This is how I read it, too. If I could go back in time and re-do events where my conditioning kicked in, much to the detriment of those I love, I would do it in a heartbeat. I'm glad nothing happened to the OP, but I absolutely understand the frustration at watching conditioned behavior kick in, even when it's not appropriate to the situation. Granted, this conditioning to be polite can be very helpful, too. I've also regretted letting my impulses lead a situation where politeness would have been much better. I imagine most of us can think of such a time in our past. Being a hostage to the brain's impulses can be so hard to process. It's not like in the moment of conflict we necessarily have a choice. We respond according to a gazillion minute calculations made in our brain, and before we are aware of what we do, we're watching ourselves do it. We then justify it later. The OP can't justify this one, and I can certainly relate. I don't think she ought to blame herself, and I hope she doesn't, but I know it can screw with your mind for a while. @ OP, may the shower gods bless you with many imaginary scenarios in which you kick ass in that moment, in as many ways as you deem kicking ass to be.

I imagine in the back of my mind a giant circle of people pointing to the person on their left as being "fake," all the while having no clue the person on their right is pointing at them. Such is judgement. I do think it's a shame that had any other demographic been used, say a religion or race or cultural behaviors to identify "them," people would have been a lot less insistent on excusing the stereotype. We gray-haired, mascara totin' mammas must be a pretty kindly bunch to not get our organic cotton fair-trade panties in a bunch when used again and again as the example of fake people, the betrayer of friendship, the liar liar pants on fire woman who should be held at arm's length (unless she's got fresh brownies with some kind bud and a chill Reisling on the side).

It is not the responsibility of any man, woman, or child to offer up their body to function as free human physical contact for those who demand or even need it. The answer to loneliness in an increasingly populated city is not to let strangers touch you against your will. I think our society has become emboldened to say "no" when someone feels threatened, and that's a good thing. I think our society has become emboldened to teach our children to recognize and expect respect as well as dole it out. I think our society has become healthy in that we are allowed to process and demand and end to negative experiences rather than be expected to tuck them away and never "burden" others, even the aggressor, with thoughts that might bum them out. People also need to learn that everyone has different experiences and emotional and physical reactions to the same stimuli. What works for you may not, and indeed does not have to work for someone else. I've never been raped, molested, or sexually or physically abused in any way and I recognize that my reactions may not be similar to the OP's or anyone else's. Nor should my reaction be the standard around which everyone should agree is "normal" or "healthy." OP's body. OP's choice about how it is used, and with whom.

That might be because some of us gray haired social pariahs are so fake, you've probably mistaken us for lampposts. ;-)

Um... did our twins get separated at birth? You're describing one of my kids to a tee. I wish I knew the answer to your question. My little anxious bunny is off at college now and I do have a hard time thinking of things I did "right." One was a strong sense of self. I think they got that from homeschooling because we could slow down, or stop even, and progress at a pace that worked for them. We did that with everything, not just schoolwork. Also, at home, there's no "wrong" or "right" way to do things, only more or less effective and kind. If something's not effective, it's not "wrong," it's just, not working. If doing something is unkind, you're gonna find out about it. But then you get the chance to fix it (because it's not working, is it?). So I do think that using different vocabulary gave my kids a different narrative to work with, one that hopefully doesn't encourage anxiety as much. Another is being used to therapy. They didn't start therapy until they were in college, but they realized they needed it and it was as natural as finding a dentist.

