Negative Stereotypes Behind Bad & Ugly Gossip: People In General

My collection of stereotypes comes from books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television shows, radio programs, news shows, conversations, podcasts, etc. Sources can be 10s to 100s to 1000s of years old.

Stereotypes and categories overlap at times. I create categories of stereotypes as I have stereotype examples to put into those categories.

The research into gossip goes back at least to the middle of the 20th century. Both men and women research gossip. Putting all of their research together, this is my definition:

Gossip is talk and writing about people
— both other people and ourselves —
in family, social, workplace, and public settings.

Much of the research shows that gossip is both positive and negative. I define gossip as good, bad, or ugly. Good gossip ignores or breaks stereotypes. Bad gossip uses stereotypes. Ugly gossip manufactures stereotypes.

Negative stereotypes exist about everyone, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, profession, etc. These stereotype blog posts will help you understand the negative stereotypes about you.

If you use negative stereotypes about people who are different from you, you are inviting everyone who hears you to use negative stereotypes about you.


Stereotype Updates

I add stereotypes as I come across them.

I will add the new stereotypes at the bottom of each listing, putting ~~~~~ between the older stereotypes and the new stereotypes.

More Stereotypes

Negative Stereotypes Behind Bad & Ugly Gossip: Ethnic, National, & Racial Identities

Negative Stereotypes Behind Bad & Ugly Gossip: Workplaces

Negative Stereotypes Behind Bad & Ugly Gossip: Romance

Negative Stereotypes Behind Bad & Ugly Gossip: Poverty


Tired of losing out to stereotypes?
Learn strategies for taking positive control
in the small spaces of situations and relationships.
People who take positive control position themselves to attract unimagined success.



College Students

clueless about their careers


stuck up

Male College Students




Young People Who Don’t Vote


Middle-Aged People

lack motivation

Elderly People

slow moving
incapable of making effective decisions
too old for business success
deserve to die

Unhealthy Old Age Is…

a punishment for living “wrong”

People With Superior Sounding Vocabularies 



Adopted Children

screwed up
burden to the family
yearn to find birth parents

Children From Single Parent Families

end up in trouble
low self-esteem
behavior problems

Child Nerds

book-smart sissies
suck up to authority figures


extensions of women


prone to imaginary friends

Preteen Boys


Preteen Girls



juvenile delinquents
bubble gum chewers
hormone laden slobs
video gaming loafers


Birth Mothers

abandoned her own flesh and blood
AIDs carrier
slick manipulator

Birth Fathers

drop out of sight
drug users
AIDs carriers
slick manipulators

Mothers Seen As Successful Career Women

bad moms

Mothers Seen As Dedicated To Their Children

washouts in their professions

Mothers Who Are Employed

have children who get fat

Single Fathers

clueless about cooking, housekeeping, laundry
can’t handle pressure
not nurturing
no good with infants or toddlers
emotionally inexpressive
ineffective at jobs
harm their children

Single Mothers

not trustworthy
dangerous to married women
raise children who resent and hate them
have questionable income
gave up on marriage too easily
desperate for a man
milking the system

Single Parent Families


Surrogate Mothers

baby sellers
gold diggers

Women Without Children

poor decision makers


Baby Boomers

spoiled brats
not discerning about employment opportunities
destroyed the environment
enjoy living off the government

Gen Z

don’t want to work


Muscular Men / Body Builders

homosexual (assuming homosexuality is bad)
constantly looking mirrors in self-admiration


Muscular Women

lesbian (assuming lesbian is bad)
mentally ill
after other women’s men

Single Women Attending Parties Alone

lesbian (assuming lesbian is bad)
mentally ill
after other women’s men



Beautiful People

rotten lovers
too impatient to work at relationships

Unattractive People

political radicals (which stereotypes political radicals negatively)
homosexual (which stereotypes homosexuals negatively)

Note: Most hair color stereotypes are about women.


less trustworthy
can’t be taken seriously


less attractive

Black Hair


Afro Hairstyles

out of place
wearer can’t be taken seriously
not looking put together




Plus Size People

unable to control self
unable to maintain personal health
take up too much space

Plus Size Men

low self-esteem
lack will power
few friends

Plus Size Women

few friends
low self-esteem
lack will power
must answer intrusive questions
lack self-control

People Who Have Difficulty Losing Unwanted Pounds

not really trying

Short People


Thin Men

few friends

Thin Women

have an eating disorder
full of themselves


Cross Dressing Men


Female Body Builders


Geeks (Nerds)

real pains
social outcasts
socially awkward

Helping Poor, Outcasts, & Marginalized People


Men Not Interested In Sports

gay (which stereotypes being gay as bad)

Nice Men / Sensitive Men

less competent
less hirable
lower performer
less likable
not assertive
not independent

Male Body Builders




Newspaper Readers, Television News Audience, & Radio News Audience

uninterested in good news
uninterested in hard facts
want soft news, uninterested in world news
only interested in crime

People Who Recommend Kindness


People Not Part Of Organized Religions, Conspicuous Consumption, Car Culture

mentally ill

People Who Live Alone

need charity company

People Who Report Being Abducted By Aliens

inclined to fantasize
have a propensity to daydream
enthralled by novels

People Who Save Money


SUV Owners

rollover waiting to happen

Television Audience To Advertisers

mindless boobs


represent everyone in their ethnic group or religion
feel racism and hatred without reason

Truth Tellers


War Dissenters

give aid and comfort to the enemy

Western Societies


Women In Jane Austen’s Time

laughing is a sign of sexual availability
showing teeth is a sign of being garrulous, plebeian, vulgar


Nonalcoholic Weddings

god awful

boring to death


worse than watching

paint dry


Adults Living With Mental Illness

willing it on themselves
all in one’s head
seeking attention

Children Living With Mental illness

in a phase they will grow out of
should be able to control themselves

Crack Babies

lost generation
permanently damaged

People Living With Allergies

deserve to be exposed to their allergens

People Living With Physical Disabilities

less than human
need to be fixed
full of rage
choose to be disabled
have a chip on the shoulder
obstinate for not doing what abled people assume they can do
not trying hard enough to live a normal life
choose to be poor
couldn’t possibly feel more pain than abled people feel

People Living With Epilepsy

do drugs
have a malady of the soul
cause their own seizures
cursed by gods
associated with the devil

People With Tourette Syndrome

behavioral problem
possessed by the devil



wear unflattering shirts

Life Situations

Homeless People

want to be homeless
single men

LGBTQ+ People

mentally ill
determined to ‘convert’ others
lesbians are masculine
lesbians hate men
gay men are feminine and flamboyant
gay men are sexual predators or pedophiles
transgender women are drag queens

Little People


People Dependent An Others

uniquely feminine

Prison Inmates

liars about health problems

Unemployed People



Democratic Politicians

self-appointed elites

Democratic Voters

bad Christians
bad Jews
bad Muslims

Republican Voters


People Who Want To Debate The Tactics Of The War On Terror

fringe of society

Pro-Life Advocates

ignorant extremists

Women Seeking Abortion

kissing cousin relationships
ignorant about sex
didn’t bother with birth control



not citizens
not patriots

Hare Krishnas

Third World
weasel-looking aliens
deluded scammers



Points To Ponder

Pay attention to shared stereotypes and opposite stereotypes. You can see who you share stereotypes with and when people see opposite negatives in you. Many stereotypes can be similar, but I highlight only shared exact word stereotypes here. The date for this analysis is February 22, 2024.

Examples of opposite stereotypes for the same group follow the shared stereotypes.

