Undateable: Why Single Christian Guys are All Dented Cans: Entitlement

I went back to the beginning recently, and read about the misogynist, the coward, the racist, and the guy who won't take "No" for an answer.

And I found it striking. Partially because a few things have happened:

1. I stopped going to church.
2. I'm not sure I want to date Christian guys anymore.
3. I encountered more than one man who is a husband, father and believer in Jesus Christ, and also spouts Red Pill Reddit language and rhetoric.

This last one, if I'm honest, leaves me feeling heartbroken and confused--I feel betrayed, somehow.

And that sort of leads me to today's topic, entitlement.

"Entitlement" feels like a hot button word that gets thrown around a lot, particularly in articles about Millenials and the job market. But what does "entitlement" mean in the context that I am writing about?

I turned to Google to find out what exactly people feel entitled to. The results were predictable and a bit dull--the short version is that people feel entitled to government benefits, such as:

Entitlement to medicare
Entitlement to social security
Entitlement to paternity leave
Entitlement to bank holidays

And the puzzling:

Entitlement to kill a mockingbird

My two favorite things to be entitled to:

Entitlement to wear kilt
Entitlement to tea breaks

Photo by George Redgrave

Sam Heughan in "Outlander" on Starz

Yes. One thousand and one times yes.

[Why has no one made a calendar of attractive, possibly shirtless men in kilts drinking tea? I would buy the hell out of that calendar.]

So here's my unofficial definition of entitlement:

Entitlement is an unwritten, unquestioned and often unconscious law held to be inviolable and true, so that when the law is broken, the entitled person is justifiably angry, hurt, and vengeance-seeking.

[And its converse: Entitlement is an unwritten, unquestioned and often unconscious law held to be inviolable and true, so that when the law is upheld or enforced, the "victim" of the entitled person cannot justifiably be angry, hurt, or vengeance-seeking.]

I feel like entitlement, taking the posture and role of the victim, and not taking "No" for an answer are all tangled up together.

You learn the unspoken rules of a relationship, sometimes when it is in the process of ending, often after it has already ended. In one of my relationships, the unspoken rule was: You are not allowed to leave.

Entitlement is the unspoken law that leads to violence.

You see, I don't think anger, or the pain at the heart of anger, causes violence. There's another step there, another component--

The man doesn't kick the dog because the boss yelled at him. The man kicks the dog because he believes he has the right.

Let me give a simple, everyday example:

The law: A woman must always graciously and without rancor accept a compliment from a man. [Especially if he is a stranger]

It's funny, really. It's violence wrapped up in "You're beautiful." And what's even funnier is that the violation of this law is already presumed, the compliment followed immediately with, "I can give you a compliment" or "That's a compliment you know," before the woman even has time to react--the hatred trailing so closely on the heels of love.

And it's not just strangers.

I've thought a lot about the disparate rage that men have directed at me--from the first emotionally abusive relationship I had in my early 20s, to more recent experiences. I think about a story that a friend once told me.

He was a friend of the family. And he had a crush on her, despite an age difference of some 20 years (she was in college, he was in his 40s or 50s). He was giving her a ride, but she had brought a friend along--probably for safety.

And for whatever reason, he was angry with her. Angry because she brought a friend. Angry because this wasn't going according to plan. Angry because she didn't reciprocate his feelings. Angry.

And he threw acorns at her.

In the scene I imagine, there is nothing playful about it. He is looking down, not making eye contact. Scuffing his shoes against the dirt. Casually picking up an acorn. Half-heartedly throwing it. The petulant anger of a 10 year-old in the body of a middle-aged man.

There's another guy that I know. And he's one of the good ones. But I was recently struck anew by the memory of something he once said about my writing. I was struck by how passive-aggressive it was, this single comment. Rage, buried deep.

I laughed it off, initially. "He's just intimidated," I thought.

It's always just some guy. Throwing acorns.

I have no desire to date an acorn-thrower. But if even the good guys are like that--I don't know. It breaks something open inside of me.

I wonder if entitlement is at the heart of misogyny--these unspoken laws:

"You don't respect me": You must respect me
"You don't give a s*** about my intentions": You must give me the benefit of the doubt at all times, and forever.

It's not anger. Because anger doesn't cause abuse. It's not pain. Because there are many, many men (and women) who experience intense, searing, heart-rending pain and yet fail to abuse anyone.

It's not that they rage--it's that they feel justified in their cruelty.

I'm trying to avoid dating abusive guys.