Then I'm even more confused, lol! It seems people have different ideas about what this "fakeness" looks like, but I thought as I fit this stereotype somewhat, I'd offer my own person explanation. And maybe in the spirit of peace between two different cultures, I can help you understand mine and remove some of the mystery. It's long, so if you don't want to read it I'll totally understand. ^_^ I used to color my hair for reasons that are probably familiar to a lot of women. Recently I stopped doing it. My hair is long. I don't think I could get away with short hair, and I'm not responsible enough to get to the hairdressers as often as necessary to keep a shorter hairstyle looking nice (that's also one of the reasons I stopped coloring). I still wear cosmetics, but not much - a little CC cream to hide the red splotches, a little cream blush to give me color, a little mascara to avoid looking like I have beady little rodent eyes. I have very dark, hooded eyes against very fair skin. As I get older, the fair skin seems more washed out, but the dark color of my eyes don't fade. Eye shadow can't be seen well because of my lids, but sometimes I'll apply some. I wear longer flowing clothes because, despite the many years since I've had babies, I still have quite a bit of tummy. Longer clothes hide the tummy better, and flowing clothes don't accentuation the muffin top. These for me are practical. They're also much more comfortable, as I don't have to constantly adjust my clothing to make sure blobs of flesh pop out here and there. I don't care for Birkenstock shoes. I find them too hard, like walking on hard wood floors. I like other shoes similar to these in style though because I can't wear high heels. As much as I'd love to (I think they look so elegant), my feet are too wide and any shoe that fits would be so long that my foot pops out in the back and then I step out of my shoe, and plant my face firmly on the floor, or if I'm lucky, into the wall next to me, or perhaps the person I'm shopping with. God forbid the shoe rack. I don't care for tennis shoes, but only because that look reminds me of my mother and makes me feel older than I care to feel. It's a personal thing, although I have to admit they are awfully comfortable. I have a pair of retro looking Doc Martin flats that I love, but they gave me a terrible blister last time I got lost and had to walk for some time. I started wearing my runners because of this, ego be damned. I think with my fair skin and dark features, silver jewelry looks better on me. Gold feels, I don't know, not my style. Like I'm trying to put on airs. I think this is because I really don't do anything that requires dressing up and gold feels like "dressing up" jewelry. I don't get this impression with others. I think it's a lovely metal and I think it looks fantastic on many women. I'm just not comfortable in it. Most of my earrings look like they're from Tibet, as indeed I buy them from stores like that. A throwback to the 90's maybe? I don't usually wear jewelry, though. I'm a feminist in the spirit of supporting equality between genders. I'm an environmentalist in the spirit of doing what I can to act responsibly with the knowledge we do have about our impact on the environment. I am liberal in the spirit of encouraging curiosity, supporting innovation, questioning the status-quo against new information, whether or not it supports beloved beliefs. I'm not vegan, but I do have the utmost respect for those who apply this ethical belief in a practical, functional way. I do buy organic foods when I can, and my eggs and meat I purchase are free-range and certified humanely treated animals, to the best of my ability. I do this because I recognize what farmers spray on their fields eventually gets into the groundwater. No action is isolated against consequences. The humane treatment for animals is for ethical reasons because I recognize animals do in fact have very real, genuine emotions, like pleasure and fear, and there's no reason to ignore that for profit. I value empathy. I live in a region where this is very easy to do. I don't use crystals. I don't think they have any properties, energy, magic, spiritual, or what have you. But then, I don't use prayer either, for the same reason. I feel like, from my perspective, when a woman thinks she's channeling her energy into a crystal for the sake of another person, you call that "fake" because in reality that doesn't work but she acts like it, even if she has to pretend (even to herself). But if a woman thinks she's channeling her energy into a prayer for the sake of another person, that's not fake, despite prayer being no more effective than crystals. So that's a double standard there that isn't fair, and it isn't nice. On another post, one Christian said she doesn't want to call herself a Christian anymore because Christians keep doing things that are un-Christ-like, but I wonder, how would you feel if I started a thread about Christians being "fake" people? I don't know if you're a Christian, but probably you know a few, and if you're friends with Christians you'll know they're not "fake" just because they're Christians. If I were to say Christians aren't fake, but then try to identify fake people by listing attributes common to Christians, you might see right through it. In short, I think we all are doing what we can to make things work out for us and for our loved ones in a life that doesn't necessarily go according to plan. Sometimes what we do doesn't work even though we've quite convinced ourselves it has, whether that applies to crystals or prayer. I don't think that makes any of us fake. Sometimes our actions have negative effects on others, but we don't see it. Sometimes not right away, sometimes not ever. I don't think that's limited to socially progressive people, I think that's just being human. Sometimes we just don't find other people compatible socially. This isn't because they're fake or bad, but because we just don't have enough similarities or common references. I hope this helps shed some light on those of us who may look fake to you, but are really doing what we do because we genuinely feel it's right. Like all of us do.

I agree with ^^^. Tu Quoque: Otherwise known as the "you too" fallacy, it refers to the idea that the claim made is rejected not based on the merits of the claim (or lack thereof), but because the person making the claim is supposedly guilty of not adhering to the ideal. It falls under ad hominem category of fallacies (the claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrlelvant fact about the person making the claim or argument). So in your examples, Team A's foul shouldn't count, eating the cookie isn't unjustified, and these lies should be ignored.

What does that mean to live a life that is incongruent with who you are? The moment I do a thing, is that not congruent with who I am? By definition, when I do something, it is what *I* do. It is a *part* of who I am. It is a part of no one else, and no one else defines me. Even if I may define myself in relation to another person, their actions aren't who *I* am. By the same token, how do I do something and be someone I am not? Who else would I be? Whoever *that* is, doesn't that become *me* since *I* do the thing? So, I don't know what this means, but it's given us a fun topic of conversation in this house. As far as people hiding who they actually are, I wonder if maybe that's just politeness. I've been feeling, let's say, pretty blue lately. I spent a few hours with someone I love, which was a lovely diversion from my own funk. I didn't go into my depression. You might say I "hid" it from them. But was that because I was being "fake" or because I was being polite and didn't wish to make them uncomfortable, putting them on the spot to say something uplifting or cheerful, or God forbid, hopeful. I get Christmas cards from people who share only the pleasantness of the year, even when I know they may be suffering from painful marriages, or hurt parent-child relationships. Is that being "fake," or is it simply not "airing dirty laundry"? You talk about insecurity, and the imagery you use as examples is very solidly left-leaning socially. Do you mean to imply socially conservative people are more secure in their self-identity or esteem than liberally minded people? Or that religious people are more in tune with who they "really are" than those with progressive religious beliefs? You say this is common in the South. Could it be that people like you explain are simply designated "other" because they don't conform to certain social standards and are relatively small in population, and that this "otherness" is then assigned a negative value (because tribalism is how we roll)?