Shared Stereotypes

Shared Stereotypes #1

Plus Size Men
Plus Size Women
Thin Men

few friends

Shared Stereotypes #2

Elderly People
Little People
Only Children
People Living With Allergies
People Who Save Money
Preteen Girls
Single Mothers
SUV Owners
Women Without Children


Shared Stereotypes #3

Beautiful People
Thin Women


Shared Stereotypes #4

Preteen Girls
LGBTQ+ People
Single Mothers


Shared Stereotypes #5

Democratic Voters
Plus Size Men
Plus Size People
Plus Size Women
Republican Voters
Unemployed People
People Living With Disabilities
Young People Who Don’t Vote


Shared Stereotypes #6

Democratic Voters
People Living With Disabilities
Republican Voters
Single Mothers


Shared Stereotypes #7

Democratic Voters
Republican Voters


Shared Stereotypes #8

Preteen Boys


Shared Stereotypes #9

Democratic Voters
Newspaper Readers, Television News Audience, & Radio News Audience
Republican Voters


Shared Characteristic #10

Beautiful People
Short People


Shared Stereotypes #11

Elderly People
Only Children


Opposite Stereotypes

Opposite Stereotypes #1

Thin Women

flirtatious cold

Opposite Stereotypes #2

People Living With Disabilities

need to be fixed fakers

Opposite Stereotypes #3

Birth Mothers

weak slick manipulator

Opposite Stereotypes #4

Muscular Women

after other women’s men


Because medical professionals misdiagnosed my childhood spinal injury for 33 years, I’ve lived with the stereotypes about people with disabilities. No one alive has any guarantee that they will never become disabled. How many elderly people confined to wheelchairs planned to be confined to wheelchairs at the end of their lives? None, of course.

You face the same stereotypes if you become disabled. Break stereotypes about disabled people to protect yourself in the future.

Strategies For Shattering Stereotypes

Choose a strategy based on the level of danger in the situation. Talk to the target in front of the harasser only if the situation is safe for conversation. If the situation is dangerous, create some kind of distraction. I now carry a personal alarm with me for creating distractions quickly.

Talking to the target instead of the harasser allows the harasser to just walk away. If harassing situations come up regularly in a workplace or other common location, you could also use these strategies at calm times to increase understanding about the consequences of using stereotypes. Just tell stories to your coworkers/colleagues as opportunities come up.

Adapt the strategies as you need to. Write about other successful strategies in the comments section.

Surprise The Harasser(s)

If you can possibly do so, give the harasser(s) a moment of dignity. People harassing others will not expect positive statements. The positive statements might be enough to stop them in that situation. One example:

“It’s obvious —– is having a bad day. Let’s give him/her/them time to
calm down and ease the strain on his/her/their heart(s). Let’s hope
tomorrow will be better.”

This statement tells the harasser(s) that they are under stress and deserve to feel better. By expressing concern for their health, you are letting them know you consider them valuable. They may not feel much value in their daily lives.

Visit the website below for resources on opening doors that give moments of dignity. Read People Success Example #5 on the People Success page. You’ll learn how I turned a bad relationship around using moments of dignity, and reaped an unexpected reward.

Make Yourself An Example

This works best if you are not whatever is the reason for the harassment, not Muslim, not black, not Jewish, not Hispanic, not whatever. If you can identify any commonality between yourself and the target(s), talk about them to the target.

“Excuse me, but I noticed that we share a taste for … How would you
recommend cooking it?”

Your commonality will at least partially shatter the stereotype.

Provide Information About Stereotypes

If you can connect to the Internet, bring up the appropriate stereotype blog post and tell the target what the stereotypes are about you and why they are wrong. You could start with:

“Did you know there are stereotypes about everyone? The stereotypes
about me are …, but they don’t fit me because …”

You would be shattering a stereotype in front of the harasser.

Talk About The Consequences Of Creating Failure

Visit this Success & Failure Choices page to read about various types of success and failure. If you can think of an example from your own life, tell that story. Otherwise, use one from the blog below.

You could use this example from “Standout Success For 19 Year Old Joey Prusak”:

“A Dairy Queen customer saw manager Joey Prusak stand up for a
visually impaired customer. The bystander customer sent an email
to Dairy Queen. The story ended up on Facebook. The owner of Dairy
Queen, Warren Buffet, called Joey to thank him. Queen Latifah invited
Joey to appear on her show and gave him money for his college fund.
NASCAR driver Kevin Harvick invited Joey to a race. Good things can
happen to people who take care of other people.”

Talk About The Benefits Of Living The Golden Rule

Remind the harasser of the Golden Rule:

“Since the Golden Rule is important to me, I’m going to treat you
the way I want to be treated. I also know that being kind to others
is good for my health.”

My favorite version of the Golden Rule comes from Buddhism, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” See these Golden Rule statements in 21 religions, 5 philosophies, and 2 moral/ethical systems to pick your favorite version.

Read up on the health benefits of kindness for details to talk about.

And again, write about other successful strategies in the comments.


Critical Thinking Questions

1.  What’s happening?

2.  Why is it important?

3.  What don’t I see?

4.  How do I know?

5.  Who is saying it?

6.  What else? What if?

Stereotype Thinking Questions

1.  What is threatening my beliefs?

2.  How can I make it unimportant?

3.  What can I reject?

4.  What can I laugh at?

5.  How can I attack people who threaten my beliefs?

6.  How can I deflect?

The stereotype thinking questions are mine, based on my observations of stereotype thinkers.


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots


Activism Made Easier: Move Grassroots Information Out Of Meeting Rooms & Into Public Spheres


the most basic level of an activity or organization.
“the whole campaign would be conducted at the grass roots”
Synonyms: popular, of-the-people, bottom-up, nonhierarchical, rank-and file
“a grassroots movement”

ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization’s membership
“you have lost touch with the grass roots of the party”

I received a postcard inviting me to a three hour meeting on a week day night for grassroots action on a county wide issue. A neighbor and I attended for an hour. That first hour was a series of short talks by several people. But presenting the information only at a three hour meeting on a single night eliminated whole groups of possible participants:

Single parents

Second shift workers

People with standing commitments for that night

Limiting the number of people who can participate makes any action less effective. Therefore, anyone who wants to take effective grassroots action needs to do the following:

Make grassroots information easily available.

Make grassroots participation easy.

Make grassroots action a matter of personal choice.

I came right home from the meeting and wrote up the suggestions below.

Some planning is necessary, of course. In 2012, nonviolent strategy icon Srdja Popovic identified three strategies the Occupy movement had to get exactly right:

Clear vision of tomorrow

Clear plan for pursuing that vision

Clear understanding that whatever happens in New York
or Boston or Denver is connected to a larger global
movement that stretches from the alleyways of Cairo to
the beaches of the Maldives

We now know that Occupy did not follow Popovic’s strategies.

Srdja Popovic created nonviolent strategies to bring down Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic resigned in 2000, then died in prison during his trial for war crimes.

Popovic’s strategies were so effective that people from around the world came to him for advice. He set up a website ( and a university course. See the PDF files below for the information he makes free to anyone, including the textbook for the university course.

Popovic has stated that when it comes to ending oppression, fun can overcome fear. Keep that in mind as you read through my suggestions and plan grassroots actions.

Use the idea of fun as an effective strategy for all kinds of change. A neighborhood in Detroit thought up a way to have fun and get the city to pay attention.

Activism Made Easier

Set up a website for one particular community issue with a mailing list option.

Create one page for each topic with a comments section.