The Church & Mental Health: Interview with a Therapist: Bryan Hall, Part 2

Photo: "Memorial Church" Don McCullough

Yesterday, I began a new series on "The Church & Mental Health." I'm interviewing Christian therapists to talk about the intersection of spirituality and psychology. 

My first interview is with Bryan Hall. Here is Part 2 of the interview. 

Bryan is a therapist who specializes in the entertainment industry. In this section, we talked more about family systems theory, domestic violence,  putting a smiley Jesus face on everything, and why the hot girl in AA is always the last to get sober. This interview has been edited for clarity.

BH: I get parents dropping their kids [teenagers] off, [saying], “Fix my kid. Tell them to stop doing drugs. Tell them to stop being angry." They think I'm just going to get out a bat and beat someone's head in so they stop doing this stuff.

...I know what's going on but I do therapy with the kid. What you find then is that it's not a “this kid” problem, it's a bigger problem.

"We need family therapy," so I bring in the whole family. And then what you find there is, this isn't a family situation, it's a couple's thing.

Because the kid is doing nothing more than acting out the unaddressed psychological issues of the parents. And sometimes these guys are preachers and sometimes they're cops. And sometimes they're like, “I'm not the angry one, you're the angry one.”

I've literally had parents right in front of their kids in the middle of a session call them “a piece of shit,” say, “If he would get his act together, this whole family would be fine. He's 95% of the problem," and sit there looking at me.

And I'm sitting there thinking, are you listening to what you're saying? No wonder the kid—I'd want to get high too, if I had you [as a parent].

And there few things that really—I'm not at all a violent person, but I hear that stuff, and it's like, we're on the 12^th floor right now, I bet I could throw you through this window and see what happens.

But I just have to sit there and be like, “Okay, okay.”

And then what you find is--I'll ask the parents, “Okay, I talked to little Johnny here for a while, and yeah he's doing some things that are not in his best interest. No one's going to argue with that. Never gonna say drugs are okay, anger—I get it. What about you? He told me about how you grew up, and his grandma and grandpa, your parents, and, wow, your dad was a really violent, abusive guy, he was drinking a lot too, huh. So what are you doing to take care of yourself?"

“Oh no no, I don't have time for that. It's all his fault--he needs to stop—I'm not gonna--”

So you get the parents--because by definition there's a power differential between the parents and kids--saying, “No no, we're not looking at our issues, we're looking at the kid's.”

And so you find that when you do couple's therapy, it's not a couple's problem, it's two individual problems. Because what happened was these two people never dealt with the issues of how they grew up.

And the mindset is, “Well, I've got 10 problems. You're hot. Let's get together—you've got 10 problems—and so we'll get together and cancel those problems out.”

Last time I checked, 10 plus 10 equals 20, and not zero.

So now, what really happens is—I've got my problems, you've got your problems, let's get together—oh, well now we're actually really connected, so I kind of have your problems and you sort of have my problems.

So now we're going to have this fire going on and this problem back and forth, but we can't say anything to the church because everybody's gotta put a smiley Jesus face on everything, right? We wouldn't ever want to be honest. Because God knows Jesus was never honest, he just went around lying about things.

And I get this all the time:

“Well, if my husband would do this and get his act together”

“Well if my wife would stop doing this--”

“My girlfriend that--”

So where I spend most of my time is trying to get people to look into the mirror:

"Well dude, hate to tell you this but the only person on earth you can control is yourself. The only person that she can control is herself. So you are 100% in control of your 50%. But no more no less. So you can't control her. You can't force her. At the very most you can scare the crap out of her."

I was magnetic north for domestic violence situations about a year ago. I don't know why, I just got a lot of them at once.

If you're some huge weight lifter dude--or maybe if you're not—you can scare the crap out of your girlfriend or your wife, beat the shit out of her, whatever, okay—she might do what you say in that moment—but in the long run, she's not going to like you, your kids aren't going to like you.

But she's too scared, she's too codependent, maybe there are economic factors, maybe there are kids involved. Maybe there are reasons that she doesn't leave.

In an average DV [domestic violence] case, it takes the abusee—and one out of five times it's the female that's abusing the male—an average of thirteen times leaving and coming back, before they leave for good.

So you would sit there and say, “What is your problem? This guy's beating you up. You had to go to the hospital. Why don't you just leave?”

Which is kind of the equivalent of talking to an alcoholic and saying, “Why don't you just put down the alcohol? Why don't you just stop doing it?" Oh no crap! I had never thought of that before I lost my house, my kids, and everything else.