You agreed to a comment that literally negatively judges women based on certain appearances. This is the most bananas conversation I've read in a long time. Women who don't behave according to expectation are "fake"? Does this include men? When you (in general), don't live up to someone else's expectation, does that mean you're being "fake"? Women who don't color their hair but wear cosmetics are "fake"? Environmentalists are "fake"? Does this include men? Wearing Birks expose you as "fake? Does this include men? Feminism is "fake"? Does this include men? What makes a person "real"? Edited to add, I'm not angry or trying to accuse anyone of anything. I hope I don't come across that way. I'm just really confused and trying to figure out what makes a person "real," and how something like shoes gives it away. It's like trying to figure out what Deepok Chopra is saying. It seems to "fit" until you try to actually understand it.

Well I know what I'm fixing tomorrow! Thanks, Slache!

I'm glad you connected today. It must be nice for her to know not everyone believes the stories. :)

When you said personal grudge, I thought, "Sam the butcher must have really pissed him off and he wasn't having any more of that, so he followed him to the Mosque where he was praying with his community." That seemed so unlikely given the context we did know at the time, that I was having trouble understanding what you meant. So thanks for explaining.

Do you really think this might have been a personal grudge? Like, a grudge against a member there, and he went to shoot him in the middle of prayer service, and then just kept going? I came back to add, I just reread this and I'm afraid it might sound sarcastic, like I'm baiting you into saying he argued with a guy outside, slipped on the ice, fell inside the door, and just happened to shoot dozens of praying Muslims. But honest, that's not what I mean! I'm just curious because a grudge scenario literally never would have entered my mind. I can't *not* see it as an act of aggression against the most feared group in North America, and especially this week. So the idea of something entirely unrelated confused me. edited to add second paragraph

I think another point that might be a better focus is that a lot of blanket fear of Muslims is created unnecessarily, built on lies and fear of outsiders, and when people value belief over facts there are some horrifying real-world applications. I hope everyone makes the effort to check their beliefs against reality with a little more care. Beliefs can be replaced, even with better ones. Fathers cannot.

I've never come across the sentiment that a Muslim woman should be supported in wearing head covering, but Christian women should be shamed from the same thing. Does anyone have some reference? A blog or article or forum where people support this? It would be interesting to hear it first account.

The point of view of the person making the statement. edited to add - and context, I think.

No, and I can't imagine how it would work.

Because you're not saying what that help looks like, despite my asking. You say you'd help your sister, but what would a person who doesn't have family expect? Would a church ignore the WM articles that advise couples to study the bible better? Would a church encourage an abused wife to go to the police? Does the church expect two witnesses for such an accusation to be accepted? These are the questions I'm asking. Do you even know women who have come forward in your church to ask for help with abuse in the home? Do you know what they experienced?

Get that kids some veterinary gloves (the kind that go up to your elbow or more), and he could start a business for all the local mothers of toddlers!

Same reason the Watchtower magazine or any church advice is online - it's meant to help any who seek the truth. I can't find any reference to such a thing as you say, only references to the opposite. You're being so vague that I'm looking for answers to my questions elsewhere.

LOL, if the price is right...

I'm having trouble finding any such resources online. Can you share one?

dirty / clean jk, but it feels like that. I do separate out delicates and towels/sheets. Everything else gets washed together.

I didn't suggest elders control people. You said an abused wife would have assistance from her spiritual family. I'm asking what that assistance might look like. You say no one will tell her to stay, but when I was curious poked around on google I found a Watchtower magazine article about abuse that implies staying should be advised."Jehovah’s Witnesses, the publishers of this magazine, believe that the Bible’s practical advice can help violent spouses change their behavior." You said an abused wife would have assistance from her spiritual family. Do JW churches offer resources and aide to women to get on their feet and be able to live independently from abusive husbands? Do they offer resources to help them keep children safe by helping them with various practical things needed for a newly single mothers? Do they offer any other practical assistance so she isn't functionally trapped? I'm trying to understand what this assistance might look like because you say a woman isn't trapped in an abusive relationship, but you say it almost like saying a woman isn't trapped in staying on a ship in the middle of an ocean, either. She can jump anytime. The widespread child sexual abuse is true, and has been recorded in courts across the globe, regardless of how you might personally address such an issue.

What wold this assistance look like? Let's say I'm a JW woman and tell the elders of my community that my husband hits me and hurts me when he's angry sometimes. Would I be required to produce two witnesses if my husband denies this accusation? Could I face consequences for falsely accusing him if there were no witnesses? If abuse was established, would I be encouraged to pursue secular (police) assistance? If I said he abused me through psychological tactics like gaslighting and praying on the anxieties he creates, but he didn't ever hurt me physically, would that be considered by the elders as abuse? I'm wondering because the various news agencies have lately exposed JW's approach to widespread child sexual abuse to be that of systematically assisting the abusers, similarly to how the Catholic church was found to operate in Boston and many other cities. I wonder how women fair differently in your church.