Each page has one topic paper with links to more resources, written by a presenter. The topic presenter becomes responsible for responding to comments and keeping this one page up to date.

Each topic paper lists only the high points first, followed by a detailed explanation for each high point. Some people want only high points, other people want all the details. More high point people would participate if you satisfy their need for mostly high points. Too many details frustrate them. I know, because I’m a high point person.

Participants could include links to more information in the comments section, ask questions, and read responses from topic presenters.

Publicize the website on social media. Announce the date and time for a 90 minute meeting. Say the meeting is a project meeting that requires participants to have read the topic papers.

For county or city wide issues, hold meetings in different parts of the county or city.

In each meeting room, have tables set up for each topic, identified by standing signs.

Have name tags and pens at each table.

Upon arriving, every member sits at the topic table that interests them. Shift chairs around if necessary because participants will be most effective working on the topics that matter most to them.

Use the first 10 to 15 minutes for topic presenters to provide last minute updates, then set the groups to work.

Each topic participant can speak only 2 minutes at a time. Everyone gets at least one turn to speak. No one speaks a second time until everyone has spoken once. No one speaks a third time unless people decline their second chance to speak.

Each topic group should discuss:

Ideas for individual and/or group action, including fun actions

Methods for measuring the effectiveness of each action

Topics for further discussion

The last 15 minutes could include one sentence statements about actions each member of each topic group will take.

One participant from each topic group then posts the ideas for action, methods for measurement, and topics for further discussion in the comments section for the topic paper.

People who can’t attend meetings will have all the same information as well as ideas for action to choose from, including fun actions. They can participate through the comments section. Use the mailing list to make announcements.

Srdja Popovic

“The Revolutionist”
Liel Leibovitz
The Atlantic
March 2012, 21-22

Some controversy exists over Popovic’s actions after Wikileaks revelations. He is in Wikileaks because his strategies are effective. Just use them ethically.

“2000: Milosevic quits, street celebrations continue”
On This Day: October 6

“Wikileaks Docs Expose Framed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA'”
Carl Gibson and Steve Horn
In These Times
December 2, 2013

“Without a path from protest to power, the Women’s March will end up like Occupy”
Micah White
The Guardian

January 19, 2017

PDF Files

Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points

CANVAS Core Curriculum: A Guide To Effective Nonviolent Struggle
(Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies)

Making Oppression Backfire

Detroit Neighborhood

“Sinkhole in Detroit Turned Into Fishing Pond by Residents”
Avianne Tan
ABC News
August 25, 2015

“Urban Detroit fishing hole drained; finned tenants relocated”
Gus Burns
August 25, 2015


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

Add One Word, Create Equality

The basic categories of life are family, community (including religious and political activities), jobs, and education. If adults add one word to each of those categories, we can create more equality between all sorts of groups.

Add the word ‘work’ to each category.

Family work includes parenting, housework, cooking, shopping, and caregiving, etc.

Community work includes individual, small group, or organizational volunteer work.

Job work includes anything that creates income, wherever or whenever it occurs.

Education work includes any adult learning inside and outside the classroom.

The idea that adults do work for their education highlights the work children do. Children are workers when they are in school. For a factory to produce anything worth producing, it needs several elements in place:





Qualified personnel

To become job workers, community workers, and family workers as adults, all children need safety, technology, equipment, resources, and qualified personnel in their schools.

Using these four categories and adding the word work, ‘stay-at-home mothers’ are family workers.

Parents may alternate between family work and job work or do both simultaneously. The work is simultaneous when they operate businesses from their homes or take their children to their workplaces.

Childless adults who take care of aging parents alternate job work with family work.

Adding the word ‘work’ to what we do for our families makes family work equal in importance to job work.

Adding the word ‘work’ to what we do for our communities makes community work equal to job work.

Adding the word ‘work’ to education makes education work equal to family work, job work, and community work.

Seeing everyone as workers gives everyone positive identities for the work they do in each category. The time we spend on each category of work will change as our life circumstances change. All of it is still work. Society could not exist if one of these categories disappeared, so workers in each category are as important as workers in all of the other categories.

Adding the word ‘work’ to each category as you go about your daily life means creating more equality for yourself. You can use ‘working’ as well:

“I’m job working until 3:00, then I’ll be family working the rest of the day.”

People who don’t want you to be equal may object. Respond by adding the word ‘work’ to the situations and roles in their lives. Giving equality to other people opens doors to serendipitous success for you.


I wrote about adding the word ‘work’ to situations. One woman who likes the idea added the word ‘work’ to a role — wife work. Leslie Brown was a project manager for tech company and did everything I described — family work, education work, job work, community work. Within each of those situations are a variety of roles. Any role has work to it, so adding the word ‘work’ to all roles creates equality between roles within a situation.


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

Victims On The Left, Victims On The Right

Validation: to make valid; substantiate; confirm

Some people enjoy being victims. People seem to express their enjoyment of being victims by publicly announcing that they are victims. Public announcements provide what I call victim validation. Victim validation gives people feelings of importance as validated victims. Validated victims expect other people to pay attention to their victim needs and take care of their victim needs. Because they feel that publicly announcing their victimhood makes their needs more important than anyone else’s, validated victims feel entitled to ignore everyone else’s needs.

Validated victims blame other people for all of their problems and complain about other people hurting them. Unfortunately, validated victims are everywhere, including the political left and the political right.

Victims on the Left

One example from the political left is Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women since 2009. I am not a member of the National Organization for Women, but I did sign up for emails. NOW President Terry O’Neill sends out emails to “hundreds of thousands of contributing members and more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” I disproved those membership claims, so we don’t know how many people receive the emails. NOW’s claim about the number of members has changed since I disproved its claim of more than 500,000 members.

This email from O’Neill perfectly illustrates victim validation:

Subject Line: Haterade
September 13, 2014
Terry O’Neill, NOW via

10:53 AM (1 hour ago)

to me

Dear Paula,

 I’m sure you’ve heard by now, but this week NOW called on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to resign his post. Since we released that statement, it has been a whirlwind of press and action.

You might have seen or heard me on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or ESPN – or any of a dozen other media outlets. But if you saw me, that means the trolls did too; all week, we’ve been getting barraged with hateful comments via phone, email and on Facebook and Twitter.

Nestled in there — often hidden in the muck — are voices of solidarity. These voices wish us luck in our endeavor, many identify as football fans or activists working in their communities – all agree that we must end the epidemic of violence against women.

Contribute and help us continue our work!

Sure, some of the trolls use the old quip of demanding that I “make them a sandwich” – not the first time I’ve heard that one! I’ve been accused of being “off my rocker”.

The truth is, though, almost all of these comments have been outright and aggressively misogynistic.

 Since I became president of NOW, I’ve received a regular stream of hate mail. Sadly, it just comes with the job. But knowing I have your support makes all the difference.

So a warning to the trolls: We will not deviate from this path. I know that we can change our culture – which is so permissive of violence against women — and change our laws, simultaneously.

How do I know that? Because we’re the National Organization for Women and this what we do – especially with supporters like you.

Thank you for all you do,
Terry O’Neill
President, National Organization for Women

P.S. Thousands of you have already shown your support by signing our petition demanding that Roger Goodell resign. Can I count on your continued support with a contribution today?

Blaming and complaining over and over again, just in this one email. O’Neill clearly feels sorrier for herself than she feels for women who live with domestic violence. She never acknowledges the men who live with domestic violence. She does acknowledge that hate mail “just comes with the job.” Though she made the choice to take a job that comes with hate mail, O’Neill still feels more victimized than women who are victims of domestic violence. Never mind the male victims.