So there's a lot more to it, but you can see how in that situation, the obvious person is the violent perpetrator. If you're the guy and you're beating up your girlfriend where she has to go to the hospital, that's easily seen.

What's not so easily seen is why does that girl feel so poorly about herself that she would be with this guy? Is she trying to fix him? And what you find is there's a lot of issues from the way [she] grew up.

So, back to your question, if everyone looked at themselves, then all of a sudden, people's level of overall health would change--it would go up. Then you would find much healthier relationships. Because if a person is unhealthy, by definition they cannot have a healthy relationship.

Again, they can be the pastor, they can be the worship leader, they can do all this fancy crap and look really good, and go home and beat the crap out of their kids. And that stuff goes on. Big name preacher, "oh praise Jesus" and all that, and their kids need to go to the hospital.

But, “Oh no, we're not going to tell anyone about this stuff, we're going to keep secrets. We're going to keep feelings buried."

There's an old saying one of my bosses likes, it goes: “Feelings buried alive never die.” And what happens is they come out in other very nasty ways. 

There are people that come in and say, “I want this guy to be like this and I want him to have that and I want him to be like this and have this list--” And that's fine.

I just say, okay, so if this guy came by right now, would you be his dream girl that had this and this and this together? They don't really like to think about that.

But there's an old Al-Anon saying that says, “2s don't attract 10s.” And there's a bunch of 2s walking around going,

“Well, I want this 10 as a girlfriend or a boyfriend.”
“Dude, you're a 2.”

And we're not talking supermodel girl with less attractive guy, we're talking about psychological-level functioning. So, okay, you want a 10, I get it. But right now you're a 2.

Go work on yourself. 'Cause all you're gonna get at this point are 2s. You can't figure out why your last 25 boyfriends have been such jerks? What's the common denominator there? I try not to be that blunt, but at the end of the day, that's the question. Because it comes back to: I gotta look at myself.

And if you're young, if you're hot, if you have money, if you're successful—you don't need to do that. Because there's always going to be somebody else to pick up the slack. There's always some other drug to do. There's always some other credit to get.

So when they say that the hot girls are the last girls in AA to get sober, that's true. Because it's only when they get old enough to where, “Oh, every last guy isn't throwing themselves at me to get me this or do that, well I guess something ought to happen here.”

...to be continued.

You can find Bryan at his website. 

The Church & Mental Health: Interview with a Therapist

Photo: "Memorial Church" Don McCullough

Today begins a new series on "The Church & Mental Health." I'm interviewing Christian therapists to talk about the intersection of spirituality and psychology. 

My first interview is with Bryan Hall. 

Bryan is a therapist who specializes in the entertainment industry. We talked about family systems theory, spiritual hypocrisy, addiction, how to deal with your issues, religious abuse, what the good little Christian mom has in common with the drug addict, and much, much more, which is why I'm breaking this interview into several parts. This interview has been edited for clarity.

We jumped right in talking about how the church often ignores psychology.

BH: Here's how I usually explain it: It seems to me that if we examine what the Bible says about a person that they have three components: there's the physical, we have a physical body; we have a spiritual component, but we also have a psyche—psyche is the Greek word where we get “soul.”

In church, most people (unless you're kind of fringe) [will say],

“Oh, you broke your leg, go see a doctor."
“Oh you've got a cough, go get some antibiotics”

Most people aren't going to have a problem with [the physical component].

And of course, in church, they're going to talk about Jesus and how he'll save you […] we've got the whole unseen spiritual realm. But they seem to neglect the whole psychological component. They seem to neglect a person's experiences, emotions, will, what happened to them, traumatic events.

And that's a problem because if you think of these three components as three spokes in a wheel and one or more of those components are broken or damaged--how well is that wheel gonna work?

Q: Can you talk about the difference between the spiritual and the psyche because I feel like those two things are often conflated.

BH: Well, what you find is that all this stuff is very intertwined. And you can find psychosomatic instances which are physical manifestations of psychological trauma that hasn't been addressed. You can see how if a person's serotonin levels or dopamine levels are altered, not present, damaged by drug use, it's going to affect their psychological condition.

You also see—less easily of course—but there can be demonic influences, spiritual connections between that and a person's physical body or their psychological state. So, the spiritual side involves what is God saying to you, what is his plan...

The psychological part is things like: A person has the desire to use drugs.

