Fake-authentic women? Do you know what I'm talking about? Have you met them? Are you one?

[ktgrok]

And another thought--is it possible to be ALL THAT, *and* totally authentic? Or is there something to this combination that is by definition "fake"?

 

 

I know people like that that are very authentic. And I've met the fake ones. The fake ones are all preaching Zen while being totally caught up in all sorts of drama and in fact seek out drama. 

 

Oh, and are hugely judgmental. 

 

I have lots of very hippie leaning friends who love me even when I drink diet coke and eat french fries. They get along with everyone while staying true to their own beliefs. And then there are the people that OP was talking about...who are judging you, often to your face but very much behind your back, criticizing others, etc. 

[eternalsummer]

I can see giving your child a lot of educational freedom but restricting behavior outside of education; lots of people do the reverse.

[ktgrok]

And tangent, but for the record I'm somewhere between free range and hot mess mom. I think I use the free range to justify the hot mess, lol. 

[Katy]

And tangent, but for the record I'm somewhere between free range and hot mess mom. I think I use the free range to justify the hot mess, lol. 

 

This is so me.  Sometimes I'd like to be a tiger mom, but then I'm like meh, why bother?   hehehehe

[marbel]

I've been thinking about this thread all day, because I think I know what the OP meant, and know a few people like that, but I couldn't exactly describe them in a useful way. 

 

So, about the undyed hair and lack of makeup.  It's not that, by itself.  It's the... defiant or disdainful attitude about it that I see and that makes me cringe a little. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to let one's hair grow grey naturally, and fine not to wear makeup.  It's a problem when someone doing it as a sort of "statement" that only authentic women are brave enough to go against the cultural trend of dying hair and wearing makeup.   Or sneering at women wearing high heels when real woman are brave enough to wear birkenstocks. Who cares what people wear?  

 

I dye my hair.  I don't expect that anyone who pays attention to my appearance is fooled that it is natural.  Of course most people don't pay attention to my appearance, right?  :-)  I'm not doing it to fool anyone; I do it to make myself feel better about my appearance. I do it for myself.  So it irks me when some woman talks about "embracing her gray" like it makes her way cooler than those of us who aren't ready to do that.  It's just a personal choice.  

 

Same with makeup.  I tend not to wear makeup because I simply run out of time most days.  I do wear some occasionally.  it's not a statement either way. I don't look at someone and think she's inauthentic because she wears it, or authentic because she doesn't.  But, the fake-authentic women show disdain for it.

 

Sort of like people who show disdain for Superbowl watchers.  I'm not a football fan and don't watch it.  So what if other people do?  Why post on facebook that they're immersed in a good book rather than watching a stupid football game?  That's not the same as the OP was talking about, I know, but seeing that post reminded me of this thread.   

 

Or the person I know who goes on and on about "environmental justice" while living in a 3,000+ square foot house (which she wants to add on to because her family of 4 is squished) and driving a huge vehicle that gets probably 15 mpg.   Because, you know, she's cool because she always carries reusable grocery bags.  

Edited February 6, 2017 by marbel

[Charlie]

Oh golly, imagine being defiant about not dyeing your hair! It actually is kinda defiant in our society to embrace aging, more power to anyone who does!

 

I dye my hair and I can be a pretty judgemental person, but even I have never felt a single moment of 'how very dare you!' when I meet a grey haired woman. 

 

Honestly.

 

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

;-)

[Janie Grace]

I was just on Facebook and clicked on the profile of a friend's friend. Her occupation is "Badass Hippie Warrior of Open-hearted Love." I thought of this thread of course! Nothing against this lady -- I clicked on her profile because she is making really cool pro-immigrant yard signs. I want one! But the label did make me laugh.

[MASHomeschooler]

I can see giving your child a lot of educational freedom but restricting behavior outside of education; lots of people do the reverse.

 

Yes, but the outcome is not exactly the point (I assume you're commenting on my post). The point is she's spouting all the philosophical reasons to unschool (e.g., always follow the child's lead; the child naturally knows what they need; everything should be driven by the child, not the parent; it is disrespectful to the child to impose the parent's will on them; parents shouldn't force children to become what the parents want them to be, but allow them to become who they want to be; etc.), but is not acting as if she actually believes them outside of the narrow area in which she learned about them (schooling).