Did O’Neill validate her victimhood on ”MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or ESPN — or any of a dozen other media outlets”? I don’t know. I have better things to do than watch the President of the National Organization for Women demonstrate the fine art of validating victimhood.

Victims on the Right

One example from the political right is a commenter to online articles in local newspapers. This is a much smaller audience than O’Neill’s audience. The commenter and I both live in Wisconsin. She is a Republican. I am a Democrat.

I exchanged comments with this commenter in several discussions. Two discussions illustrate her desire to be a validated victim. Both were political discussions. Several newspapers have written articles about how Wisconsin is doing worse under Governor Scott Walker. For one discussion, I provided this list of online article titles for everyone reading the comments to see:

“Surprise! ‘Pro-business’ policies hurt state economic growth”
Michael Hitzik
Los Angeles Times
May 6, 2014

“State Employment Trends: Does a Low Tax/Right-to-Work/Low Minimum Wage Regime Correlate to Growth?”
Bruce Hall
April 22, 2014

“Declining Private Employment in Wisconsin, Sideways Trending in Kansas”
Menzie Chinn
July 17, 2014

“Revised and Updated Data Indicate Minnesota-Wisconsin Economic Activity Gap Increases”
Menzie Chinn
April 1, 2014

“Right vs. Left in the Midwest”
Lawrence R. Jacobs
The New York Times
November 23, 2013

The commenter wrote these two comments to me:

“California is a disaster. You should quit posting.”

“Yes, Paula Kramer. You should quit posting when you say CA is doing better than WI.”

She included the link below with her second comment:

“California’s Economic Collision Course: Immigration and Water”
Thomas Del Beccaro
Forbes Magazine
August 19, 2014

This article was the only evidence she presented in response to me during the discussion.

Because of these two comments, I gave this commenter a nickname: Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me.

In another discussion, I wrote a comment about how Walker’s policies had made life worse for all Wisconsin residents. I included this list of links to online articles:

“Wisconsin ‘right-to-work” critic will expand company in Minnesota
Tad Vezner
St. Paul Pioneer Press
March 10, 2015

“Wisconsin and Minnesota: A One-Sided Political Competition”
Steve Benen
The Rachel Maddow Show/The MaddowBlog
March 5, 2015

“Scott Walker has failed Wisconsin and Minnesota is the proof”
Jimmy Anderson
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 22, 2014

“Minnesota economy beats Wisconsin: 7 charts, 1 table”
Paul Tosto
Minnesota Public Radio NewsCut
January 26, 2015

“A Fiscal Tale of Two States: Minnesota vs. Wisconsin”
Menzie Chinn
September 30, 2014

“Our view: Minnesota is winning this border battle”
LaCrosse Tribune
January 4, 2015

“Walker vs. Dayton smackdown: Which governor has the better economy?”
Louis O. Johnson
February 7, 2013

“Minnesota making our state look bad”
Tom Clementi
January 15, 2015

The January 15, 2015 Post Crescent article includes these statements:

“Despite Walker’s claim that we’re “open for business,” Forbes magazine ranks Wisconsin 31st for business; Minnesota ranks ninth. This despite the fact that the American Legislative Exchange Council, the powerful organization that drafts legislation for conservative politicians and is funded, in part, by Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers, places Minnesota in the lowest tier of “ALEC-friendly” states and touts Wisconsin as No. 1 for taxes in 2014.

But that number is countered by reality. The median income for a Wisconsin family is some $8,000 less per year than in Minnesota. Forbes places our Minnesota seventh for economic climate and Wisconsin 27th. Forbes also ranks Minnesota second in quality of life and Wisconsin 17th.

Those numbers make ALEC’s numbers a little suspect and raise the question of exactly who benefits from Wisconsin’s No. 1 ALEC tax rating? Obviously, it’s not the ordinary Wisconsin citizen.”

This was the response from Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me:

“Hey Paula: Obama made me give up my Dr. so it’s best to stop talking about what is taken away from you.”

In response to a list of articles about the effect of state government policies on all Wisconsin residents, Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me wrote about herself. She created inequality for me again by telling me to “stop talking”.

Blaming and complaining, Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me validated herself as a victim. She expects other people to be responsible for her needs while she ignores the needs of everyone else. Why should she pay attention to the needs of people she considers her inferiors?

To make sure she knew I would quote her comments, I sent Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me a private Facebook message. I assured her I would keep her anonymous. I also wrote this:

“It’s sad that you don’t see equality as the benefit it is. It’s sad that you don’t understand that creating inequality for someone else means inviting other people to create inequality for you. You and I are equal, ——-. You deserve the same respect I deserve. I deserve the same respect you deserve. You deserve the same respect from other people that I receive from other people. That is why I hope you stop inviting other people to create inequality for you.”

This is part of her response:

“Now I remember, Paula. Your mother tried to kill you twice and you write about it and have trouble still dealing with it. I had a brother that beheaded himself, an alcoholic husband that became a ward of the state, a family member that embezzled, incidents in childhood that may make you shudder.”

For the record, I write about my mother trying to kill me only when I am participating in discussions about abortion, which might be two or three times a year. I do not write about my mother trying to kill me when it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me, however, inserted her personal pain into a discussion that was not about personal pain. Perhaps Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me thought those four examples would force me to see her for the validated victim she believes she is. As a validated victim, no one should expect anything of her, including treating other people with respect and equality. Instead, we should tolerate Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me’s blaming and complaining and take responsibility for easing her pain while expecting nothing in return.

What to Do about Validated Victims?

You could tolerate the victims who share your political views, though you shouldn’t expect them to treat you with respect or equality. You could ignore validated victims on both the right and the left. Or, you could use one or more of these four techniques:

Use the term validated victim to them.

Repeat, “Blaming and complaining again?” each time they do it.

Let them know how many times they made the same statement.

Ask, “What are you doing to change the situation?”

I’ve tried the last two techniques with just one person. After one friend made the exact same complaint five times in a row, I told her she had made the exact same statement five times in a row. I told her I needed to hear it only once. Then I asked her what she was going to do about the situation. She told me she might need to say it five times in a row. I told her she could find someone else to say it to. She no longer calls me to blame and complain about anything.

If we all use similar strategies with the people in our lives, maybe we could gradually convince everyone that victim validation is a waste of everyone’s time. Maybe pointing out the common ground between validated victims on the political left and validated victims on the political right would cause enough healthy embarrassment to stop the blaming and complaining. Something along the lines of:

“You sound just like…”

I’m ready to try.

“Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence”
Murray A. Strauss
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research
July 14, 2007

Ms. Magazine published the article ‘Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood’ in 1976.

More than 40 years later, former National Organization for Women (NOW) vice president Gilda Yazzi filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against NOW and national NOW President Toni Van Pelt for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. NOW filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Part of the lawsuit was dismissed, but the motion to dismiss all counts was denied. The lawsuit is moving forward.

Other NOW staff members and interns accused Van Pelt of discrimination: “illegal, morally reprehensible, dishonest, destructive, and frankly toxic behavior.”

Trashing to create intentional inequality is a feminist leader tradition.

Fortunately, NOW includes state chapter leaders and national board members who do want equality. They called for Van Pelt to leave NOW. Van Pelt resigned, citing health reasons.

NOW has yet to create equality between its own staff and members. How can it possibly create equality between women and men?

“‘Don’t Forget the White Women!’: Members Say Racism Ran Rampant at NOW”
Emily Shugerman
The Daily Beast
August 12, 2020

“President of Now steps down amid racism allegations at feminist group”
Miranda Bryant
The Guardian
August 17, 2020

“Trashing: The Dark Side of Sisterhood”
Ms. Magazine
1976, pages 49 to 51 and 92 to 98.