Well, but the reason that people do drugs is because it numbs out their feelings. It numbs the feelings that are usually unknown to them in the first place, but that manifest themselves very predominantly in a multitude of ways prior to the actual drug use.

So, somebody comes along and has these feelings, and somebody says, "Smoke this, shoot that." Well, they feel better for a brief time. I work with a lot of addicts. And what I've said for years is, “The drugs are not the problem”

I work with drug addicts straight out of prison--teardrop tattoos and the whole bit--and the drugs are not the problem. The drugs are like gasoline on a fire: They make everything worse, but they're not the actual core problem. Because the core problem is the feelings that the person is trying to avoid feeling.

Q. What would be the Christian equivalent? I'm sure a lot of Christians are tempted to do drugs or do drugs, but I feel like it's more than that...

BH: But that's an important point because a lot of people think, “Oh, I don't do any illegal drugs, I'm not some alcoholic on skid row, I'm not a homeless person. Therefore, I don't have any problems.

The thing is, people can be addicted to shopping. People can be addicted to the gym. People can be addicted to TV. You've gotta define addiction as anything that's done to avoid the real pain and issues.

And if you don't look at it from that perspective, you've missed everything.

Because there are plenty of people in AA meetings for 30 years that haven't had a drink that are still a complete mess.

Q: I mean, could someone be addicted to church?

BH: Oh sure, people can be addicted to 12 step meetings. And it comes back to what are you doing to avoid bigger issues? And it makes it much easier to see the gang banger with the tattoos and the needle in his arm that got busted by the cops, then it is the good little Christian mom that never says “No,” and does Bible study Tuesday, and picks the kids up Wednesday, and does the church cooking Thursday.

Because she's not doing anything illegal, but she's avoiding her real deal by doing Christian-type works.

Q: So what would you say about avoiding the real issue—which is really easy to do—How do you not do that? It's easy to say “Face your issues” but what does that mean, what does that look like?

BH: Well, there's a multitude of ways to address it because it's a multifaceted problem. If it was just, “I'm gonna wave this magic wand, or I'm going to give you this pill, or tell you to go read your Bible five times and then everything will be fine,” then great.

Q: Well, I think that's the thing--being a Christian and going to church, you expect that the emotional health and mental health thing will take care of itself: “I'm going to church, I'm listening to sermons, I'm going to Bible study, so I'm going to be an emotionally healthy person.”

BH: It's not accurate, but I understand what you're saying. And what you find is that there's a few potential things underneath that as well.

This is the oldest one and the most hideous one: simple control. And we can look back at the middle ages or we can look at the church in the Palisades right now, where the person on top does not want to deal with their own issues, but you know what, they're on top. They're the pastor, and nobody can mess with them.

So they can continue to rage and have anger issues, they can continue to be very unhealthy in a multitude of ways, but these ways will not necessarily get them in jail.

They can look down on people, they can be narcissistic, they can have people cover up their drug use, they can do things, some more overt and some more covert in nature...

So that's one reason that that happens, because what's the best way to make sure nobody's looking at me and my issues which I can't deal with? It's to look at you and yours. So I'm going to sit here and scream:

“You better not look at porn!” But you better not look at my browser.

“You better treat your wife right!” You better not find out what I did to mine last night.

Q. Are you relating this to pastors?

BH: Oh yeah, pastors do this. It's so funny where you can go to church and most people will say the spiritual component is necessary and like I said, if you have a physical ailment, go see your doctor, but if you bring up the whole psychological thing, it's like, “Pray more you sinner!”

Well, the converse to that is if you go to most 12 step meetings [you can talk about the physical and the psychological] But then you bring up Jesus and it's like, “Aw, man, we don't do that here.” But they'll stand up there and say every kind of, “The universe told me this. and the rocks told me that, and the sun told me this.”

Well, how many people are that way because they actually met God and said, “No, no, I'm not going to have it.” Or are they that way because they were religiously abused in some way? It's usually the latter.

They grew up going--let's face it, what are the two requirements to be a Christian, which really means get into heaven. Number one, don't screw your girlfriend, number two, don't drink. If you do, God really hates you, but he might let you into heaven if he's having a really good day and he doesn't see you and you sneak in the back door. But everything else is not okay.

So we can sit here and rage, “You got to do this, or you haven't gone to church six times this week,” but we'll forget about the pride and arrogance. We'll forget about the fact that, “You can't do drugs,” but let's go to Bible study and have twelve plates of brownies. Food's an addiction, easily. And it's a very prevalent one.