 

So she says things like, "We unschool so she can learn to think for herself and make her own decisions" AND "She really wants to cut her [very long] hair but I won't let her because it's just so lovely." She makes statements about how unschooling empowers kids to learn for themselves, while making her 11yo daughter run decisions about what to do next at the park by her. To me it comes across like she thinks unschooling is "cool" and so she full-on embraced "doing it" (i.e., no curriculum and repeating the "let the child find their way" lines) but she doesn't actually subscribe to the philosophy, so outside the context in which she is "doing it", she is not really "living it".

 

I may be seeing it wrong. I fully admit I am much closer the reverse ("strict" on schooling, more "lax" on behaviors - I do enforce being respectful, etc. but let them dress and wear their hair how they want, play how they want as long it's safe and respectful) so I may be missing something. But I really don't think it would bother me so much if the reason strongly given for not imposing a specific education on the kid wasn't an even better reason to not impose a specific hair length or playtime activity on them.

[Guest]

Yes, but the outcome is not exactly the point (I assume you're commenting on my post). The point is she's spouting all the philosophical reasons to unschool (e.g., always follow the child's lead; the child naturally knows what they need; everything should be driven by the child, not the parent; it is disrespectful to the child to impose the parent's will on them; parents shouldn't force children to become what the parents want them to be, but allow them to become who they want to be; etc.), but is not acting as if she actually believes them outside of the narrow area in which she learned about them (schooling).

 

So she says things like, "We unschool so she can learn to think for herself and make her own decisions" AND "She really wants to cut her [very long] hair but I won't let her because it's just so lovely." She makes statements about how unschooling empowers kids to learn for themselves, while making her 11yo daughter run decisions about what to do next at the park by her. To me it comes across like she thinks unschooling is "cool" and so she full-on embraced "doing it" (i.e., no curriculum and repeating the "let the child find their way" lines) but she doesn't actually subscribe to the philosophy, so outside the context in which she is "doing it", she is not really "living it".

 

I may be seeing it wrong. I fully admit I am much closer the reverse ("strict" on schooling, more "lax" on behaviors - I do enforce being respectful, etc. but let them dress and wear their hair how they want, play how they want as long it's safe and respectful) so I may be missing something. But I really don't think it would bother me so much if the reason strongly given for not imposing a specific education on the kid wasn't an even better reason to not impose a specific hair length or playtime activity on them.

 

Right because this person COULD just keep their mouth shut. But instead she's got judgemental lifestyle truisms flowing out one side and other, contradictory, no-self-awareness-having statements from the other side.

 

It's like an evangelical pacifist picking a physical fight.

[ktgrok]

I think the OP is describing the kind of fake person we all know...just that in her circle these fake people tend to be the fake hippies. In other places it is more common to have fake "good Christian" ladies or whatever. I think we all know some very fake people...but if you mostly hang out in say, evangelical circles you will meet the kind that are all "bless you" while talking about you behind your back. If you run in crunchier circles (I do) you meet the "I am at peace with the earth" type who are actually judging the crap out of everyone and full of hate. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

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

;-)

 

It's only 8:30 here, but I'm nominating this for post of the day. WHY do I keep checking back on this thread??

[Desert Strawberry]

I think the OP is describing the kind of fake person we all know...just that in her circle these fake people tend to be the fake hippies. In other places it is more common to have fake "good Christian" ladies or whatever. I think we all know some very fake people...but if you mostly hang out in say, evangelical circles you will meet the kind that are all "bless you" while talking about you behind your back. If you run in crunchier circles (I do) you meet the "I am at peace with the earth" type who are actually judging the crap out of everyone and full of hate. 

I was thinking something similar. I see this most with preachy Christians. It seems the more bible quotes and inspirational posts and "lean on Jesus" someone puts out there, the less faithful and serene they are. Same with the self affirmations. The more posts about drama, the more drama, the more posts about loving yourself and not caring about the judgement of others the more insecure, the more she "don't need no man", the lonelier and more desperate. 

It seems to me preachy people are talking to themselves most of the time. Faithful, strong, secure, peaceful people just don't need to talk about it all the time.

[Onceuponatime]

I just found "part 2" with the same women as different types of moms:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJouZZzyqno&ebc=ANyPxKoy6K6ImNZTi030Ne-T_o-CPKl5bbcrsE4WCRkbrct6D2VRqPwQIzFNvtLXclZgYCDR5TYXGcvpUyu_Xv3A8tzsHWlAMA

Umm. I found me. The prematurely old person. 😉

 

ETA because of another thread: I'm not the oversharing/ no boundaries type of old person, lol.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Onceuponatime

[fraidycat]

I've been thinking about this thread all day, because I think I know what the OP meant, and know a few people like that, but I couldn't exactly describe them in a useful way.