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 to 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!

hooks, Steinem Vaid, and Wolf could have created equality between women. They could have provided a platform for women who choose not to call themselves feminist to explain their choice in their own words.

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, as inferior and of secondary importance.

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.


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Soft Skill Power Strategies For Attracting Unimagined Success

Facebook Page

Women Speaking Equality

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

Mainstay Memories: With A Few Words, Bystanders Can Help Abused Children

When I was very little, my mother tried to kill me twice. I’ve had PTSD since the first murder attempt. Because my own mother tried to kill me, I came to believe that anyone could kill me at any time for any reason. The terror of someone killing me often occurs in groups of strangers.

I’ve read that people can help abused children by letting them know they are not the cause of the abuse. Nothing explained how to do this. I finally understood how to help abused children during a Toastmasters meeting. Toastmaster Tammy opened a door to my understanding of how another Toastmaster had helped me.

Toastmaster Tammy gave a speech that set a personal record for using uh’s and um’s. (I loved the AH Counter role.) That record is not important. Mistakes do not determine value. Meaning determines value. Toastmaster Tammy’s speech had enough meaning that it changed my understanding of my life.

Toastmaster Tammy spoke about Toastmasters clubs, using the word “welcoming” several times. The repetition of “welcoming” flashed me back to the first time I walked into that meeting room. Toastmaster Mary Jo stood up, shook my hand, and enthusiastically welcomed me to the meeting. Her greeting was so significant that I wrote about it in my journal, using the word “enthusiastically” to describe it. When Toastmaster Tammy used the word “welcoming” in her speech, I realized that I remember Toastmaster Mary Jo enthusiastically welcoming me into a group of strangers whenever I feel anxious about a group of strangers.

Mary Jo gave me what I now call a “mainstay memory”, a memory that gets me through my anxiety about groups. I don’t even have to consciously go back to that night. The memory just automatically comes to me on its own. The memory of Mary Jo comes and the anxiety fades away. My realization about what Mary Jo did for me ended a worry I’ve had since the early 1970s.

I lived in Chicago back then. At the laundromat one day, I started my laundry and sat down to read. To my side sat a little blonde girl, all by herself. A Filipina woman with three little girls came into the laundromat. As the woman did laundry, the girls played. They had so much fun they sort of tumbled around the laundromat. They passed me several times and I started talking to them as they tumbled by.

The little blonde girl sat watching, a sad look on her face. I could see the effects of abuse in her eyes. After the Filipina girls tumbled by and I talked to them yet again, I turned to the little blonde girl and said, “I like you, too.” She sat up straight, her eyes opened wide, the sun came up in her smile, and she ran off to play with the little Filipina girls.

I never saw the little blonde girl again. I wanted to see her eyes again and to see her smile again. I wanted to know if my words lasted past that one day in the laundromat. Because of Tammy and Mary Jo, I know they did. I know I gave that little blonde girl a mainstay memory. I know she repeatedly heard my “I like you, too” the way I repeatedly hear Mary Jo’s “Hello!”

We cannot completely end child abuse, but we can ease its effects. We can do what Mary Jo did for me. Smile and say enthusiastic hellos to children we see throughout our day. Mary Jo’s “Hello!” came into my adult ears, but it was my child heart that felt the welcome. Giving abused children enthusiastic greetings would let them know that someone in their world welcomes them.

My experience proves that the people giving welcomes don’t have to be central to the lives of abused children. My experience also proves that feeling welcome to someone somewhere will give abused children the ability to open up their own worlds. The little blonde girl in the laundromat demonstrated that when she ran off to play with the little Filipina girls.

Prove good intentions by saying hello, smiling, waving goodbye, and moving away. If you have time — as I did at the laundromat — say a few words to spark a smile. Adjust my recommendations to your culture. My worst responses have been stares from children and indifference from parents. My best response was the sun coming up in the little blonde girl’s smile.


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

Torture Or Not Torture: Proof In Experience

Do an Internet search with the words “not torture” and you will find several claims that the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques do not constitute torture.

I will believe that those techniques are not torture when all the people using the phrase “not torture” give me proof in experience. I want them to prove from their own experience that those techniques are not torture. To do this, they have to experience the techniques themselves and report back to me that they did not feel tortured.

I did not read or listen to any details about the techniques because just knowing about them sickens me. However, I do know some details about the situation.

The standards for proof in experience in this situation mean that all supporters of the “not torture” enhanced interrogations must agree to be…

…taken from their own lives without notice.

…taken to a destination away from their lives.

…prevented from seeing or contacting anyone in their lives.

…softened up for interrogation sessions.

…interrogated in anyway the interrogators choose to
interrogate them for the length of time interrogators

…kept away from their lives and families for an indefinite
period of time, subject to enhanced interrogation
techniques at any time.

If supporters of the “not torture” enhanced interrogation techniques come back from these experiences and tell me they were not tortured, then I will have to believe them.

I do already have proof in experience from the other side of the situation at Abu Ghraib. Eric Fair is an Army veteran who was a contract interrogator in Iraq at Abu Ghraib in 2004. These are Eric Fair’s words about himself:

“I was an interrogator at Abu Ghraib. I tortured.”

These are Eric Fair’s words about the Senate’s torture report:

“I assure you there is more; much remains redacted.”


To delete or remove (private or sensitive information)
from a document in preparation for publication

The British Psychological Society reported on a study showing that  “regular people” supported torture “…on a desire for payback, not intelligence.”

Support for torture depends on whether people “are told that torture is likely to be ineffective”, of if they are told the suspect is a terrorist, or if they are told that the suspect had actually planted a bomb.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that:

Not once between late 2001 and early 2009 did the CIA’s use
of torture result in intelligence that helped to foil a terrorist
plot. All of the most useful information came from standard,
non-violent interrogation approaches. Furthermore, tortured
detainees frequently made up things in an attempt to get
their torturers to stop.

Even support for a “ticking time bomb scenario”

depends on a ‘highly idealised’ and ‘highly unrealistic’ set of
assumptions being met. Moreover, their finding that people’s
support for torture is influenced by the identity and the
culpability of the suspect shows that the practice is often
endorsed as a form of punishment, not as a way to extract

The Middle East Research and Information Project found that refusing to use torture creates more security.

…torture is ineffective in enhancing security; on the contrary,
states that do not torture (or extra-judicially execute)
prisoners experience substantially less terrorism, and their
counter-terrorism efforts are more effective.

If you want to feel secure from terrorism, then you should insist you’re your government uses effective interrogation techniques. It turns out that the most effective interrogation techniques are humane.

Disclosure was 14 times more likely to occur early in an
interrogation when a rapport-building approach was used.
Confessions were four times more likely when interrogators
struck a neutral and respectful stance. Rates of detainee
disclosure were also higher when they were interrogated in
comfortable physical settings.

If you want to inflict pain on other people, come right out and say it. Just don’t expect the person in pain to give you the information you need to feel secure. When you approve torture, you make it easier for others to harm you because you create less security for yourself.

Your choice is payback or security:

Choosing payback will bring you less security.

Choosing security will bring you less terrorism.

Basing your choice on your feelings suggests unresolved feelings that need to be addressed. Exposing yourself to more terrorism might not be the best way to satisfy the needs behind those feelings.

I’m waiting for the “not torture” volunteers to give me proof in experience.