So these are the okayed versions of “We're gonna not deal with our issues, but let it out in this way.

Q. Sort of the double standard.

BH: Yeah.

Go to Part 2

You can find Bryan at his website.

The INTP & Giving Zero Fucks, Part 1

Okay--any other INTPs out there:

Have you ever been accused of not caring about something that someone else thinks you should care about? Like their feelings. (j/k)

No?

Maybe it's just me.

There's been a recent spate of articles and memes about the giving of f***s, such as The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*** and 12 Historical Women Who Gave No F***s--

Spoiler alert: how many f***s did Sojourner Truth give? Zero. She gave zero f***s--

My Hero.

These have inspired me. Mostly, they've made me laugh. Maybe because otherwise, I would be crying.

Because yes, I too have been told I give zero f***s. Here are some things that have been said to me:

"You don't give a s*** about anything that doesn't have to do with you."

I can't help interpreting this is as, "You don't give a **** about ingratiating yourself with me." Which would be true.

"You only do exactly what you want to do."
.
..And your point is?

"You obviously don't care about the material."

Really? Is that why I'm taking on thousands of dollars in debt for a degree in English literature?

"You don't care about my opinion."

I did something other than what you suggested. Last I checked, it was an opinion, not a mandate.

"You decided pretty early on that you didn't want to do this thing, so you learned how to do this other thing instead."

I'm choosing to see this as a compliment.

"You don't give a s*** about my intentions."

You're right. "I didn't mean it" ceases to be a good excuse when you repeatedly hurt someone. If I have to choose between me and your good intentions, I choose me. 

Believe it or not, this blog post is not meant to be a defensive "F--- you" to anyone who has ever criticized me.

What I mean to accomplish, and whether I accomplish this or not remains to be seen, is a thoughtful exploration of how INTPs can fail to meet the expectations of others to, essentially, give a f*** or have the appearance of giving a f***.

Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself, but I have trouble giving a f*** about anything I do not give a f*** about, or worse, pretending to. I'm not a people-pleaser. I occasionally offend other people. I'm direct. Sometimes, I'm too direct.

One of the top posts on my blog is INTP = A--hole? Seriously. People wonder this all the time. I wonder about this all the time.

I think it's partially one of the consequences of having a non-gender-conforming personality--as an INTP and a woman (or if you prefer, as me), I run into the disconnect between how a woman should be or act and how I choose to be or act.

I have a certain amount of anxiety about not being a "nice" person, whatever that means.

I have this idea that arguing something passionately is not nice. Failing to put the feelings of other people first in a collaborative setting is not nice. Being myself is not nice.

It's not all angst over here, though. Sometimes I find myself laughing because, well, giving zero f***s is fun. And I like myself for it. I tell myself, "You're an a--hole!" and then I chuckle (I'm also a weirdo, apparently).

So let's talk about the downside of giving zero f***s, specifically about the accusation, "You don't care."

"You don't care," is at core emotionally manipulative--it is not an actual statement, but rather a plea for recognition or a stab at reaction.

"You don't care," is also emotionally coercive: "You should care. Shame on you for not caring. If you were a good person, a good Christian, a good girlfriend, a good employee, you would give a f*** about what I want you to give a f*** about."

And so this phrase can launch you into a flurry of wounded justification and protestation: "I do care. I DO CARE about literary theory, dammit! What do I have to do to prove it to you?" It puts the onus on you to prove that you give a f***.

When you react the way they want you to react, all the power is squarely in their court.

There's a button labelled PUSH ME TO GET A REACTION. And that other person pushes it.

"You don't care," is a diversion. Suddenly, all the focus is on you as you desperately try to defend yourself, to "prove" that you are a good, caring person, not the terrible daughter, sister, wife, friend they must think you are.

My dad used to regularly accuse me of being "selfish" and "ungrateful" when I didn't do what he wanted to me to do--and it would always send me into emotional tumult--

Because the shame was already there. All he had to do was pick at it.

Now I can see that this was not only a form of manipulation and coercion (to get me to do what he wanted) but also a diversionary tactic. If you yell and wave your arms about enough, you'll eventually get the cathartic emotional response you want--from the other person--she will cry or protest or engage with your harsh accusations. And you will feel better. Even better, you will be safe from accusation yourself.

In the cruel way that these things tend to work themselves out, I've grown up to be an extremely reserved and non-reactive person.

And that brings me to another thing that people have said to me:

"You don't react."