 

So, about the undyed hair and lack of makeup. It's not that, by itself. It's the... defiant or disdainful attitude about it that I see and that makes me cringe a little. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to let one's hair grow grey naturally, and fine not to wear makeup. It's a problem when someone doing it as a sort of "statement" that only authentic women are brave enough to go against the cultural trend of dying hair and wearing makeup. Or sneering at women wearing high heels when real woman are brave enough to wear birkenstocks. Who cares what people wear?

 

I dye my hair. I don't expect that anyone who pays attention to my appearance is fooled that it is natural. Of course most people don't pay attention to my appearance, right? :-) I'm not doing it to fool anyone; I do it to make myself feel better about my appearance. I do it for myself. So it irks me when some woman talks about "embracing her gray" like it makes her way cooler than those of us who aren't ready to do that. It's just a personal choice.

 

Same with makeup. I tend not to wear makeup because I simply run out of time most days. I do wear some occasionally. it's not a statement either way. I don't look at someone and think she's inauthentic because she wears it, or authentic because she doesn't. But, the fake-authentic women show disdain for it.

 

Sort of like people who show disdain for Superbowl watchers. I'm not a football fan and don't watch it. So what if other people do? Why post on facebook that they're immersed in a good book rather than watching a stupid football game? That's not the same as the OP was talking about, I know, but seeing that post reminded me of this thread.

 

Or the person I know who goes on and on about "environmental justice" while living in a 3,000+ square foot house (which she wants to add on to because her family of 4 is squished) and driving a huge vehicle that gets probably 15 mpg. Because, you know, she's cool because she always carries reusable grocery bags.

There's one common thread holding all of these examples together. Judgement.

 

If people are judgemental a-holes, that is what they are. Judgemental a-holes. It has nothing to do with being fake or authentic, or fake-authentic.

[BigMamaBird]

I was thinking something similar. I see this most with preachy Christians. It seems the more bible quotes and inspirational posts and "lean on Jesus" someone puts out there, the less faithful and serene they are. Same with the self affirmations. The more posts about drama, the more drama, the more posts about loving yourself and not caring about the judgement of others the more insecure, the more she "don't need no man", the lonelier and more desperate. 

It seems to me preachy people are talking to themselves most of the time. Faithful, strong, secure, peaceful people just don't need to talk about it all the time.

 

I used to work with a wonderful woman who said "Still waters run deep."  Meaning, the louder and more demonstrative you are about any issue the more shallow your beliefs tend to be.  Whereas someone who has confidence in themselves, their belief, their stance, whatever, tends to just walk the walk.

 

My friends who have a deep, solid relationship with Jesus rarely if ever post those inspirational memes.  On the flip side, my friends who are seem to have a more surface spirituality are forever quoting and posting things.  Now, to be honest, I don't know where anyone's heart truly lies, but that is my observation.  

 

I assume the same could be said for the hippy, crunchy crowd.  

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Gwyneth Paltrow, on the other hand, isn't open about any of her vulnerabilities.  Instead she pretends they do not exist.  She gets a divorce, and instead of explaining how messed up it is that she married a man who's always and openly discussed questioning his sexuality, or talking about how devastating it is, or even that she might be worried about how this will hurt her kids, she puts out this pretentious statement not that she's getting a divorce, but that they are consciously uncoupling. Implying that even when she's going through a breakup, she's doing it better than YOU are. 

 

 

I've been thinking about this since I read it, trying to pinpoint why it bothers me. I guess I'm wondering, how do you know this about Gwyneth Paltrow? Not that she doesn't make me roll my eyes occasionally, but I don't think we can say this about her without knowing her pretty well, and I suspect I'm right in assuming none of us do. Why can't the whole conscious uncoupling thing be authentic for her, even if it's not how most of us manage divorce? Maybe the marriage was mostly over well before the actual divorce, which made it easier for them to focus on the kids and not their own emotions in the whole process? 

 

I don't recall reading any articles about how she thought she was doing it better than the "little people" were, only about how she and her ex agreed to manage their separation. So aren't we reading our own judgment into that situation and deciding that it's not authentic? And many people question their sexuality or consider themselves bisexual yet go on to have happy married lives, so why does that part of it mean their marriage itself wasn't authentic? 