“American Torture: The Price Paid, the Lessons Learned”
Lisa Hajjar
Middle East Research and Information Project
Summer 2009, Volume 39

“Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program”
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Approved December 13, 2012
Updated for Release April 3, 2014
Declassification Revisions December 3, 2014

“The Humane Interrogation Technique That Works Much Better Than Torture”
Olga Khazan
The Atlantic
December 14, 2014

“I Can’t Be Forgiven for Abu Ghraib”
Eric Fair
The New York Times
December 9, 2014

“Interviewing High Value Detainees: Securing Cooperation and Disclosures”
Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Mandeep K. Dhami
Applied Cognitive Psychology
October 17, 2014

“People’s support for torture in “ticking time bomb scenarios” is influenced by their desire for retribution”
Research Digest
British Psychological Society

“Rapport-building interrogation is more effective than torture”
Research Digest
British Psychological Society

“The Ticking Time Bomb: When the Use of Torture Is and Is Not Endorsed”
Joseph Spino and Denise Dellarosa CumminsReview of Philosophy and Psychology
August 16, 2014


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

6 Nitty Gritty Questions To Ask Sarah Palin

The current dissatisfaction with political professionals (politicians, pundits, speechmakers, etc.) stems in part from the failure of ordinary citizens to set standards of effectiveness for them. Ordinary citizens live the nitty gritty details of life. One standard we could set is the expectation that political professionals talk about nitty gritty details and answer 6 questions about nitty gritty details. Former Alaskan Governor, former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Fox News Channel contributor Sarah Palin is so bad at talking about nitty gritty details that she is my example for setting a standard of effectiveness for political professionals.

As Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin did an interview with Katie Couric. During that campaign, the worst financial crisis in decades had disrupted world financial markets and the U.S. government had decided to spend $700 billion bailing out the financial system. Couric asked:

“Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and
groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that
played a role in creating this mess?”

In 151 words, Palin talked about:


“healthcare reform” (twice)

“job creation” (twice, including “umbrella of job creating”)

“shoring up our economy”

“reducing taxes”

“reining in spending”

“tax reductions”

“tax relief”

“trade as opportunity”

“trade sector”

The words “middle-class families” never came out of Palin’s mouth. Political professionals would be effective if they answered the 6 nitty gritty questions of any issue: who, what, where, when, how, and why.

An effective answer from Palin would have focused on


Middle class families and big financial institutions


What the bailout money was for


The schedule for releasing the money and the
estimated time for financial recovery


“Main Street” versus “Wall Street”


How the government could ensure “Wall Street”
spent the money on helping “Main Street” instead
of on self-congratulating celebration trips, as AIG
and Wells Fargo wanted to.


The reasoning behind and/or past examples of
bailing out “Wall Street” rather than “Main Street”
or behind “Wall Street only” rather than “Main
Street, too”

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin came nowhere near the nitty gritty details. If citizens of the United States insisted that political professionals include the nitty gritty who, what, when, where, how, and why when they talk about issues, interviewers like Couric might start using the same standards for effectiveness in their interviews.

It is always possible that political professionals will not know part of an answer. In that case, they should say they will find out the information and post it on their website with their answers to all of the other nitty gritty questions so their response is complete.

Every topic a political professional addresses would have its own 6 nitty gritty questions. Below are two more topics Palin has spoken about.

Sarah Palin compared paying off the federal debt to slavery. Some nitty gritty questions for Palin on this issue include:


Who was the first president to borrow money from
a foreign country?


What activities will American taxpayer slaves be
prevented from doing, since slave owners take
freedom of choice away from slaves?


When will American taxpayer slaves be forcibly
taken from their families?


Where will American taxpayer slaves be put up
for sale?

(Who will taxpayer slaves be sold to?)


How do you decide which debts mean slavery
and which debts do not? Do homeowners
become slaves when mortgage holders sell
mortgage notes to a new “master that is not
of your choosing”?


Why didn’t you complain about taxpayers
becoming slaves in 2010 when House
Republicans chose “Prince of Pork” Hal Rogers
to Chair the House Appropriations Committee?

Sarah Palin visited Wausau, Wisconsin in late 2013 because of a controversy over religious music during school Christmas concerts. Some nitty gritty questions for Palin on this issue include:


Who thinks the war on Christmas is an


What are your proposals for protecting the “heart”
of all religious holidays celebrated by nonChristian


When will you talk about the effective way Wausau
community members came together to discuss the
controversy and create a solution before you arrived
in Wausau?


Where is your anger when people “diminish” the
“true meaning” of religious holidays celebrated by
nonChristian Americans?


How will you protect the religious celebrations of
nonChristian Americans from Scrooges?


Why did you think Wausau residents would need
to buy your book to follow your steps
“to combat the Scrooges” when the Wausau
community had already settled  the issue?

If people keep asking political professionals like Sarah Palin the 6 nitty gritty questions, they will have to start responding with at least some nitty gritty answers.

“Palin: ’What The Bailout Does Is Help Those Who Are Concerned About Health Care Reform’”
Ryan Powers
Think Progress
September 25, 2008

“400 line up for Sarah Palin book promotion at Rib Mountain”
Lydia Mulvany
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
November 14, 2013

“Bailed-Out Bank Nixes Lavish Vegas Junket”
February 3, 2009

“Conservatives Peeved After GOP Taps ‘Prince of Pork’ to Lead Spending Committee”
Fox News
December 10, 2010

“Sarah Palin coming to Wausau area”
Dan Griffin
WAOW Television
November 6, 2013

“Sarah Palin invokes slavery, inappropriately of course”
Jonathan Capehart
The Washington Post
November 15, 2013


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has Left The Room

Below are two reasons I do not donate money when I receive Democratic fundraising emails, even though I am a registered Democrat.

Reason #1

“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Has Left The Room”

Reason #2

Florida’s Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent me a fundraising email saying:

“President Obama sent you an email.

Vice President Biden sent you an email.

Nancy Pelosi sent you an email.

Now I’m sending you an email.

We’re emailing you because this is really important.”

Wasserman Schultz provided no email address for me to respond to her. When I went to her website to send an email, I received this message:

Zip Code Authentication Failed

I called Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz’s Florida office and asked if she or her staff would read a letter from Wisconsin. The staff member who answered the phone told me there was no guarantee because they had to look at mail from Florida first. If Wasserman Schultz is not going to give me a way to respond to her, then she has no business emailing me about anything. I told the staff member I would publish my response to Wasserman Schultz in a blog post with the hope that someone else would read it and say something to her.

Wasserman Schultz insulted me by deciding I was too “intellectually unsophisticated to know what is “really important” without her explaining it to me.

Wasserman Schultz created inequality for me by expecting me to remain silent and passive.

I do not trust politicians who ask for money so they can satisfy their power addiction, as indicated in the emails the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sends out. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has left the room along with all of those other Democrats.

I see little difference between Republican politicians seeking power for the sake of power and Democratic politicians seeking power for the sake of power. My needs fall outside the focus of power-seeking politicians from both  sides.

It is “really important” that politicians pay attention to my needs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ignored my needs, treated me as if I were her intellectual inferior, and created inequality for me. Wasserman Schultz expected me to accept this insulting treatment without question and send money.

I refuse to donate money to politicians who will use my money to buy ads that say things I do not want said. I need Democrats and Republicans to speak respectfully about and to each other, to identify commonalities, and to identify ways to work around differences. I need Democrats to respect my needs, to respect my intelligence, and to create equality for me before they ask me for money.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz did none of what I need. She is yet another female politician who treats female constituents as unequal.

Time has proved that other Democratic voters feel that Wasserman Schultz has left the room.