And it is precisely this lack of surface reaction that I feel has intrigued and infuriated the people around me and made me a target for control and abuse.

The non-reaction I built up in response to my father's anger triggers other men (they always seem to be men) who desperately, and for their own reasons, want to get a reaction from me.

So, there's the downside of giving zero f***s. At least for me.

That being said, as I mentioned earlier, I do genuinely like some of these things about myself.

I like not caring what other people think. I enjoy not conforming to gender stereotypes. I like saying exactly what I want to say. I like the freedom to be myself and pursue my own interests. I like how singleminded and focused I can be when I truly care about something.

I even appreciate some of my emotional restraint, because I feel like it gives me the upper hand in certain situations, and also because it makes space for other people and their emotions.

In conclusion, giving zero f***s is awesome. Emotional manipulation, on the other hand--that really sucks.

Coming up next in Part 2: How to get an INTP you know to give more f***s.

See also, Part 3: How to give more f***s as an INTP.

Women, Men & Mixed Messages

Photo by John Wiley 

So, I came across this quote on a guy's online dating profile. Although there was no attribution, I instantly knew where it came from: the infamous "Sexodus" article that inspired this response.

This same gentleman states in his profile: "I believe in gender equality, feminists need not apply"--which is hilarious in its own right. 

But I am not here to make fun of some random guy on the internet (okay, maybe just a little bit). I am here to dissect this passage of text, because I was an English major and that's what you do.

Besides, I'm fascinated by what provoked a guy to quote it at length on his online dating profile.

Surely, there must be something here--something compelling that resembles an actual thought. Because at first glance, I'm feeling a bit dubious. 

Here's the quote, presented completely out of context because that is how I found it: 

"Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things."

"Women" - Who are these women? Do women represent some monolithic entity that speaks and acts as one, has a unified message and point of view, perhaps holds secret, underground meetings about the mixed messages they plan on sending men to keep them confused and under gynocentric control? [If you are part of this underground society, please email me. I bet you guys have awesome snacks.]

"Men" - Also presumably a monolithic entity representing all male humans.

"Mixed messages" - I'm so intrigued. What are these mixed messages and how can I start sending them. Seriously feeling out of the loop here. Was it that time I contradicted myself and said I like Coke better than Pepsi? Sorry about that.

"The last few decades" - I feel like the timeline here is a bit vague: So...starting in roughly the year 1985, women started sending men mixed messages:

Man: What do you want to eat?
Woman: Italian. No, Chinese. No, Korean BBQ. No...I take that back, Italian.
Man: God, Woman, make up your mind!!!

I could see how this would be frustrating, but unless there is a memo out there from "All Women" to "All Men," I'm not sure how the author can prove this multi-decade mixed-message sending conspiracy. I've been alive for at least some of this time period, I think, so I'm also wondering at what point I began sending mixed messages to men. I doubt it was when I was born, though I suppose my birth could have been sending out some kind of message.

Just trying to assess my role in the damage here--especially since, as a feminist, this is probably all my fault.

[Side note: If a guy texts me "Sup" and I answer "Not much" is that considered a mixed message? Asking for a friend.]

"...leaving boys utterly confused..." - Wait a minute--I thought we were talking about men here, but now we've somehow reverted to boys--who I am sure spend at least 80% of their waking hours thinking about those insidious mixed messages women seem to be sending them. You're right, this does seem wrong.

"...about what they are supposed to represent to women" - Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but I spend exactly zero seconds of my time thinking about what I am supposed to represent to men. In fact, I spend the same amount of time thinking about what I am supposed to represent to anyone.

Huh. I'm starting to see why women have all the power. If boys/men are spending that much time contemplating what they are supposed to represent to women (A partner? A sperm bank? A guy on the street? A father? A brother?), then maybe men are ultimately subservient to women.

"Strong language" - I think you mean misogynistic language.

Those mixed messages I've been sending make it totally okay for boys/men to call me a "castrating bitch." I get you. Is it the fact that I made more money than you last year? Please don't hate me.

"Role of breadwinner" - Men don't automatically inherit this role because they are men. Yeah, I guess that could be confusing.

"...taken away from them" - Wow, those feminist assholes. How dare they earn more than men do. I think women should earn less by default, then maybe those poor boys will stop being so confused by the mixed messages.

"...by women who earn more and do better in school" - Since these are the only two metrics of comparison that matter, I can see why men would be upset. Someone is better than you at something, and that someone is a woman. Unacceptable!