 

I don't mean to quibble about Gwyneth Paltrow specifically. I really don't care much about her or her husband or their conscious uncoupling. I just don't think this is a very good argument for spotting authenticity, because I think that believing we can look into someone's marriage or home life or personal thoughts from a distance (and especially based only on media coverage) and determine any measure of their actual authenticity is completely unrealistic, because we don't know them well enough to make a reasonable assessment of that. I think that goes for most people we actually know in real life, too, frankly. And actually doing so shines light on one's own thought processes far more than it does on the actual authenticity of the subject of the assessment. 

 

Also, I still can't figure out how not coloring one's gray makes one inauthentic? I feel like I must have missed something there. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I assume the same could be said for the hippy, crunchy crowd.  

 

This doesn't run true in my hippy, crunchy crowd, as far as I can tell. They are true believers, which is why I have unfollowed most of them on FB :lol: I already agree with you--I don't need to hear about it constantly!

 

I think it depends on personality for a lot of people. Some of the true believers I know are very quiet and accepting of other mindsets, though they will still be honest about their own beliefs in conversations. They're also honest about when their beliefs fall down in the face of reality occasionally. They aren't the FB meme spreaders. Others have to loudly proclaim their beliefs every chance they get to make sure everyone knows where they stand, and when their beliefs do fall in down in the face of reality, they don't generally acknowledge it at all. 

 

It makes it hard for me to keep my mouth shut, but I mostly manage it. Except for sometimes, when I just can't take it anymore :lol: 

[Charlie]

I've been thinking about this since I read it, trying to pinpoint why it bothers me. I guess I'm wondering, how do you know this about Gwyneth Paltrow? Not that she doesn't make me roll my eyes occasionally, but I don't think we can say this about her without knowing her pretty well, and I suspect I'm right in assuming none of us do. Why can't the whole conscious uncoupling thing be authentic for her, even if it's not how most of us manage divorce? Maybe the marriage was mostly over well before the actual divorce, which made it easier for them to focus on the kids and not their own emotions in the whole process?

 

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).

[eternalsummer]

I'm perfectly happy to make judgments about people, sometimes based on their appearance.  I don't think that's weird at all; I think it's natural, a good survival instinct, etc.  I just think that it's hilarious to judge someone with gray hair and no makeup as fake.

 

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

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).

 

 

:lol:

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I'm perfectly happy to make judgments about people, sometimes based on their appearance.  I don't think that's weird at all; I think it's natural, a good survival instinct, etc.  I just think that it's hilarious to judge someone with gray hair and no makeup as fake.

 

 

I agree with you, although it's a tendency I'm trying to quash personally, since as I get older (and hopefully wiser), I'm finding that I'm wrong in my assessments often enough to feel like a jerk about it. That said, when I do find myself judging people, it's almost never on their authenticity. I accept people for what they present to the world. My judgment is about whether or not I have the patience to deal with what they present to the world!

 

I find myself staying home with my little family more and more :D

Edited February 7, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[EmseB]

There's one common thread holding all of these examples together. Judgement.

 

If people are judgemental a-holes, that is what they are. Judgemental a-holes. It has nothing to do with being fake or authentic, or fake-authentic.

 

That is what I was trying to say with my comment about the doula I interviewed.  On the surface she was very, "Your birth, your body, your way." But she kept tsk-tsking my choice to be in hospital and passive aggressively trying to get me to change my mind about a lot of things.

 

I think that generally comes across as "fake" because it's often in the context of being super accepting or tolerant of "alternative" stuff, but not really tolerant all the way around of people making more mainstream choices.

[TranquilMind]

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)?

I agree that there is a vast difference between being fake and not airing dirty laundry.   

 

 

[eternalsummer]

That is what I was trying to say with my comment about the doula I interviewed.  On the surface she was very, "Your birth, your body, your way." But she kept tsk-tsking my choice to be in hospital and passive aggressively trying to get me to change my mind about a lot of things.

 

I think that generally comes across as "fake" because it's often in the context of being super accepting or tolerant of "alternative" stuff, but not really tolerant all the way around of people making more mainstream choices.

 

Well this I do see a lot of, especially in the political sphere here in the US.  