“The Arrogance of Feminist Leaders”

“Demand Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s immediate resignation as DNC chair”
Spirituality for Justice

“It’s Time for Female Politicians to Treat Female Constituents
as Equals”

“What Do Feminist Leaders Have In Common with Outlaw Bikers,
Hierarchical Leaders, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Old Guard of the
Catholic Church?”


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Has Left The Room

I am a registered Democrat. For a reason I cannot remember, I gave the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) my email address. I receive frequent emails asking for money. The emails reveal that the DCCC left the room I’m in years ago. In my room, I talk to friends and acquaintances about wanting Democrats and Republicans to work together. I talk about the Republican politicians I like. I want Democratic politicians to speak respectfully about and to Republicans so that Republicans learn they can trust Democrats.

The room the DCCC was in when I wrote this blog post was all about taking down Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. The emails I received frequently said nasty things about John Boehner. Below are several samples:

“Boehner must be tearing his hair out right now.”

“Boehner just got caught red-handed!”
(This one from Nancy Pelosi herself.)

“Boehner wasn’t expecting this, friend.”
(Another one from Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is not my friend.)

“Boehner is already bragging.”
(Nancy Pelosi)

“This news will make Boehner furious!”

“Boehner surely didn’t bargain for this.”

“…a slap in the face to Boehner’s attempt to hold on to his obstructionist Tea Party majority.”
(This is a mischaracterization of John Boehner.)

“…we could really embarrass Speaker Boehner come this fall.”

“You can bet Speaker Boehner and Paul Ryan are high-fiving in the hallways of Congress over their record-breaking haul.”

“Boehner’s going to hate this.”

“…to hand Boehner’s buddies a devastating defeat.”

“…completely demoralize John Boehner…”

“Speaker Boehner was riding high a couple of days ago, but he’s going to have an absolute meltdown…”

“…a major embarrassment for John Boehner.”

I might be a registered Democrat, but my political goal was NEVER to catch John Boehner red-handed, make him tear his hair out, embarrass him, make him furious, slap him in the face, demoralize him, or give him a meltdown. Those words and phrases are NEVER part of my conversations.

My political goal is for all Democrats and all Republicans to learn to work together to make sure all citizens have what we need to create success in our own lives. The ability of individual citizens to be successful does matter. The mortgage crisis would have proved that to politicians who paid attention. When millions of ordinary people could not pay their mortgages, the financial world came tumbling down. But if the entire Democratic party is focused the way the DCCC emails are focused, then my hope for a better life is doomed.

The Republicans might be sending similar emails to registered Republicans, but I don’t know that. I do know that Democrats are losing elections because they keep proving they are in a different room than voters. Democratic voters on or near the political party fence at times decide that an individual Republican candidate sounds closer to the room they’re in than the Democratic candidate.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is one example. In his second election as Governor, nearly a third of Democratic voters chose Republican Christie. Voters in numbers big enough to swing elections want bipartisan politicians who stay in the same room voters are in. Those voters do not want politicians who leave the room and fantasize about what they could do to leaders from the other party. Governor Christie’s lower approval ratings in the years since the George Washington Bridge scandal suggest he isn’t as bipartisan as he appeared.

House Democrats keep demonstrating that they are intent on satisfying their own needs, not mine. They need to take John Boehner down and they think I need to take John Boehner down, too. I don’t. I need Democrats to spend time in my room instead of closing themselves off in a room by themselves. Right now, I have no hope for a better life with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House for a second time. She offended me the entire four years she was Speaker of the House.

In private, Democrats sound just as bad as Republicans sound in public. Given that sameness, what difference does it make who wins the majority in Congress? If Democrats keep focusing on taking down John Boehner and do win the majority in Congress, they would still be in a different room. Their focus would still be on satisfying their own need to humiliate the other party instead of on satisfying citizen needs for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

Besides writing this blog post, I wrote a letter to my Democratic congressional representative. I included a $3 check. I also sent a copy of this blog post. The letter is below.

Dear Rep. ————-,
Enclosed is a $3 check and a blog post I wrote about the DCCC. Please read the post.

I also sent copies of the post to the DCCC, to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and to President Obama.

I will send you more money if you do all of the following:

1.  Stop using words and phrases like “howling” and “gang of Republicans”.

2.  Speak respectfully about Republicans both publicly and privately so they have no excuse to speak disrespectfully about you.

3.  Explain what you will do to seek commonalities between Republicans and Democrats.

4.  If you have already identified commonalities, explain what those commonalities are and how you will approach your Republican counterparts to talk about them.

Making those four actions your normal method of representing me will put us back in same room.

I trust you to be creative in finding commonalities, but I’ll give you an example of how I would like you as the politician who represents me to look for commonalities with Republicans.

Many Republicans are pro-life, meaning they support the right of every baby to be born. The most effective way to create a commonality on this issue is to focus on babies. If every baby has a right to be born, then every baby has a right to be born to parents who want him or her. Unfortunately, babies are born everyday to parents who do not want them. Those children endure neglect, abuse, and even murder at the hands of their parents. Focusing on babies turns the discussion with pro-life Republicans to protecting all babies by finding ways to make sure all babies are born to parents who want them.

It will take thought, but I voted for you assuming that you would take the time to think. It will be challenging, but you can challenge any Republican who does not live up to their pro-life claim. Not all Democrats are pro-choice and not all Republicans are pro-life, but I expect you to look for and build on the commonalities.

Paula Kramer

Generally, the emails from my own representative are far better than the emails from the DCCC. However, I get the least partisan and most respectful emails from New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Senator Booker is willing to work with Republicans and spoke out against both Republican and Democratic campaign attack ads. Booker’s backers have apparently used some attack ads, though. Hard to say what Booker’s involvement was. However, Booker is still more with me in the room I’m in than not with me.



“Boehner Fights Back Against Tea Party, Again”
David Welna
National Public Radio (NPR)
February 14, 2014

“A Brief History of Infanticide”
Dr. Larry S. Milner
The Society for the Prevention of Infanticide

“Cory Booker on ‘Nauseating” Attack Ads & More Sunday Talk (Video)
The Daily Beast
May 20, 2012

“Exit Polls”: N.J. Governor”
The New York Times
Election 2013

“Poll: Christie Approval rating at New Low in N.J.”
Courtney Such
RealClear Politics
June 23, 2015

“Rand Paul, Cory Booker Kindle Festivus Bromance Over Sentencing Reform, Ending War On Drugs”
Matt Sledge
The Huffington Post
December 23, 2013


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Resource Websites

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots

It’s Time For Female Politicians To Treat Female Constituents As Equals

Background On Inequality Between Women

Inequality between females is more common than equality between females. Females create inequality for other females through words and actions of betrayal.

In 1988, I watched a woman television talk show host betray a female guest on her talk show. I couldn’t understand how the host could betray another woman. By that time, I already felt regret for the way I had treated a number of girls and women in my life, but I had never asked myself how I could betray another girl or woman. To figure out why the host betrayed her female guest, I wrote my masters thesis about women as television talk show hosts. What I learned from writing that thesis is that every girl in this country grows up learning how to betray other girls. As women we just keep doing what we grew up doing, betraying other women. Betrayal between females creates inequality between females.

I watched every talk show hosted by a woman for about five years (starting before I earned my B.A.). Most of the topics discussed on the shows fell into four repeating themes. I now call those themes the cultural themes of betrayal between women:

Women as mothers

Women and their appearance

Women as deviants

Teenage girls as threats to society

For more details about each of these themes, see Girl Grit.

