, I have two college degrees. I teach through workshops and writing. I enjoy gathering knowledge in a variety of ways. I enjoy making connections between different types of knowledge. I make those connections available to other people so they can have a better understanding of themselves and their relationships.

You can see my Helping and Knowledge passions working together on my speakingfromtriumph.com and smilessparksuccess.com websites. All of the free PDF downloads are my way of helping people through knowledge. I also write blog posts that are full of information people can use to make more effective choices for their lives, such as this blog post.

People with Nurturing Knowledge as a guiding value are effective parents, teachers, leaders, and mentors. They provide children, schools, communities, and businesses with knowledge that leads to the education, experience, skills, resources, and connections necessary for success. I try to nurture people with the connections I make between different types of knowledge.

Belief Value
The passion of situational values comes up only in certain situations. The Belief value is situational for me. I have beliefs that are important to me, but they do not guide every decision I make. After growing up in one religion and being part of two other religions, I have decided that my religion is the Golden_Rule. This is what I call the Participation Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you
by satisfying their needs as they see them.

I believe that if I satisfy others’ needs as they see them, they will be more likely to satisfy my needs as I see them. In part this comes from my discovery that spectacular success comes from working with others and satisfying others.

I also have strong beliefs about equality. I used to believe that feminism was the way to create equality for women. Now I believe the opposite. The words and action of feminist leaders led me to the understanding that I would never enjoy equality through their efforts. See my blog post “If Feminist Leaders Want Equality, Why Do They Create Inequality?” Now I believe that equality between men and women will follow equality between women. I call myself an equality advocate. I act on my beliefs about equality by advocating equality between women, between men, and between men and women. I advocate for equality between women by writing blog posts about how feminist leaders create inequality. See the “Feminist Leaders” category at blog.speakingfromtriumph.com.

I expect other people to have beliefs that are important to them. Those beliefs are neutral for me as long as they are not bullying beliefs. I can respect the beliefs of people with a Balanced Belief guiding value, meaning they recognize that different life experiences lead to different beliefs.

Harmony Value
My Harmony value is also situational. For instance, I have a special relationship with trees. Gardening satisfies my secondary High S behavior style need for quiet activities, but my garden plants do not mean what trees mean to me. Trees take my breath away. I love looking at trees and looking through the spaces between branches and between trees. When the wind blows through trees, I hear them laughing. I need to be surrounded by trees so I can hear their laughter.

Hand-in-Hand Harmony was my father’s second guiding value, influencing me again. He sought his own harmony with nature by taking us children to forest preserves and by beautifully and creatively landscaping our yard. I try to be hand-in-hand with my Harmony passion. I took my daughter to beaches and parks when she was little, and I take my grandchildren to beaches and parks while they are little.

I also listen to particular types of music to express particular feelings. After a lifetime of PTSD because of my childhood, I found a way to feel safe by listening to the music from one particular movie.

Usefulness Value
Values can be split between a task orientation and a people orientation. I don’t know how many people have split values, but the Usefulness value is split for me. It is important for me to make objects useful in more than one way. I like multifunctional furniture and tools, for example. My passion for making things useful in more than one way also came from my father. He survived the 1930s depression and what he didn’t give the black family he saved for us in case of another depression. He used items he saved as he thought of uses for them.

The Usefulness value can be either unbiased or universal. People with the Unbiased Usefulness value look at people as individuals and at objects as useful or useless. People with the Universal Usefulness value look at both people and objects as profitable resources (useful) or costly obstacles (useless). I am appalled when someone treats other people as profitable resources or costly obstacles rather than as individuals.

My romantic dynamos would share at least some of my passions — helping people, nurturing people with knowledge, spending time in nature, making and enjoying music, and making objects useful in more than one way.

Run From Value Passions

Position Value
My mother’s first guiding value is Position. The Position value can be either Priority Position or Purposeful Position. Priority Position people want to lead and direct others in ways that benefit only themselves. Their priority is their own status and power. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi are examples of Priority Position people. They did not lead for the purpose of benefiting their citizens. They led for the priority of maintaining their own status and power. My mother is also a Priority Position person. She did not lead for the purpose of benefiting our family. She led for the priority of maintaining her own status and power.

Purposeful Position people want to lead and direct other people in ways that are beneficial. Pope Francis is a Purposeful Position person. He leads in ways he thinks will benefit all human beings. He is not leading for his own sake. His Belief guiding value means his purpose is shaped by his Catholic faith, so it is possible to see him as beneficial while disagreeing with some of his leadership.

Evidence suggests that Pope Francis’ Purposeful Position value is a situational value. He did not want to be Pope. Belief and Helping are probably his guiding values.

My mother’s second guiding value is Universal Usefulness. She looks at every person — including her husband, children, and grandchildren — as profitable resources or costly obstacles to maintaining her status and power.

Note

I write extensively about my mother for the sake of other people who have parents with a Universal Usefulness guiding value. It took me decades to understand that nothing I said or did mattered. The day I was born my mother decided I was useless to her because I was her second daughter instead of her first son. I am the female who was supposed to be male. Since I can never be the male she wanted, she will never see me as useful. When I finally understood that, I stopped wasting my time trying to please her. I ended my relationship with my mother and got on with my life. My father had already been dead for years by then. I am much happier now. I want to help people with childhoods like mine stop wasting their time trying to please parents who see them as useless and costly. Helping other people understand toxic family relationships is one way I express my Helping and Knowledge guiding value passions.

People with Priority Position and Universal Usefulness (or Universal Usefulness and Priority Position) as their guiding values are capable of taking things they want away from other people because they feel they deserve anything they want. When I was a child, we used to drive past a fancy house on our way to church. My mother considered it her dream house. When it went up for sale she talked or bullied my father into buying it for her. By doing so, she took her husband away from their children and us children away from our father. The house was so expensive to live in that my father had to work extra hours to pay all the bills. The more time he spent working to pay the bills, the less time he had to spend with us. My mother eventually had to find employment herself.

My mother later took my father’s retirement away from him. By then she had an executive position at an insurance company. After throwing a big retirement party for him when he was 65, she bullied my father into continuing to pay all of the household bills. This meant he had to work, of course. He was still paying all of the household bills at age 69, the year he died. My mother wanted to save her own money for the European vacations she felt entitled to. My father received his lung cancer diagnosis weeks after their last trip to Europe. He had already been sick for months, at least. He died six months later.

My mother took money away from her children. I saw my father’s will when I was a teenager. He split his estate between my mother and us children. Before he died, however, my mother bullied him into changing his will so that she could inherit everything. She later claimed that the money she had come from her own hard work. She didn’t explain that her hard work was the time and effort she put  into taking whatever she wanted away from other people.