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

That is what I was trying to say with my comment about the doula I interviewed.  On the surface she was very, "Your birth, your body, your way." But she kept tsk-tsking my choice to be in hospital and passive aggressively trying to get me to change my mind about a lot of things.

 

I think that generally comes across as "fake" because it's often in the context of being super accepting or tolerant of "alternative" stuff, but not really tolerant all the way around of people making more mainstream choices.

 

 

Huh. See, I guess I don't tend to see that as "fake." When I think of someone being fake or inauthentic, I think of the person consciously putting up some kind of front to make themselves out as something they're not (e.g., a friend once told me a story about discovering someone's secret cache of disposable paper goods when that person herself was very preachy about protecting the environment, using cloth supplies instead of paper, etc.). I think often when we see these kinds of incongruence, they're more about a lack of self-awareness than about intentionally putting up a false front.

 

The doula thing reminds me of people I know who present themselves, and really think of themselves, in one way, and then don't even realize that their actions belie their presentation. For example, I know someone who is vehemently, vigorously anti-vaccination but who says she's not anti-vaccination, she would be happy to vaccinate her kids if there was scientific evidence that vaccinations worked and weren't harmful. Except that when shown studies and other scientific data, she'll argue that they are false, contrived, corrupt etc., and that only the scientific evidence she believes in (which is anti-vaccination) is actually true. 

 

So I don't think of her as fake. I think she's not self-aware enough to realize that she IS anti-vaccination in all cases, in spite of any data that could be presented to her. I know someone else who claims to be all about love and openness and acceptance, except that when you actually talk to her, you hear something different. I've heard that same person talk about how important it is for kids to grow up in respectful environments, in freedom and openness--and yet, if you heard the way she talks to her kids sometimes, you'd think she's full of it. 

 

I think we can all be like that sometimes, and in some ways. I'm very pro-recycling, to the annoyance of my family. I've complained to friends about DH and the kids throwing things away instead of just rinsing them and taking them to the recycling bin. Yet you might also see me occasionally throwing away plastics labeled 5 and 6, because some days I just can't deal with one more thing, and because a friend who works at the local recycling center told me that there's very little market for those materials, so people recycle them and they sit around in giant piles at the recycling plants. Yet one might think I was inauthentic if they saw me throwing them out instead of recycling them that day. 

 

Maybe that's why people on both sides of this conversation are having trouble understanding each other? Maybe our definitions of authenticity are different? 

Edited February 7, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[ktgrok]

Here is an example maybe more people know of as far as that fake, non authentic thing.....Michelle Duggar. That fake, sing song, soft voice that is all about sweetness and light, but you know she's preaching hell and hitting babies when the camera isn't rolling. 

 

That fake, soft, quietness is the same kind of thing I get from certain (not all or even most) of the people the OP was talking about. 

[Scarlett]

Here is an example maybe more people know of as far as that fake, non authentic thing.....Michelle Duggar. That fake, sing song, soft voice that is all about sweetness and light, but you know she's preaching hell and hitting babies when the camera isn't rolling. 

 

That fake, soft, quietness is the same kind of thing I get from certain (not all or even most) of the people the OP was talking about. 

 

 

That is how GP strikes me....I mean not that she is hitting babies and preaching hell...but she strikes me as very fakey.  But what do I know.  Maybe she is not a fake.  I have a few friends that I have known for decades that still sometimes strike me as fakey....but I don't think they really are....I have no evidence of that at all.  In fact, MUCH evidence that they are fine upstanding REAL people.  Sometimes I think it is just a mannerism.

[MercyA]

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.

 

Maybe you can help me out with another mystery, Charlie. :)

 

A while back, someone remarked that you sound just like a previous poster, albeto, and I have to agree. Not only do you, like albeto, seize just about every opportunity to criticize religion, you also apparently both have beady eyes:

 

"I still wear cosmetics, but not much...a little mascara to avoid looking like I have beady little rodent eyes. I have very dark, hooded eyes against very fair skin."

 

"I do think it's a matter of my complexion...I find my eyes look dark and beady if my hair doesn't have color in it."

 

I don't think I've ever heard any other woman describe their eyes as “beady.â€

 

Do you also like to drink IPA's, by chance?  :cheers2:

 

Maybe this is just coincidence. As albeto often told us, the human mind tends to see patterns even when none exist. I've been wrong before.  ^_^

 

Since this is a thread about authenticity, give it to us straight. Have you ever posted here before, under a different name? 