"Men..." - Oh. We're back to men now. What happened to the boys?

"...are left to intuit what to do" - Intuition is hard. I guess before this shift in power relations the men's monolith simply issued a manual on how to be a man, and things like shifting gender dynamics and evil mixed messages were a thing of the future. Times really have changed.

"...trying to find a virtuous mean..." - Shoutout to Aristotle! I like it.

"...between what women say they want..." - There I go again--missing the semiannual gathering of all women during which we discuss what we want and then tweet about it to the male masses.

"...and what they actually pursue..." - I'm a little bit lost here as to how all women pursue the exact same things. I mean, I could be wrong here, but it seems like not every woman has the exact same goal in every situation. I mean, have you talked to any women lately? No? That's what I thought.

"...which can be very different things." - Women! They're contradictory! Unlike men who always say and do the exact same thing. None of those confusing mixed messages.

Damn. That was disappointing. I thought I would learn something about how people I disagree with think thoughts, but instead I feel like I was hit over the head with a frying pan. There's less than a thought here. There are -18 thoughts.

And yet someone, somewhere is nodding their head vigorously in agreement about women and their mixed messages.

So here's an anti-mixed-message:

That quote was stupid as ****.

If the above message was too mixed for you, please contact me and I will endeavor to make it less mixed, perhaps by doing some skywriting.

Have a good one.

Going to Therapy Changed My Life

Not my notes, but a pretty cool idea. Photo by Sacha Chua 

I first sought help for my brain because my body was killing me.

I had been experiencing severe pain and discomfort that seemed to have no tangible physical explanation. A few WebMD searches later, and I was either headed to an early grave or doomed to spend the rest of my life with a debilitating, painful disease.

The fear was overwhelming.

I signed up for therapy, online (Thank you, technology).

I had been thinking about going for years, but it was pain and fear that pushed me over the edge.

Going to therapy changed my life, and all I could think was, "Why didn't I do this sooner?"

Therapy is not a panacea: a cure for every kind of physical, emotional, spiritual or mental pain. But it has been a powerful, healing force.

So in case you've been thinking about going, or you went once and never went back, or you used to go, but stopped--

My intent is to address some of the barriers that kept me from taking the first step. Maybe you can relate.

I didn't go to therapy because...

1. No one in my family ever went to therapy, talked about going, or mentioned it as an option.

There are certain kinds of pain that are not okay to talk about. It could be physical pain--to be transparent, part of what propelled me into therapy was the way in which my family both did and did not respond to my physical (and by extension, emotional) pain.

It might be helpful to ask:

What kinds of pain are okay? Not okay?
How am I allowed to talk about pain?
What does empathy look like in my family?
Is there a distrust around being vulnerable? Is there an escape from it, such as humor, sarcasm, distraction, ridicule, ignoring, anger, silence?
How does my family treat vulnerability in general?

2. I had never experienced a major, identifiable trauma that would justify going.

There's a social stigma to seeking therapy: that something deep and terrible must be wrong with you. Well, I definitely felt like there was something wrong with me, but I had nothing to point to, to say, "This! This is why I feel broken."

There's a false sense of shame that tends to go with trauma, even vague, unidentifiable trauma. There's a false sense of shame around needing help. But shame doesn't mean there is something wrong with you--and neither does going to therapy.

If your buddy sprained his ankle, would you ridicule him for going to the doctor instead of playing full court basketball?

"C'mon! What's wrong with you! Why can't you keep up?"

Just like you wouldn't feel shame over going to the hospital for an infected wound or broken bone, seeking therapy merely means that you are human, and that it's possible that things could get better, could be better.

3. I had a traumatic experience with pastoral counseling.

Just as there is a social stigma to therapy, there can also be a spiritual stigma--the belief that God, the church, your pastor, small group, the Bible, and ten hours of prayer per day should be able to cure all that ails you emotionally and psychologically.

There's the belief that simply grasping the truth of "God loves you" and maybe a few cathartic crying sessions at the altar will bring healing to even the deepest, most ingrained sense of shame.

I really wish that were true.

I'm not completely discounting pastoral counseling or any of the spiritual practices listed above. But I have also experienced firsthand how damaging it can be to receive non-professional counseling that both goes too far and doesn't go far enough.

I believe the intent of my pastor was not to harm me, but to help me. However, emotionally it was akin to performing surgery without proper training, exposing a deep wound to the air and the elements, and then expecting my heart to heal itself.