My mother even took a blouse away from my niece. I found a pink blouse at a thrift store, but it did not fit my narrow shoulders. The next time I visited my older sister, I offered it to her. She said she did not like pink, but her teenage daughter did. I gave the pink blouse to my niece, who said she liked the blouse. My mother was visiting my sister that same weekend. She came into the room and I explained to her why I was giving the blouse to my niece. I left the room and came back to find my mother wearing the pink blouse I had just given my to niece. I was too shocked to say anything. The next morning my mother left early. When I asked my niece about the blouse she said that, “Grandma just adopted it.” My mother took the blouse out of her granddaughter’s hands and kept it because she wanted it and felt she deserved to have it.

Under stress, people with Priority Position and Universal Usefulness as their guiding values are capable of killing people they see as threatening to their status and power. Saddam Hussein killed other Iraqis to protect his status and power. Muammar Gaddafi killed other Libyans to protect his status and power. My mother tried to kill me to protect her status and power. My mother had been raised to believe that she could prove herself to be a good woman only as the mother of a son. I am her second child and her second daughter. It was all right for my older sister to be female because she was the first child. I am the child who was supposed to be the son who would protect her status as a good woman. My mother saw me as a costly and threatening obstacle to her status. Killing me would have saved her from wasting her time and energy on a useless child. Killing me would have protected her status as a good woman.

I should run from anyone with a Priority Position and Universal Usefulness guiding value combination.

The Usefulness and Position Guiding Value Combination Can Be Positive

I want to reassure anyone who has Position and Usefulness as their guiding values. The determining factor for how someone acts on the passions of this guiding value combination is moral integrity. It is moral integrity that makes the Usefulness value unbiased. It is moral corruption that makes the Usefulness value universal. It is moral integrity that makes the Position value purposeful. It is moral corruption that makes the Position value priority. Moral integrity means that people with Usefulness and Position as their guiding values have high standards for their own actions. They use resources as best they know how to work with and through other people for the benefit of many people.

Possible Run From Value Passions

Harmony Value
Harmony is a situational value for me. I could run to someone with a Hand-in-Hand Harmony value, meaning they seek harmony while taking into consideration the other people in their lives. My father was a Hand-in-Hand Harmony person. He sought his own harmony with nature by taking us children to forest preserves and by beautifully and creatively landscaping our yard. He included his family in his harmony.

People with a Heedless Harmony value seek their own harmony while forgetting about the people in their lives. They exclude those closest to them from their harmony. Given that my mother and siblings excluded me from much of their lives, I should run from any relationship in which the other person excludes me from their harmony.

Belief Value
People with strong beliefs who try to force their beliefs on others have a Bully Belief guiding value. Any belief — religious or otherwise — can produce people with a Bully Belief guiding value, including environmentalists and feminists. Bully environmentalists have burned houses to the ground, going beyond bully to criminal. Feminists of the 1960s and 70s were famous for “trashing” other feminists to punish them for such crimes as speaking their own words and taking their own actions. See the article below for Joreen’s firsthand account of how viciously some feminists trashed other feminists. It was published in the April, 1976 issue of Ms. Magazine, pages 49-51 and 92-98.

“Trashing: The Dark Side Of Sisterhood”

After a lifetime of being bullied by my mother, I should run from anyone with a Bully Belief value.

Value Passions to Work On

Heedless Helping

Helping is my first value. The Helping value can be either holistic or heedless. The Holistic Helping value helps people by taking everything possible into consideration, including:

What the person in need sees as their need

The situation the person is in

The other people in the situation who affect what the person in need can do

The helper’s own needs and situation

I think I mostly help people in a holistic way. However, I remember at least three times when I was heedless about the help I offered. Twice I promised significant help without considering if I could deliver that help. I couldn’t deliver it because the help I offered was the opposite of what I needed to satisfy my behavior style needs. If I had understood my behavior styles needs back then, I would have been able to offer the kind of help I could deliver. In a third situation I know I did far more harm than good. In fact, I probably did all harm and no good.

I must work on offering help only when I know I can deliver the help I offer. I should offer a certain amount of help or specific helping actions for a fixed time. When the help is finished or the time is over, both of us should evaluate the effectiveness of my help. We could then decide if we should continue things as they were, change them, or end my help completely.

I also must make sure that the help I offer fits what the person I want to help needs. I must ask questions or follow whatever communication they can give me. I must be aware of the situation each of us is in.

My father helped the black family in a way that satisfied both his needs as well as their needs. He gave them items to sell in their store without promising them any specific amount or type of item. He called them when he was ready to fill their truck. His help satisfied their needs. His help fit the circumstances of both his situation and their situation.

Know-it-all Knowledge

I’m so fascinated with odd bits of information that at times I have sounded like a know-it-all, an irritating know-it-all. I’m learning to be careful about when I pull isolated facts out of thin air.

I also have to work at not telling people what they want to hear. My secondary High S behavior style wants to please people. At times when people came to me for information, I gave them information I thought would please them when I should have said, “I don’t know.”

Experts can be considered know-it-alls when they assume they know everything about an issue or subject. No one knows everything, including experts. The world entered a recession in 2008 because financial experts did not know everything.

To avoid becoming a know-it-all, I do not call myself an expert. I am an author, a businesswoman, a professional (not motivational) speaker and a documentary filmmaker. Even though I seem to be the only person who has identified the ingredients for spectacular success, people around the world have been creating spectacular success for hundreds of years at least without any help from me. I’ve just analyzed how they did it or do it so others can learn from them. To increase your knowledge of DISC behavior styles and Spranger guiding values, you should read what other people have written about them, because I do not know everything. However, I came up with the phrase “Spranger guiding values”. You’ll have to search with different words to find other people who write about them.

That’s how you should approach anyone who is known as an expert. They may know a lot, but they do not know everything. Find other ways to gather information so you have more than just one perspective to guide you.

My Husband

My husband’s first guiding value was Hand-in-Hand Harmony. He enjoyed making music and being in nature and he shared both types of harmony with me.

His second guiding value was Helping. He did not have the resources to satisfy his passion as much as he would have liked to. But whenever a person or animal in need crossed his path, he did whatever he could to help.

If we had understood our guiding value passions, we could have taken actions to satisfy those passions together. Many of the successes of my life came from satisfying my guiding value passions. (See Essential Success, Achievement Success, and Open Door Success at smilessparksuccess.com.) My husband and I could have sparked positive life changes for ourselves if we had focused on satisfying our helping passions together.

Your Value Ranking

Use smilessparksuccess.com and the PDF downloads to help you figure out your own value ranking. Satisfying your positive guiding value passions will spark successes you didn’t know were possible.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Behavior Clues For Romance: Whom To Run From, Whom To Run To

Originally published March 18, 2011.