[MercyA]

Pretty sure albeto is not a grey haired hippy, tbh. Beady eyes or not.

 

Gosh, I miss her though.  She was hella awesome at cutting through b/s.

 

And funny. And rode a motorbike for  a children's charity, so as I remember ?

 

It's a shame she got reported the heck out of here. 

 

Yeah, I've never pictured albeto as a hippy either, but Charlie's description of herself doesn't sound especially hippy-like to me. And Charlie did say she only recently stopped dying her hair--which albeto said she was gearing up to do in the post I quoted.

 

albeto was funny, for sure--and quick, too.

 

Was she banned, then? I assumed she left of her own volition. 

[MercyA]

People couldn't just keep their fingers off the report button. 

 

I don't know why people didn't just make use of the ignore feature. 

 

I suppose it's human nature not to want to miss anything interesting. 

[eternalsummer]

I don't like censorship, so I never use the ignore feature.  (but I also don't report anyone, b/c I don't like censorship)

[marbel]

I don't like censorship, so I never use the ignore feature.  (but I also don't report anyone, b/c I don't like censorship)

 

I don't use the ignore feature, but how on earth is it censorship?   It's a tool for managing your interactions with people on the board.   

[eternalsummer]

It's censorship for me - that is, if I ignore people (I presume that means I don't see their posts), then I have censored their statements for myself, and insulated myself from them.  Other than spam, nothing on this board ever comes close to being anything so upsetting for me that I need to not see it.

[fraidycat]

Yeah, I've never pictured albeto as a hippy either, but Charlie's description of herself doesn't sound especially hippy-like to me. And Charlie did say she only recently stopped dying her hair--which albeto said she was gearing up to do in the post I quoted.

 

albeto was funny, for sure--and quick, too.

 

Was she banned, then? I assumed she left of her own volition.

Not banned. Permanent moderation.

[fraidycat]

I don't use the ignore feature, but how on earth is it censorship? It's a tool for managing your interactions with people on the board.

And your blood pressure. ;)

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

And your blood pressure. ;)

 

No kidding. It's like Unfollow for the boards! I can check in when I feel emotionally strong enough, but for daily reading, it's too much  :tongue_smilie:

Edited February 7, 2017 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Desert Strawberry]

Not banned. Permanent moderation.

What does this mean?

[MercyA]

Not banned. Permanent moderation.

 

What does that mean, exactly? Did her posts have to be pre-approved?

[Katy]

I've been thinking about this since I read it, trying to pinpoint why it bothers me. I guess I'm wondering, how do you know this about Gwyneth Paltrow? Not that she doesn't make me roll my eyes occasionally, but I don't think we can say this about her without knowing her pretty well, and I suspect I'm right in assuming none of us do. Why can't the whole conscious uncoupling thing be authentic for her, even if it's not how most of us manage divorce? Maybe the marriage was mostly over well before the actual divorce, which made it easier for them to focus on the kids and not their own emotions in the whole process? 

 

I don't recall reading any articles about how she thought she was doing it better than the "little people" were, only about how she and her ex agreed to manage their separation. So aren't we reading our own judgment into that situation and deciding that it's not authentic? And many people question their sexuality or consider themselves bisexual yet go on to have happy married lives, so why does that part of it mean their marriage itself wasn't authentic? 

 

I don't mean to quibble about Gwyneth Paltrow specifically. I really don't care much about her or her husband or their conscious uncoupling. I just don't think this is a very good argument for spotting authenticity, because I think that believing we can look into someone's marriage or home life or personal thoughts from a distance (and especially based only on media coverage) and determine any measure of their actual authenticity is completely unrealistic, because we don't know them well enough to make a reasonable assessment of that. I think that goes for most people we actually know in real life, too, frankly. And actually doing so shines light on one's own thought processes far more than it does on the actual authenticity of the subject of the assessment. 

 

Also, I still can't figure out how not coloring one's gray makes one inauthentic? I feel like I must have missed something there. 

 

Actually I don't get that opinion about her from the media at all.  I get it from her blog.  From the interviews of I've seen videos of.