It didn't.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking professional help outside of the church. There is nothing wrong with going to a non-Christian therapist, even if you are a Christian.

There is nothing wrong with being hurt because someone dug around in your emotional guts with a penknife and had absolutely no clue what they were doing.

I wish at the time that instead of shutting down because I was "broken" (and if not even God or my pastor or my spiritual community could help me, who could?), that I had sought out a professional therapist.

4. I thought I couldn't afford to pay for therapy.

This was a huge barrier for me.

Therapy is expensive. I had no health insurance. However, I was also unaware that there are many low-cost and affordable options for seeing a therapist.

I eventually found a non-profit organization in Los Angeles that provides sliding scale membership and counseling services. If it weren't for the availability of low-cost counseling, I don't think I would have ever gone.

Again, therapy is not a panacea. Not all therapists are created equal. It really helps to find the right fit.

If you are thinking about going to therapy, I hope that you take the leap. The barriers are real, but you are definitely, definitely worth it.



[If you would like information on low cost therapy options in the Los Angeles area, please contact me.]

Pain, Part 3: Dealing with Trauma

I'm driven to understand things. To dig deep and find answers (Blame it on the INTP. I certainly do).

I mostly do the opposite of shrugging my shoulders and going, "That's just the way it is."

Even when it comes to pain. Especially when it comes to pain.

Unfortunately for me, you can't analyze your way to healing. Not that I don't try.

Why is this not comforting

Pain doesn't have words. Pain just is.

After going through a traumatic experience (or sequence of traumatic experiences) last year, I've been struggling with how to deal with trauma. This leads to quite a few questions:

How do you heal from emotional trauma?
What do you do if the pain doesn't seem to get better or go away?
How do I deal with the layers of betrayal--not only by the person who originally hurt me, but by the surrounding social contexts that enabled the original betrayal or responded with indifference?
How important is it to understand the motivation and psychology behind the person who hurt me?
How do I process and integrate the positive experiences that I had with this person without simply experiencing more pain?
How do I balance processing trauma in the way it deserves while also moving on with my life and seeking out new relationships?
How do I protect myself from situations or people who are abusive while also not shutting down all possibility of intimacy or vulnerability?
How do I deal with people or situations that trigger irrational and intense fear because they remind me of the abuse?

And on it goes.

And while I think there is nothing wrong with asking a ton of questions (I live for questions. Occasionally I die for them to), I feel like this mountain of questioning also betrays something of a perfectionistic streak--

I find myself operating in a strange place of perfectionism--that inescapable drive to be perfect--even perfect at dealing with trauma.

I hover consistently between "Don't be a victim" and "Why do I still feel like this?" I struggle with thinking that perhaps I seek to memorialize my pain rather than to let it go. But I suppose it's a bit like trying to rip out a jagged edged weapon embedded deep in your flesh--you can't pull it out without also taking some blood and guts with you.

I struggle with thinking that there is a right and a wrong way to deal with trauma, and maybe I'm doing it wrong. I'm failing.

Then of course, there's the occasional odd flash of pride: "I'm dealing with it. I'm neither numbing out, nor engaging in self-destructive habits!" Yay me!

But I also struggle with either leaning into the pain, "living in the present" as they call it, or doing everything I can to distract myself.

And when I'm not perfect at dealing with trauma, shame is ready to pounce.

That's the weird thing about shame--that it tends to spiral outward in layers--

Layer upon layer upon layer upon layer upon layer:

The shame of the trauma itself.
The shame of being responsible for the trauma (abuse) or somehow responsible for not preventing it from happening. ("If only I had...", "I could have...", "Why didn't I...")
The shame of not doing trauma right. (What's wrong with me? I should be over this by now?)
The shame of perfectionism. (It's stupid to think that I can "perform" and be good enough at something like dealing with trauma.)
The shame of self-pity. (I must be feeling sorry for myself right now, because it still hurts.)
The shame of wanting support. (Why doesn't anyone care? I shouldn't expect them to. This is mine to deal with.)
The shame of wanting revenge. (I shouldn't want someone else to suffer like I did.)
The shame of not forgiving. (If I really forgave this person, I wouldn't still feel this way. It's wrong to not forgive.)

And on it goes.

At it's core, is it not some basic shame about being alive?

I've written so much about how pain is a sign that something is wrong. What if pain is also a sign that something is right--a sign of pulsing, breathing, sensing, feeling, painful, vulnerable, life?

I feel pain because I am alive. And I am healing. And I will heal. And I am more than the shame.