Updated and republished September 13, 2015.

You can find basic information about DISC behavior styles (including creating shorthand graphs), Spranger guiding values, and relationships at smilessparksuccess.com. You will get the most out of this blog post if you look through that website and read through the free PDF downloads. See page 9 in S&R_Keys for a little background on DISC behavior styles. Any individual behavior style combination is affected by life circumstances, physical health, mental health, and emotional health.

Years ago I filled out a questionnaire that gave me a detailed graph of my behavior style combination. It was not completely accurate, but it was close. Free DISC questionnaires are available online. You should receive at least a partial report with a graph. You probably would have to pay for a complete report. Search for “DISC questionnaires”.

Note that the questionnaires are often described as identifying your “personality”. The originator of DISC behavior styles, William Moulton Marston, called them behavior styles because he used behavior clues to identify them. I use only the phrase “behavior styles”. Anyone can do anything they want with the DISC theory because Marston did not copyright it. He was a fascinating man.

The DISC behavior clues are:

Tone of voice

Frequently used words

Pace of speech and movement

Body language

When you understand your own and other people’s behavior styles, you can identify whom to run from (romantic duds) and whom to run to (romantic dynamos) for romance. Keep in mind that most of the people in the world will be romantic duds for you. Also keep in mind that you will be a romantic dud for most of the people in the world. Since you would like the rest of the people in the world to treat you with respect, remember to treat your romantic duds with respect. Besides, a romantic dud might be your connection to a romantic dynamo.

For a more complete understanding of your romantic duds and romantic dynamos, read the blog post “Value Clues for Romance: Whom To Run From, Whom To Run To”.

Behavioral Factors

Using your relationships with family, friends, and former romantic partners as guides, you can identify your:

Run to behavioral factors for romance

Run from behavioral factors for romance

Neutral behavioral factors

Possible run from behavioral factor combinations

Behavioral issues to work on

I will use my own experiences as examples. My shorthand DISC behavior style graph is High I over High S with Low D over Low C.

I / S
D/C

See page 13 of S&R_Keys for the shorthand graph worksheet.

Run To Behavioral Factors

High I
Relating To Other People

As a High I, I enjoy relating to other people for both fun and accomplishment. I enjoy the fun and spontaneity of other High I’s. I can make decisions to try new things on the spur of the moment. I need people to respect my ideas.

High S
Maintaining A Steady Pace

At times I need the steady pace of a routine I create for myself.

Low D
Cooperating With Other People
I enjoy cooperating with other people to cope with challenges and solve problems.

Low C
Breaking Rules & Procedures
The C on my detailed graph is just below the midline, which means I could go either way on following rules or procedures. Whether or not I follow rules and procedures depends on the situation. I follow rules when I feel respected. I break rules when I feel little or no respect.

My romantic dynamos enjoy relating to others, accept my need for a steady pace, are cooperative, and respect my ideas.

Run From Behavioral Factors

High D
Taking Control
Because of my childhood, control is a sensitive issue for me. My mother tried to kill me physically by smothering me. When that failed, she did her best to kill me mentally and emotionally by telling me I could do or have something I wanted, then taking it away from me at the last minute.

High C
Respecting Authority

My mother controlled our family and made rules that suited her needs and desires. As an adult I am inclined to distrust authority. I reserve the right to decide which authority I will follow and which authority I will ignore, even on a job.

My romantic duds are men who need to control other people or who use their authority for their own gain.

Neutral Behavioral Factors

Low S
Frequent Changes Of Pace
As a High I behavior style I am curious and am willing to take some risks through changes in my life. I do not like frequent change, but I am willing to choose some change.

Low C
Breaking Rules & Procedures
I would get nervous if a Low C wanted to break rules that I believed in following, but the situational quality of my C would mean I would be breaking rules right along with another Low C part of the time.

I do not need to run from or run to romantic possibilities who enjoy change or who break the kind of rules I break.

Possible Run From Behavioral Factor Combination

Low I with High C
Caution with Following Rules
I already have problems with High C’s in romantic partners, but I would have even more problems with a High C and Low I combination. Low I’s are logical, detail oriented, and restrained. All of those qualities could fit well with my Secondary High S qualities of being meticulous, easy going, and patient. However, High C’s like to control their surroundings. One way they control their surroundings is by creating their own rules and procedures for personal relationships. The Low I tendency to be cautious about relationships and the High C need for personal rules and procedures is a run from combination for me.

Some of my failed attempts at friendships and friendly working relationships were with people who had Low I’s and High C’s in their behavior combinations. They responded to my friendly words and actions with cautious suspicion which increased each time I did not follow whatever rules they had for creating friendships. At times I felt I would have to cut off parts of myself to be acceptable just for a friendship or a friendly working relationship. A good relationship with a High C and Low I combination would be possible only if the individual understood behavior style differences.

Behavioral Issues to Work On

With S as my Secondary behavior style, I want parts of my life to be steady and dependable. High S people are also reserved about their feelings. At times I avoid confrontation when I’m afraid it will lead to change I don’t want. I’ve often avoided talking to friends and family about anything that upset me. I should have found a way to talk.

For instance, my siblings treated me like a trespasser in their lives for decades before I walked away. If I had been able to point out my trespasser status whenever it became obvious, my relationship with my siblings might have improved. My siblings and I live in different parts of the country. My second brother visited my other siblings, but never visited me. When I found that out I could have asked him when he would be able to visit me. The issue of his treating me like a trespasser would then be in the open and my brother would have to say or do something about it.

Given their history of ignoring me, my siblings may just have continued to ignore what I said. But I would have had a better chance of a decent relationship with my siblings if I had been willing to risk talking about being left out before it was obviously too late.

I also had trouble talking about my feelings to my husband. He was another secondary High S who avoided confrontation. If I had made comments about my feelings on small issues, he may have developed the ability to talk about his feelings on small issues. Being able to talk about the small issues would have helped us talk about the big issues. Instead, we hid our feelings from each other. Our combined avoidance of confrontation only added to the pain of our mental and emotional sores (see below).

In any relationship, I need to take the risk of confrontation before the relationship gets so bad that it has to end.

Emotional Traits

Using your relationships with family, friends, and former romantic partners as guides, you can identify your:

Run to emotional traits for romance

Run from emotional traits for romance

Neutral emotional traits

Possible run from emotional trait combinations

Emotional issues to work on

Run To Emotional Traits

High I
Trusting
Because I am a High I who tends to trust other people quickly, I want other people to trust me as quickly as I trust them.

Low D
Slow Anger Fuse
Because I have a slow anger fuse, I am most comfortable with other people who have slow anger fuses.