 

And I explained it up thread.  The fakeness = a lack of vulnerability.  Does that mean that it's required to be vulnerable?  No.  But she has this lifestyle blog where she dishes out advice about everything from how much better conscious uncoupling is better than a breakup to why you should put a jade egg in your hoo-ha. She glosses over all of the painful parts of her life NOT by saying, this is painful, please give me privacy at this time <or> please allow us to focus on our children at this time or even by admitting it is painful at all, but by instantly going straight to advice, at a time when it is impossible for her to know what she's talking about.   And no, I don't simply mean jade eggs and the strong possibility of infection.  I mean announcing her divorce in the glossy, shiny, better-than-you way that she announces every thing she announces in her life.

 

In almost every area of her blog, she's trying to be my generation's Martha Stewart.  She pretends to have authority about things which she has no education. She presents things with a clear attitude of superiority.  There's no humility there.  The only place she publicly admits working hard is on her body, and she only did that when she decided to partner up with Tracy Anderson and make more money.

 

I'm not saying it's required to be vulnerable.  But when you're discussing painful things with authority and you refuse to acknowledge that there is any pain, you're being fake.

 

And you're right, that has nothing to do with her ex's sexuality. I did not take the time to phrase that connection more clearly and it has nothing to do with other people's happy relationships. I apologize to anyone I may have offended.  But GP feigning perfection must have had something to do with the dissolution of her marriage.  How do I know this?  I watched as their relationship formed and fell apart and there were clear patterns that made the falling apart predictable. She comes out with a blog post about her relationship and how awesome it is, and the sacrifices she makes to keep it happy, and two weeks later her husband did that first in depth interview questioning his sexuality.   The more she bragged about her relationship, the worse he behaved in public and in interviews. There was a clear and obvious pattern of control and rebellion between them, and it was visible in her blog posts and his interviews and public behavior for years.

 

Now I could leap to drawing some conclusions about GP and narcissism, but that wouldn't be fair in my opinion, because I don't know her personally.  Even if some of the clearly visible personality traits of hers do fit: 

 

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.  - Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Mayo Clinic

 

Regardless of her specifically, she does fit a type.  A type that pretends perfection but is clearly insecure.  Vulnerability is a sign of confidence because it means you're secure enough in yourself to show your flaws.

 

Not everyone who has narcissistic traits has NPD obviously. But as we've discussed NPD and its damage and how charming these people can seem to those who barely know them many times on this board before, I did not think it was a leap to point out that this mask of perfection that some people wear is not only a sign of being inauthentic, it's potentially dangerous and damaging to the emotional lives of everyone who interacts with them.

 

Obviously it is also not healthy to inappropriately dump your insecurities upon everyone either, but there is a healthy way to be vulnerable and build relationships in a healthy way by doing so.

 

I may have had too many discussions about NPD recently.

[LucyStoner]

What does that mean, exactly? Did her posts have to be pre-approved?

Yup.

[LucyStoner]

I think that fake is sometimes confused with insecure. Most people who some consider fake" may just be, for whatever reason, trying hard to meet their own expectations or the expectations they assume others have for them.

[elegantlion]

I think that fake is sometimes confused with insecure. Most people who some consider fake" may just be, for whatever reason, trying hard to meet their own expectations or the expectations they assume others have for them.

 

Maybe that's it. 

 

I keep reading this thread kind of quizzically. I'm pretty real in person, but guarded around people until I get to know them. Do I lie about my life? Not that I am aware although there are probably inconsistencies with my intentions and my actions sometimes BECAUSE I am trying to rise to my own expectations. 

 

I also shut down when I feel I am being judged, that's a defense mechanism. 

 

Maybe this is why I feel and have always felt it is easier to hang out with males. I rarely feel like I'm being judged when I talk to a guy, not sure why. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Maybe that's it. 

 

I keep reading this thread kind of quizzically. I'm pretty real in person, but guarded around people until I get to know them. Do I lie about my life? Not that I am aware although there are probably inconsistencies with my intentions and my actions sometimes BECAUSE I am trying to rise to my own expectations. 

 

I also shut down when I feel I am being judged, that's a defense mechanism. 

 

Maybe this is why I feel and have always felt it is easier to hang out with males. I rarely feel like I'm being judged when I talk to a guy, not sure why. 

 

That's a very good point. If you think I might be fake, weird, reserved, or totally holding back, just start obviously judging me and see how weird I get (in those brief moments until I manage to get away from you)...

 

also, I completely agree that men don't do the analyzing thing. Also it's true that my IRL female friends are very much like men in this regard. LOL

 

[zaichiki]

Here is an example maybe more people know of as far as that fake, non authentic thing.....Michelle Duggar. That fake, sing song, soft voice that is all about sweetness and light, but you know she's preaching hell and hitting babies when the camera isn't rolling. 