As young girls, we learn to judge other girls according to these cultural themes of betrayal. As women, we continue to judge each other according to these cultural themes of betrayal. Even girls who grow up to become politicians judge and betray other women because that is what they learned to do.

Every time a female betrays another female, she betrays herself as well. Every time a female holds another female back, she holds herself back as well. Every time a female judges another woman according to the cultural themes of betrayal, she invites other females as well as males to judge her by the same cultural themes. It’s time for female politicians to learn to stop judging and betraying other females so they can begin to create equality for both constituent females and themselves.

Once I understood that I judged other females based on these cultural themes of betrayal, I rethought all of my relationships with girls and women. I wanted to find a way for all girls and women to stop betraying each other and start supporting each other. I found the way when I read a professor’s four steps for new recruits to be more successful in the Navy. I contacted him, but he prefers to remain anonymous. I adapted his steps, then added other steps as I realized their significance for females. Together they are the 12 Girl Goodwill Steps to Success & Equality:

1.  Look other girls and women in the eye and say hello. *

2.  Focus on what you have in common with other girls and women. *

3.  Create connections between girls and women to help them
recognize what they have in common.

4.  Ask questions to understand differences when you must
consider them.

5.  Avoid judging other girls and women *

6.  Avoid making assumptions by asking questions to
understand intentions.

7.  Listen to any other side of the story.

8.  Ask other girls and women for help, but avoid expecting
more than they can give. *

9.  Speak words to give other girls and women confidence.

10. Take action to help other girls and women shine.

11. Make room for other girls and women to share in success.

12. Speak what you want to hear because boys and men will
deny equality to girls and women as long as girls and women
deny equality to each other.

I read the professor’s advice for Navy recruits in a magazine early in the second Iraq war.

In an effort to spread the word about girl goodwill, I set up a Facebook page to provide examples of girls and women helping other girls and women succeed. I told a few stories from my own life. Thankfully, I had a number of stories to tell, easing my guilt over the far greater number of times I betrayed other females.

Background On One Female Politician

I had briefly worked with a woman before she decided to go into politics. We talked about the ingredients for spectacular success and she found them useful. After her successful first election, I sent her an email, reminding her of the ingredients for spectacular success. She said she would remember them. Months later I sent her information about dream team formulas and pointed out which formula would be most appropriate for her to use as a politician. This was her response:

“Thank you so much for your kind words and very helpful thoughts on how I can work effectively for the district. I truly appreciate your words of wisdom and can’t wait to get to work!”

After I launched my Girl Goodwill campaign, I emailed the politician, explaining my campaign and asking if I could use her name in a story about giving her information to help her succeed. This is the response I received from her female assistant:

“Unfortunately, Wisconsin ethics rules prohibit the use of any legislator’s name for marketing purposes.”

Marketing: the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.

I emailed the assistant back, requesting an explanation of how asking women to tell stories about helping other women succeed and telling my own stories about helping other women succeed was marketing. I received no response.

I felt the female assistant had misrepresented me to the politician. If the female assistant was capable of misrepresenting me, the female assistant was capable of misrepresenting other constituents. The politician could lose votes in future elections. I sent an explanatory letter to another female politician. I never received a response. When I ran into the first politician at a public event, she exuded anger at me.

How did this politician go from appreciating my words of wisdom to deciding I was making an unethical request? The cultural themes of betrayal got in the way.

Note: It might be common for women in positions of authority to see unethical intentions in other women to justify judging them as deviant. See Girl Growl Backfire: An Editor gives Herself an Unprofessional Image.

If you are female, you know a female politician is judging you by the cultural themes of betrayal when she makes a decision about you without asking questions to understand differences, without asking questions to understand intentions, without listening to every side of the story. Two female politicians and at least one female assistant judged me without asking any of those questions. All of these women judged me according to the cultural themes of betrayal. If those three women judged me according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they are capable of judging any other female constituent according to the cultural themes of betrayal.

When women judge other women according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they treat them as unequal. When female politicians judge constituent women according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they treat the women they are supposed to be representing as unequal. What sort of equal representation can constituent women expect from female politicians who use stereotypes to judge them as deviant?

If a female politician judges you as deviant, the questions below will help you let the politician know that you expect her to treat you as her equal. They are my questions to the politician who gratefully accepted the information I provided to help her succeed.  I expect her to treat me as her equal.

The questions are based on the six basic questions to ask politicians. Adapt the questions to your situation. You may not need to use all six of the basic questions.

My Questions

What criteria did you use to determine that stories about women helping other women succeed is marketing for profit?

How did you determine the accuracy of your criteria before you used them to judge me?

Why didn’t you ask for more information about the Girl Goodwill campaign?

Why didn’t you visit the Girl Goodwill Facebook page to see what kinds of stories women tell about helping other women succeed?

Why didn’t you ask to read the story I wanted to write about you?

What is unethical about my wanting to use your name in a story about giving you information to succeed when the information I gave you is free on my website, with free instructions for how to use it, with more free information about the importance of situational ingredients in creating success?

What am I marketing with free PDF downloads that say nothing about any product or service I offer?

Where will I get equal representation as a voter now that you have judged me as deviant?

How often do you judge female constituents as deviant?

Female Politicians Are Equal Only When Their Constituents Are Equal

When social status changes — including when someone wins their first political election — the new politician’s brain can change. Their social status and wealth grow compared to most of the people they associated with before their election. Their new status and increasing wealth can change their brains. Empathy for the people they saw as equals before the election will disappear if they no longer see those people as equals. Neither female politician felt empathy for my efforts to improve relationships between women. That is evidence that their brains have changed. They do not understand that my equality ensures their equality.

In spite of the judgmental response from the female politician, I told the story on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page anyway. I took out all identifying details. I initiated the action in the story so it is my story to tell. I do not market anything on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page or in my story about giving information to the politician. I told the story because I want girls and women to learn multiple ways of helping other girls and women succeed. Giving step by step information plus real world examples is one way to help other girls and women succeed.

I want the female politician I briefly worked with to succeed. All women should admire her for deciding to make a difference and succeeding on a difficult path. Just as success for any woman makes eventual success for all women more likely, equality for any woman makes eventual equality for all women more likely. The success of the politician makes my success more likely. Her equality in politics makes my equality as a citizen more likely. What all three of the women who judged me fail to understand is that success and equality for me makes success and equality for them more likely. It’s time for all female politicians to create equality for all female constituents, because equality between men and women will follow equality between women.

My Girl Goodwill Advice To Female Politicians With An Invitation For Male Politicians To Pay Attention

All politicians need to be aware of the potential loss of empathy for their constituents. All politicians need to take steps to keep their empathy intact. Follow these steps before making decisions about your constituents, both male and female:

Talk to people before you make decisions about them.

Ask questions to make sure you understand circumstances and intentions.

Investigate other opportunities to gather information about people and/or issues.

Constituents have the power to hire you, which means they also have the power to fire you. Staying hired means making decisions that give your constituents reasons to keep voting for you.

Do you, blog reader, see any marketing in that girl goodwill advice to help female politicians succeed?

“As for Empathy, the Haves Have Not”
Pamela Paul
The New York Times
December 30, 2010

“Chapter 8: Six Very Powerful Questions”
Attentuated Democracy
David Hubert

“How Wealth Reduces Compassion”
Scientific American
Daisy Grewal
April 10, 2012


Paula M. Kramer
© 2015 to the present.
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 or months.

Facebook Pages

Girl Goodwill

Women Speaking Equality

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Business Directory

Positive Identity Directory For People With Mugshots