At the beginning of this post, I wrote this: “Any individual behavior style combination is affected by life circumstances, physical health, mental health, and emotional health.” For decades, I went through periods of overwhelming stress from my inability to cope with my memories of my mother murdering me. When I felt that overwhelming stress, I could get angry very quickly.

My romantic dynamos are trusting and slow to get angry.

Run From Emotional Traits

High D
Fast Anger Fuse
My mother is High I over High D. The fast anger fuse of my mother’s secondary High D behavior style is definitely a run from trait for me. I lived in terror of her anger, fearful that she might try to kill me again. I need to avoid relationships where bursts of sudden anger are likely.

Low I
Skeptical
My mother and siblings have been skeptical of what I say about myself for my entire life. I refuse to tolerate more skepticism on a frequent basis.

My romantic duds get angry quickly and are skeptical.

Neutral Emotional Traits

Low S
Expresses Feelings Easily
High I’s are talkative people who can talk about their emotions. This makes the Low S easy expression of emotions neutral for me.

High C
Fearful Of Breaking Rules
The High C’s fear of breaking rules is neutral for my romantic relationships because I feel fearful of breaking rules with an authority figure who respects me.

Low C
Fearless About Breaking Rules
The Low C’s fearlessness about breaking rules can make me nervous at times, but it is not enough to make me run from the relationship.

Even though the High C emotional trait is neutral for me, the High C behavioral factor is negative for me. I still need to run from behavioral combinations with controlling High Cs. I do not need to run from combinations with fearless Low C.

Possible Run From Emotional Trait Combination

High S with Low D
Nonexpression with Slow Anger Fuse
My father was a High S with a Low D in his behavior style combination. He was nonexpressive, avoided confrontation, and had a slow anger fuse. My mother abused him emotionally, even in front of us children at times. Anger at various stresses in his life —  especially my mother’s abusiveness — would build up until he could not hold it in any longer. The resulting explosion could go on for days and left me terrified. My father became a quiet alcoholic as a way of burying his emotions as far as he could, which only made the inevitable eruptions worse.

Nonexpressive High S’s and slow anger fuse Low D’s are romantic dynamos for me only if they know how to express their anger in healthy ways.

Emotional Issues To Work On

I am a quick to trust High I with a close to the midline C tendency to distrust authority at times. I have trusted romantic partners too quickly and distrusted authority too quickly.

To end my tendency to trust too quickly, I should pay attention to the times I have created trust with others. I had a good relationship with a High S boyfriend, though our behavior style combinations did not match well enough for lasting love. High S’s can be slow to trust. I was able to create an atmosphere of trust with him that allowed him to express things he rarely told anyone. Despite the difficulties we eventually had, I am proud of the trust I was able to create for him, a trust I will never betray.

When I think back on the trust I created for my High S boyfriend, I can see now that it developed over time through my willingness to show I respected him and cared about his feelings. Instead of leaping into trust for someone in any kind of new relationship, I need to make sure they show me the same respect and concern I showed my High S boyfriend. Taking time to look for respect and concern will give me a better chance of creating relationships with people who value my trust.

To end my tendency to distrust authority too quickly, I should pay attention to the reasons I distrust authority. Doing so will help me identify which clues indicate an authority who cannot be trusted and which clues indicate an authority who can be trusted.

Since my distrust of authorities stems from my relationship with my mother, that relationship provides me with the clues for authorities I should not trust. My mother said one thing, but did another. The face she showed to other people was different from the face she showed to me. She rarely asked about my personal experiences, my feelings, or my ideas.

Therefore, I should distrust an authority who tells me one thing but does another, who shows a different face to other people than the one they show to me, and who never asks about my personal experiences, my feelings, or my ideas. I should trust an authority who does the opposite of what my mother did. I should trust an authority who either does what they say they will do or explains to my satisfaction why they did not do what they said they would do, who shows the same face to me that they show to other people, and who asks about my personal experiences, my feelings, and my ideas.

Change Is Possible

While I believe that my run from and run to behavioral factors and emotional traits are unlikely to change, I do think change is possible. Under the right circumstances and with the right people, your run from behavioral factors and emotional traits could become less of an issue. But you need to be aware of your run from behavioral factors and emotional traits before you can recognize the circumstances and people who could bring about the change.

Mental & Emotional Sores

Decades before I knew anything about DISC behavior styles, I married a man whose shorthand behavior style graph was the same as mine — High I over High S with Low D over Low C. This match could have been considered perfect. Our relationship was not perfect. We both had mental and emotional sores from our childhoods that created all kinds of pain for us. My husband tried to forget his pain with drugs and alcohol. I separated my memories of being murdered into disconnected physical, mental, and emotional pieces. Because the pain forced us to focus on our sores, we could not focus on each other. If we had known about DISC behavior styles when we met, we would have known how to satisfy our behavior style needs. We would have had more and more fun as the years passed. Since we both respected each other’s ideas, we would have helped each other be successful. But we didn’t know about DISC behavior styles and my husband’s emotional and mental sores became too much for him. He killed himself.

Decades after my husband died, I erased all the emotional pain from my childhood by taking ten minutes a day to satisfy my secondary High S behavior style need for quiet activities. (See Essential Success at smilessparksuccess.com.) My husband would have had to satisfy a different emotional need to heal his emotional sores, but he could have done it had he known enough to do it. I could have helped satisfy that need, too, had I known enough to do it.

Using the PDF downloads at smilessparksuccess.com, take time to make yourself smile. Take time to make your loved ones smile. Those smiles can spark the success of healing mental and emotional sores that keep people focused on their pain instead of on each other.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Give Yourself A Success Advantage

Originally published March 9, 2011.

Updated and republished September 9, 2015 after a web host transfer.

If you ever vote for a winning candidate with the expectation that your candidate would ignore particular groups of people, you may want to change your Us versus Them expectations. You’ll be disappointed if you don’t. Two examples. President Bush ignored a wide variety of people in making his decision to invade Iraq. We all know how that turned out. President Obama ignored homeowners having trouble paying their mortgages and gave money to banks. We all know how that turned out.

The problem with ignoring Them is that the success of any resident in a country is connected to the success of every other resident, or Us with Them. Another two examples.

In Brazil, the government makes small monthly payments (under $100 to a little over $100) to low income families who keep their children in school and get them vaccinated. Pregnant women must get prenatal care. Although the program has been more effective in rural areas (poverty from lack of food and basic services) than in urban areas (poverty from drug addiction, violence, family breakdown and environmental degradation), it has had a recognized effect in reducing poverty. Known as Bolsa Familia*, the program is credited by Funda’ao Getulio Vargas, a university, with one sixth of Brazil’s reduction in poverty. As the poverty level fell, Brazil’s domestic economy improved.