 

That fake, soft, quietness is the same kind of thing I get from certain (not all or even most) of the people the OP was talking about. 

Yes!  I know someone like this (although she's not a thing like Michelle Duggar). She has the fake, sing-songy, soft voice and the whole "I'm laid back about my kids and everything" characteristics, but I had a few occasions to "peek behind the curtain" and I saw/heard guilt trips, thinly-veiled threats, intimidation and yelling (all at her kids). Every time.

 

I felt offended because I realized she's not at all who she's projecting herself to be/who I thought she was. I felt like I was being manipulated - she wants me to believe she is someone she is not. Turns out she's not my type of friend at all.  Glad to have learned it, but I also feel a bit like she was using me... or something like that... like I was made a fool? Don't know how to explain it. Perhaps I'm a bit ashamed that it took me as long as it did to figure it out. Sigh.

[Scarlett]

People couldn't just keep their fingers off the report button.

 

I don't know why people didn't just make use of the ignore feature.

Reporting someone isn't what gets them banned or moderated.

[Scarlett]

Repeated reports do.

Only if the posts are a violation of TOS.

[MaeFlowers]

I just came back to the thread and wanted to respond. Sorry it is three days later...

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.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. You might do something that is completely opposite of your natural tendencies because you are expected to from outside sources. Then, it would be only be congruent if you are a rule follower, a people pleaser, or the like. But, even that isn't really fair to say because sometimes we all have to do that. If you do it when you don't have to then you are probably being fake/inauthentic.

 

When I say incongruent with who we are...I mean we live a life (or a part of our lives) in a way that we don't truly like or believe in. There is generally some pressure, internal or external, that causes us to make these choices. (And I would argue that internal pressures usually stem from external pressures we have internalized.) It might be something simple like wearing a trend because every one else we know is doing so when we really want to be wearing birks and flowy skirts. It might be becoming a lawyer when you want to be an artist. It might be sitting in a church and professing faith when you no longer believe because you don't want to be shunned by your family/community. While those things might be understandable, it is still faking it.

 

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"?

 

When I was speaking about hiding who you really are, I wasn't speaking to social politeness. We all have to fake it in that sense at times. I was speaking to something deeper like I described above.

 

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)?

 

I don't know how I used left-leaning imagery? I don't think any one side of that particular equation has the lock on authenticity. I cannot for the life of me figure out where you got that from what I wrote.

Edited for typos.

Edited February 8, 2017 by MaeFlowers

[EMS83]

So fakeness can be attributed to: inconsistency, hypocrisy, double standards, false assumptions, and disappointed expectations....

 

Guilty.  Totally, on all counts and both sides of the fence.  :D  In all seriousness, I'm working on it, but I fully expect to make very minute progress over many decades.

 

If anyone is a fan of pointillism, I think it's helpful to see people in this manner.  The "catch" is we don't see all the dots of someone's life (picture).  We see a few bits of color here and there, and I think often subconsciously fill in the rest to be in keeping (in our opinion), with what we do see.  But the truth is, the picture is already there, all filled out, though subject to change, and we just don't see all the "pieces" yet (and may never!!).  There may be people trying hard to present a facade to the world, but really, isn't that just one more piece or point in their particular picture at that particular time?  Perhaps there is a specific reason for that specific circumstance, or subject, or life stage.  Perhaps not, but perhaps.  And perhaps it will change over time...or perhaps not.  One won't know if one isn't there to see.   :)

 

Just my random $0.02 at this particular point in time.   ;)

Edited February 8, 2017 by CES2005

[HSmomof2]

This thread reminds me of Socality Barbie. The photos are spot-on and the captions are hilarious:

 

"Had to stop looking at the ocean so I could take a picture of the ocean so I could post about how beautiful the ocean is."

 

"I hope this picture of my hand reminds you to reach out to one another and build community. aka like, comment, & follow please!!"

 

"Can't wait to Instagram my way through San Diego while building authentic relationships!"

"Humble enough to know I'm not better than anybody, wise enough to know that I'm different from the rest."

 

"The 3 C's in life: Choice, Chance, Change. You must make the choice, to take a chance, to make a change. You know, like that Kelly Clarkson song."

 

:lol:

Socality Barbie----this is one of the funniest things I've seen in awhile. 😂