During the 1960s in this country, Newark, New Jersey refused to recognize its connection to its black residents, holding onto a strong Us versus Them attitude. The 1967 race riots led to poverty and a 2009 estimated per capita income of $17,396. Wanting to avoid race riots, Charlotte, North Carolina decided to recognize its Us with Them connection to its black residents. Charlotte became home to several Fortune 500 companies with a 2009 estimated per capita income of $31,270.

I made a documentary about the most successful and longest running renewable energy fair in the world because I wanted to understand its spectacular success. I discovered twenty-six situational, organizational, financial, emotional, and relationship ingredients for spectacular success. Every spectacular success in the world uses most if not all of these ingredients. One ingredient focuses on self. Two ingredients focus on task. Nine ingredients focus on working with others. Fourteen ingredients focus on satisfying others. Spectacular success comes from working with others and satisfying others because We are connected to Them. My definition of spectacular success is:

The unforeseen success other people intentionally create for you
because you intentionally create success for them.

Even wealthy people need to recognize Us with Them and their connection to every other U.S resident. When a human body has broken bones or a disease, the broken bones and the disease affect the ability of the healthy parts of the body to function effectively. Imagine you have a broken little toe or little finger. That small broken bone would limit your ability to function effectively throughout your daily life. Wealthy people may be financially healthy, but the broken and diseased finances around the U.S. affect their ability to function effectively. Income inequality hurts economic growth for all U.S. citizens.

Our success is connected to Their success because They live where We live. An Economist magazine article points this out. Israel is currently considered an economic miracle because it has become a high tech superpower. But all the new high tech miracles are coming from start up companies that employ only 10% of the population. Long term economic success depends on Israel’s ability to take Us with Them strategies to include Arab Israelis and ultra orthodox Jews by hiring them. Those two groups live where the miracle start ups live, and they will increase to one third of the population by 2025.

Towns, cities, counties, states, and countries that use Us with Them strategies will give themselves a success advantage, just like Charlotte, North Carolina did in the 1960s. Towns, cities, counties, states, and countries that use Us versus Them strategies will give themselves a failure disadvantage, just like Newark, New Jersey did in the 1960s.

Use Us versus Them strategies and you will give yourself a failure disadvantage. Use Us with Them strategies and you will give yourself a success advantage.  That much is your choice.

* The first anti-poverty program using conditional cash transfers was Progresa-Oportunidades, created mainly by Santiago Levy, former deputy minister of finance in Mexico. As of this posting, Brazil’s program is the largest program of its kind.

References

Brazil

“How to get children out of jobs and into school: The limits of Brazils much admired and emulated anti-poverty programme”
The Economist
July 29, 2010
economist.com/node/16690887

60 Minutes

December 12, 2010

Israel

“Beyond the start-up nation”
Schumpeter blog
The Economist 
January 1st-7th, 2011
http://www.economist.com/node/17796932

Newark, New Jersey and Charlotte, North Carolina

http://www.city-data.com/city/Newark-New-Jersey.html

http://www.city-data.com/city/Charlotte-North-Carolina.html

Yeoman, Barry
“A Taste for Tolerance”
AARP Magazine
May/June 2004
http://barryyeoman.com/articles/charlotte.html

Midwest Renewable Energy Fair

https://www.midwestrenew.org/energyfair

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Working With Others & Satisfying Others

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

If Feminist Leaders Want Equality, Why Do They Create Inequality?

Originally published February 18, 2011.

Updated and republished September 3, 2015 after a web host transfer.

I want to start by establishing that I have a background in feminism and women’s issues. I considered myself a feminist for approximately twenty years. I have a B.A. in Women’s Studies/Writing (an individually planned major). I read books about women’s history for a decade or more. Then, of course, I have my own life experience.

For thousands of years, men who felt superior to women decided their superiority entitled them to privileges women should not have. These men kept women silent and passive to keep them inferior and unequal. Feminist leaders also have a history of creating inequality. I first experienced inequality created by feminist leaders in the 1980s. I included examples of my own experiences plus examples that other women experienced.

1st Inequality Experience

During my college years, I worked at a women’s resource center. A woman who considered herself a feminist became the director. The new director did not work all of the hours she was scheduled to work. She claimed more time on her time card than she was scheduled to work. She gave her work to staff members and volunteers instead of doing it herself. She lied to the public, lied to the staff, lied to the board of directors. She verbally abused a number of staff members. After she left two more directors who considered themselves feminist behaved in all of the same ways. They did not work all the hours they were scheduled to work, claimed more time on their time cards than they were scheduled to work, gave their work to other staff members, lied to everyone, and verbally abused a number of staff members.

Creating equality would mean that all of the directors worked the hours they were scheduled to work, claimed only they time they actually worked, did their work themselves, were honest with the public, staff, and board, and treated staff members with respect. Instead, all three of the directors acted as if the title of director bestowed them with superiority and privilege.

2nd Inequality Experience

Around 1990, I received a letter from Eleanor Smeal. In exchange for completing an Abortion Rights Questionnaire and sending a “generous contribution”, Smeal promised that “at least four times a year we’ll notify you of pending actions nationally and locally and let you know what action steps you can take.”

Creating equality would mean giving women who support abortion rights opportunities to decide which actions they want to take and when they want to take action. Instead, Smeal creates inequality by keeping pro-choice supporters passive.

3rd Inequality Experience

The September/October 1993 issue of Ms. Magazine published a discussion between four feminists — bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf — about the myths of the feminist movement, the backlash to the feminist movement, and the movement itself. These four feminists also discussed why many women do not call themselves feminist.

Creating equality would mean feminists asking other women why they choose not to call themselves feminist. Instead, hooks, Steinem, Vaid, and Wolf created inequality by denying other women the right to speak for themselves.

After reading that article, I chose to stop calling myself feminist.

4th Inequality Experience

About this same time, an acquaintance told me she had found a feminist network in her field. She called the phone number listed and said she would like information about the network. The feminist on the other end of the line said, “We know who we are.” A couple of years after my acquaintance told me that story, I asked her about it again. I wanted to make sure I had heard her correctly. I had.

Creating equality would mean feminists in the network would welcome every other feminist in that profession. Instead, the feminist on the phone created inequality for my acquaintance by treating her as inferior. Perhaps it’s not a surprise that the network no longer exists.

5th Inequality Experience

In the early 1990s, I started working on my thesis. I asked a feminist professor to be my advisor. My thesis was about women as television talk show hosts. I had chosen my topic in 1988 after watching Oprah Winfrey betray a female guest on her show. Wanting to understand why Oprah would betray another woman, I watched every talk show hosted by a woman for several years. From the list I compiled of topics and guests, I identified four cultural themes women use to betray each other:

Women as mothers

Women and their appearance

Women as deviants

Teenage girls as threats to society

Females grow up in this society learning to betray each other according to these four cultural themes. I added historical patterns to my thesis with examples of women using these themes to betray each other. Six weeks before I was supposed to publicly talk about my thesis to other grad students, my advisor told me to base my thesis on the theories of feminist writers I had never heard of. She told me I could put only two paragraphs of history into my thesis. She verbally abused me in an attempt to get me to agree to being silenced. Then she insisted that I say “Thank you” for her “advice” to use someone else’s research instead of my own.

Creating equality would mean respecting what I wanted to say through my research. Instead, my advisor attempted to create inequality for me by silencing me.

6th Inequality Experience

In 2008, I started regularly visiting the National Organization for Women web site (now.org). I did not join but I did sign up for emails. Some of the emails I receive are from the NOW National Action Center. In the emails, NOW leaders ask supporters to take action by sending an already written email labeled “Your letter”.

Creating equality would mean NOW leaders encouraging supporters to use their own words to write letters and emails that are meaningful to them. Instead, NOW creates inequality by silencing their supporters.

7th Inequality Experience

In the October 2010 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Susan Faludi wrote about a feminist conclave she attended. The feminists at the conclave discussed intergenerational issues without a single younger woman being present. When one of the feminists suggested inviting younger women to the next meeting, she was “promptly shot down”.

Creating equality would mean inviting younger woman to meetings on intergenerational issues so they could speak for themselves. Instead, feminist leaders silence younger women by denying them opportunities to speak for themselves.

8th Inequality Experience

In a number of interviews both in print and on television, Gloria Steinem has repeatedly used a version of the statement below:

“Women have two choices: Either she’s a feminist or a masochist.”

“You’re a feminist or a masochist.”

“It is not at all an exaggeration to say that feminism-the belief in the full social, economic and political equality of women-is mental health, and that the only alternative is masochism,”

“You know in my heart, I think the only alternative to being a feminist is being a masochist.”

Creating equality would mean supporting every woman’s right to define herself. Instead, Steinem silences every woman who chooses to define herself as something other than feminist.

What These Experiences Reveal

The above examples expose feelings of superiority in feminist leaders. Feelings of superiority mean expectations of privilege. Expectations of privilege require inequality. Feminist leaders create inequality for other women so they can maintain their superiority and privilege. By keeping other women passive and silent, feminist leaders are able to give themselves glory.

~~NOW has changed its website since I started writing about feminist leaders. The indented paragraph below is from the original version of this blog post. Visit the new now.org and click on the NOW Leaders page. You’ll see that feminist leaders create inequality by keeping secrets from the mostly female NOW members who pay their salaries.~~

Visit now.org to see whose names appear on the site. Sign up for emails and see whose names are mentioned. Do searches at the website for “training” and “activist”. See how many names of ordinary women you can find. Then look for NOW giving glory to the words and actions of ordinary women — women who are not officers of NOW chapters or in the “dedicated network of grassroots activists”. In an article about “4,000 Massachusetts NOW activists and their supporters” (search for “4000”), the only NOW activists quoted were:

NOW National Board member Ellen Zucker (mentioned two times)

NOW President Patricia Ireland (mentioned four times)

Massachusetts NOW President Ellen Convisser (mentioned two times)

Attendees at a spring 2005 NOW activist training weekend included 11 “new state presidents, coordinators and executive directors” as well as “33 activists from 14 states” who “braved the chill of an extended Washington, D.C., winter” (search for “33 activists”).

Feminist Leaders Create Inequality To Feel Glory

NOW leaders keep the glory for themselves and exaggerate situations to give themselves glory. (Braving a chill where the average low winter temperature is around 30º F? I will refrain from laughing even though I have lived through average winter lows below 10º F for more than two decades.)

Feminist leaders obviously demonstrate superiority priority. Psychologist Marty Sapp gives one example of superiority priority in the article, “School Counseling for African American Adolescents: The Alfred Adler Approach”. Adolescents with superiority priority are “striving to be socially superior to others at any cost” and need to be “most competent” and “most right”. This need for superiority is a way to avoid feelings of unimportance and meaninglessness. Adolescents with superiority priority evoke feelings of inferiority in other people.

Feminist leaders avoid feeling unimportant and meaningless by evoking feelings of inferiority in other women. They make other women feel unimportant and meaningless. When I read in Eleanor Smeal’s letter that she would contact me “four times a year” to let me know what actions step I could take, I felt I would be unimportant 361 days a year. Every time I receive an email from the NOW Action Center asking me to sign “Your letter”, I feel describing my experiences in my own words would be meaningless. How can feminist leaders convince men to treat women as important and meaningful when they cannot do it themselves? Feminist leaders create inequality between women so they can feel most competent, most right, most brave, and most deserving of glory to feed their own endless needs for importance and meaningfulness.

Leading up to the 2012 presidential election I found an example of conservative women leaders creating equality between women. Smart Girl Politics put ordinary women on its website so they could use their own words to describe what actions they took in their own lives. College students, employed mothers, at home mothers, and grandmothers who joined Smart Girl Politics Action could take a free weekly SPG101 interactive webinar. Smart Girl Politics did all this because its founders saw ordinary women as important and meaningful.

Any woman could sign up to be a Smart Girl member without paying a cent. New members could immediately post blogs or organize events. Any Smart Girl member oculd contact any other Smart Girl member. Smart Girls found ways to work together solving problems in their communities.

No nonmember can even email NOW without being assaulted by an automated email response with NOW membership information (“Join NOW!”). Joining NOW means paying a membership fee. NOW members are unable to contact each other or say anything at the NOW website beyond commenting on a staff written blog. NOW members cannot work together to solve problems in their own communities. What NOW wants from its members is a continual flow of money so NOW leaders and their “dedicated network of grassroots activists” can travel around the country and socialize with each other while pretending to create equality.

I read a number of blog posts listed at the SGP website. I agreed with some of them. I disagreed with some of them. I was offended by some of them. I am offended by everything I read at the NOW website because all of it is written with a “We’re superior, you’re inferior” tone.

Since NOW leaders don’t get what equality means, I will explain it to them. Equality means that NOW members get to do anything NOW leaders get to do. Since NOW leaders do not allow NOW members to do anything NOW leaders do, NOW leaders are only pretending to create equality.

It is telling that a conservative organization like Smart Girl Politics created equality for its supporters while a feminist organization like the National Organization for Women creates inequality for its supporters. Why would women call themselves feminist when they enjoy more equality by not calling themselves feminist?

I am one of the women Gloria Steinem would define as a “masochist” for choosing not to call myself feminist. I would be a masochist if I had set aside years of research and allowed my thesis advisor to silence me. Instead, I switched to a male advisor who helped me speak my words through my research.

I would be a masochist if I allowed feminist leaders to keep me passive. Instead, I take action any time I see an opportunity to take action.

I would be a masochistic if I allowed feminist leaders to silence me. Instead, I write letters and emails with words that are meaningful to me.

I would be a masochist if I ignored my life experiences to remain the silent and passive wallet feminist leaders expect me to be. Instead, I use my life experiences to show how feminist leaders create inequality.

I now call myself an equality advocate — I advocate equality between women, between men, and between men and women.

I tried being feminist for approximately twenty years. The experience left me emotionally battered and continuously unequal. As I see it, Ms. Steinem, one alternative to feminism is equality for all women.

Read the letter I wrote NOW in January 2010.

Note

Seven months after posting this blog, I came across the November 2010 issue of More magazine. That issue included an article about young feminists. One of them was Jessica Valenti, who once worked for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Valenti’s experience working for NOW provides evidence to support my claim that feminist leaders create inequality so they can feel important and meaningful.

Valenti told More,

“Whenever there was a photo opportunity, all the young women and
women of color would be ushered to the front. But when it came to
inviting us to important meetings, that just wasn’t happening. When
push came to shove, no one really cared what our opinions were.”

The feminist leaders of NOW purposefully create inequality within NOW so they can keep every opportunity to feel important and meaningful for themselves.

To read the opinions feminist leaders purposefully ignore, go to feministing.com.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

For a wide ranging selection of articles on feminism and other topics,
see The Zawadi Nyong’o Daily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As an American, I have freedom of speech.

As a woman, I have the right to express my opinion about anything the National Organization for Women claims to do for women.

In 2016, I started adding the section below to all of my new Feminist Leader blog posts. I also added it to all posts published before 2016.

The National Organization For Women
Silences Women

National NOW has blocked me on its Facebook page. I wrote comments based on my blog posts. All of my blog posts are based on a wide variety of evidence. Much of the evidence comes from National NOW’s website, emails and posts from NOW presidents, and emails from NOW staff members. I use no hostile language, no slurs, no profanity. I do use the phrase “glory addicts” in reference to NOW leaders. I also use “glory addiction”, “glory fixes”, and “a dedicated network of glory addicts”. Dr. Marsha Vanderford (Doyle) identified the glory needs of pro-choice leaders in her 1982 dissertation.

Feminist leaders have been silencing women for decades. bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf got together for a conversation that was published in Ms. Magazine in 1993. The discussion included why women choose not ta call themselves feminists. Did these four feminist leaders working for women’s equality ask women who choose not to call themselves feminist to speak for themselves? Of course not! The four feminist leaders silenced millions of women by speaking for them without first requesting permission to speak for them.

Imagine a group of women who choose not to call themselves feminists getting together for a conversation to be published in a magazine about why some women call themselves feminists. Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree with nonfeminist women denying them the opportunity to speak for themselves? Of course not! Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree that nonfeminist women had the right to speak for feminist women without their permission? Of course not!

My feminist leader blog posts provide evidence that feminist leaders still create glory for themselves while relegating supporters to “secondary importance”. Dr. Vanderford used the words “relegated” and “secondary importance” in her dissertation. Eoin Harnett of University College Cork in Ireland used the same “secondary importance” phrase:

“Throughout the ages, women were frequently characterised
and treated as inferior and of secondary importance to men.”

NOW leaders even relegated two of their supporters to secondary importance. The supporters responded to my last two comments on National NOW’s Facebook page with comments supporting NOW. NOW leaders silenced those supporters by removing their comments along with my comments. Instead of creating equality, NOW leaders treat other women the same way patriarchal men treat women:

NOW leaders silenced at least three women on Facebook while posting claims to be creating equality for women. Secondary importance is the opposite of equality, as women throughout the ages could testify.

In-House Rhetoric of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Special Interest Groups in Minnesota: Motivation and Alienation
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982
Marsha Vanderford Doyle, Ph.D.
(Now Marsha Vanderford)
Quoted words on page 350.

“Let’s Get Real about Feminism: The Backlash, the Myths, the Movement.”
hooks, bell, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

If John Lennon Wanted Peace, Why Did He Create Conflict?

Originally published January 28, 2011.

Republished September 2, 2015 after a web host transfer.

John Lennon advocated peace, but did not live peace. John Lennon repeatedly created conflict with individuals in his own life. All of the following references come from the book, John Lennon: The Life by Philip Norman.

Lennon’s first wife, Cynthia, described him as needing to “shock and disgust people” (page 158).

Lennon had a “sarcastic tongue” and an “impulse to pillory human weakness or frailty wherever they revealed themselves”. Lennon targeted people with “cruel, usually pointless” practical jokes (page 182).

Lennon repeatedly mocked Stu Sutcliffe’s “musicianship and appearance” and made sure Stu always sat on the least comfortable seat on the van, “the metal ledge over the rear wheel”. Lennon repeatedly told Sutcliffe “he couldn’t sit with us or eat with us” (page 183).

Lennon shoplifted “jewelry, handkerchiefs, guitar stings, and a harmonica” (page 195).

During a concert in Germany, Lennon taunted his audience with the words “fuckin’ Nazis” and Hitlerites” (page 202).

Lennon called Brian Epstein “Eppy”, a name he knew Epstein hated and “wouldn’t care what he said to deflate” Epstein (page 257). Lennon’s “public cruelties” towards Epstein included “jibes at his race if not his sexuality” (page 503).

While in Germany, Lennon drew a picture of Jesus on the cross “with this big prick”. Lennon held up his picture on a balcony for everyone on the street to see (pages 267-268).

Again in Germany, Lennon put a table knife into his pocket after a meal. During a concert that night, “the first thing he does is pull out the knife and throw it at someone in the audience” ( pages 291-292).

Paul McCartney felt “bitterness” that Lennon made sure the songs they wrote together after the Please Please Me album would always be credited to “Lennon-McCartney” (page 297).

At a party to celebrate Paul McCartney’s twenty-first birthday, Lennon “repeatedly” punched DJ Bob Wooler “around the face and body”. Wooler suffered “bruised ribs and a black eye”. Lennon apologized under pressure, “muttering that he wasn’t sorry at all” (pages 310 and 311).

Alcohol could turn Lennon “moody, bellicose, cruel”. Even when sober Lennon could be “thoughtlessly malicious” (page 331).

Lennon’s attitude towards people with physical disabilities was “unrepentant mockery and mimicry” (page 334).

Lennon described George Harrison’s massively successful All Things Must Pass” album as “All right”. He described Paul McCartney’s McCartney album as “rubbish” and “so poor” (page 657).

In Paul McCartney’s Ram album, the song “Too Many People” suggested that Lennon had rejected the Beatles for Yoko Ono (page 668). On his Imagine album, Lennon included the song “How Do You Sleep?” in response to McCartney’s “Too Many People”. Biographer Philip Norman described McCartney’s attack as “mild and sidelong”. Norman described Lennon’s response as “violent and full-on, a nuclear missile answering a pinprick” (671-672).

In an interview Paul McCartney did with United Kingdom magazine Melody Maker, he said Lennon was the holdout to resolving their financial disputes. Lennon responded with a letter to the editor. Nine lines in the letter had to be removed “for fear of legal repercussions” (page 702).

Lennon spent time in Los Angeles where he wrote about his “gratuitous vandalism” in his diary (page 743).

John Lennon talked about peace but created conflict because he was in conflict with himself. He would have been able to create peace in his life only if he had been able to create peace with himself. If Lennon had understood his behavior style needs and how to satisfy them, he could have created some peace for himself.

Using the DISC behavior system, John Lennon was probably a High I. He enjoyed the spotlight when it satisfied his needs. He liked to talk, talking to reporters for hours during his first bed-in with his new wife, Yoko Ono. He used words to attack people when he felt stressed.

High I behavior style people like Lennon need recognition, approval, and admiration. They need to feel prestige. They need to maintain their dignity. They need support for their ideas.

Lennon could have gained peace with himself in two ways. First, he could have acknowledged the conflict he created and apologized for creating it. He could have figured out ways to work with people without sarcasm or insults.

Second, other people could have satisfied his needs. Concert audiences could have shown respect for Lennon by listening while he played his music, waiting to scream while they applauded. Audience members unable to sit quietly could have sung along with Lennon. Listening to Lennon would have preserved his dignity. Singing along with him would have shown support for the ideas behind his songs. That dignity and support would have given him prestige. Instead, Lennon’s continuously screaming audiences stripped him of his dignity, ignored his ideas, and denied him prestige for his ideas.

One tragedy of John Lennon’s life is that he did not have what he needed to be able create what he wanted. Fame did not satisfy Lennon’s needs. Wealth did not satisfy Lennon’s needs. Screaming audiences did not satisfy Lennon’s needs. John Lennon did not have the behavior style satisfaction he needed to be able to create the peace he wanted..

You can avoid the same tragedy in your life. Give yourself what you need so you have the ability to create what you want. Give your loved ones what they need so they have the ability to create what they want.

Visit smilessparksuccess.com for pages of information about satisfying DISC behavior style needs as well Spranger guiding value passions. Take advantage of the free PDF downloads for sparking both personal and professional success.

We could all create more of the peace John Lennon imagined by satisfying our own needs.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

3 Things Oprah Could Learn from Scentsy Owners Heidi & Orville Thompson

Originally published Thursday, January 20, 2011.

Republished August 17, 2015 after a web host transfer.

Scentsy is a Meridien, Idaho company that hosts home parties to sell wickless candles. The year 2009 marked Scentsy’s fifth anniversary. Owners Heidi and Orville Thompson planned to spend $25,000 for a company celebration. While planning that well-deserved self-indulgence, the Thompsons developed some self-awareness. The nearby city of Boise had been hit hard by the recession. Orville and Heidi Thompson felt that spending $25,000 on a party for 350 employees would “strike the wrong note” for their struggling neighbors (Entrepreneur Magazine, February 2009).

The Thompsons decided to change the focus of their celebration. Scentsy’s 2009 sales had come close to $200 million. The Thompsons upped their celebration fund to $100,000. They gave $100 to each of 1000 employees and told them to spend the money at small family businesses on the same Saturday. Those employees chose forty businesses and spent $2,500 at each one. A number of the chosen business owners said that Scentsy’s gift of customers and cash meant survival for their businesses.

Scentsy hosted three more shopping days in the fall of 2009 through Contribute 2009. Sixty-seven thousand Scentsy home consultants pledged another $200,000 to spend at small family businesses. The consultants told friends and families about the shopping days. Many of the family and friends went along without pledging first. The total spending to support small business and help families was likely $400,000 to $500,000. Other businesses have followed Scentsy’s example in supporting U.S. families and their small businesses.

The success of those small businesses will create more success in their communities. More success in more communities means more success for the country. Eventually, Scentsy will be able to be self-indulgent again, and I hope they have a blow out party.

 

What Oprah Could Learn

1.  There is a Time for Self-Indulgence and a Time for Self-Awareness

Heidi and Orville Thompson became self-aware of how a self-indulgent party would affect their neighbors.

Oprah took more than 300 handpicked fans to Australia for a luxury vacation to promote Australia’s tourism industry. Australian taxpayers footed part of the $3 million Oprah received for the trip. Oprah celebrated the 25th anniversary of her talk show in a self-indulgent way while millions of U.S. citizens were going hungry and U.S. small businesses were struggling to stay alive.

2.  Giving Up Control Can Increase Effectiveness

Orville and Heidi Thompson gave their employees control of the money and which businesses to support. They told their employees to spend the money with no strings attached and to keep what they bought for themselves.

Oprah gives her audiences what she feels like giving them. Whether or not everyone in her audiences wants what she gives them seems unimportant. Oprah’s gifts come from corporations, not small businesses.

3.  Putting the Spotlight on Others by Creating Success for Them Brings an Admiring Spotlight Back to You.

Heidi and Orville Thompson put the spotlight on struggling family businesses. To celebrate Scentsy’s sixth anniversary in 2010, the Thompsons organized a “6 Pack Give Back”. They gave $50,000 toward helping twenty small family businesses. The spotlight has admiringly shone back on Scentsy and the Thompsons through numerous articles and this blog post. That kind of spotlight helped other businesses follow the Thompsons’ example. That kind of spotlight probably increased Scentsy’s sales.

Oprah self-indulgently kept the spotlight on herself in Australia. Journalists who went to Australia had to explain what they were going to write and where they would publish the stories. They had to be willing to have examples of their stories reviewed. An article in the December 7th, 2010 Sydney Morning Herald was not exactly admiring in its report about Oprah’s visit. It suggested that as a guest of the Australian government, Oprah needed to interact with the ordinary Australians who paid for her trip, not just with her “hosts, minders, and sponsors”.

How many small family U.S. businesses would be able to survive these hard times if Oprah became self-aware, gave up a little control, and took the spotlight off herself to shine on small family business owners?

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com