Responsibility rest squarely on management’s shoulders.

They miss this, and look to blame others. However, it always starts at the top, and is caused by the inherent blindness of the dominant masculine thinking, lacking its connection to humanness, the key to what’s missing. I recently experienced being a subcontractor in a corporate environment where the director of operations, hired in 2009, came on board and during his first meeting declared to the staff that he was not satisfied with current results and if he has to, “he will fire the entire staff and start over.” What did he create? More controls, stress, and an unhappy work environment, distrust of each other and the company as a whole, and a morale problem. This distress did not distress him; in fact he reveled in it and encouraged it in his direct underlings. He has people asking how high to jump, but misses the inefficient unhappy work environment he has set in motion.

The corporate employees where naturally terrified of losing there jobs, so they turned on each other, and looked to shift the burden for failures anywhere they can. Ingenuity, spark, creativity, and questioning erroneous directives out of caring for the company, doing the right thing, has been replaced with regurgitation of the micromanaged company line. Worse yet, this is what is desired! The optimal outcome of a team working together to produce a great outcome becomes a casualty. Discussing mistakes made, not to hold over ones head, but to determine how the system/management failed, never occurs.

I admit to my mistakes openly, in fact I call them out, as this is how I learn and perhaps teach others to be aware of the same pitfalls, so as not to repeat them. My ego does not see mistakes as failures, but as opportunities to learn and add to me understanding. Micromanagers unfortunately see and count every mistake and attempt to shove it down their underling’s throats to aggrandize themselves. Achievements and good work are ignored. They only pats on the back come with knife in hand. This creates fear and resentment. Resentment ALWAYS shows up, perhaps not right away, but it will show up. It can show up in family lives, be self-directed, and will show up in the workplace. This is guaranteed. I do just what I’m told, make no suggestions and look to make myself look better. If others are hurt or unfairly undermined, so what becomes the undercurrent. The truth is that leading properly takes a lot of work, caring for team, and courage. This has been drummed out of middle management, so know of it remains.

If the mistakes are repeating, it is the managers that need better training. In their micromanaged environment “it” flows downhill, and there is no “uphill” feedback routes available. Managers, I noticed where hired without experience in their department and immediately made control decisions, that were in fact ill thought out. But they were in charge and unlikely or unable to accept experienced staff’s suggestions. They made the decisions and that was that. If you give even a computer, or an ant, conflicting, ever changing contradictory directives, you will get short-term compliance and stats and long-term disaster. Egocentricity never creates team, but it does create cliques of posterior kissers. America’s talent is being ground down and molded into ants. Using the ants of China as a model perhaps?

Even in China, as they progress and start to innovate, there is an up-swell of individual thinkers rebelling against their fascistic/communistic masters. The corporate megalomaniacs have it wrong. Communism starts off as fascism (according to Marx) and when the people finally fall in line as communal caring thinking idealistic beings, the system can move into communism (team). No country, or company has even gotten close to this ideal state. The pseudo-communist-fascistic states fail, as do the dictatorial corporations. Their downfall is not realizing the paradoxical need to find a balance between the ideal corporate control concept and the reality that to thrive and innovate the individual must be encouraged. The latter requires human understanding and work.

Small-minded egotistical dictators, do not make good leaders. Leaders guide and encourage, they mentor and direct, while honoring the qualities in their staff that they nurture and encourage. I am seeing less and less of this type of true leader, and more and more of the mini-dictators. “If only the ants would just do their jobs.” “I can squeeze all I can, and when they burn out, there are 150 others waiting to replace them.” This just creates more stress, illness, and poor quality production. Blind, having no idea how to get humans to join together, these corporate dictators demand ant-hood as their surrogate battle plan. We are all doomed with this thinking.

It is the little dictator’s lack of understanding that stifles innovation and real long-term production. Ants are ants, people are people, to demand one act like the other will create distress, dysfunction, and disaster. Why, because you have to listen to those that actually do the work to see if it is working. Their feedback is invaluable, unless your ego is in the way. They paradoxically need encouragement and direction. Before you change anything, ask for feedback on the changes and listen. Be aware of the posterior kissers, in the long run they will destroy you. They will jump ship at the first opportunity. Their lack of courage to disagree, withholds the very feedback and understanding all need to manage and prevent a shipwreck. Value the discontents, not everything they are unhappy with is unrealsitic, and you will be rewarded for listening by having a real team player that feels connected tot the whole. Would you not like to feel this way too? Do unto other as you would have them do unto you applies aptly here.

How does this relate to the human condition? Well, it’s quite the metaphor. To protect ourselves, we create defensive wall to shield our heart from those that would hurt it (the Mongols.) They are not allowed in nor allowed to see or harm our vulnerable parts, or so we think. We actually advertise this part, but more on this at another time. Before I go further we need to understand intimacy. In-to-me-see, this incorporates the required act of faith-based vulnerability. Scary thought aye! This means letting others in, letting down those defensives, justifications and behaviors most develop as means of isolation. Of course, they see it as means of protection, but it’s not. The operative word is isolation and its cousin’s abandonment and loneliness. In order to find true connected love, you must be willing to risk being hurt. Allow me to share a little poem I wrote in the mid-seventies about this called Life:

Like a summer’s flower you’ve come, thought your thorns draw blood I embrace you.

To be honest, I sometimes, run, hide, isolate, make excuses, or use any of the multitude of tricks I have up my sleeves to NOT GET HURT. Oh yes, I do all those things too. However, there are lots of times I risk it all, go “all in,” wear my heart on my sleeve. And I do get hurt; and I don’t like it one bit. It would be easy to fall back, raise the shield walls, and sometimes I do, but I know to let them down. If not, I know I will remain alone, unfulfilled. This is not like the immediacy of a hurt; it is the dull ache that remains constant, a companion. I do keep “busy,” but that is not enough in the long run and the dull ache sometimes grows to the constant sound of a jet engine roaring in your ears. Then, it becomes time to find another distraction; distraction upon distraction, to the end of days. And worse yet, I recognize that those distractions (another word for addictions) are just another form of protectionism, bricks in the wall that China built.

So let’s get down to it. Everything you do to protect your heart, every excuse, justification, busy work, etc. hurts you. Oh, and as a side thought, it hurts those you are involved with too. Inside you know this too, which further adds to your inner unhappiness. So the only possible workable solution is to let go, open up and let love in, allow it to happen. Now, this doesn’t mean discard your head, “trust but verify” being the operative program. Question what doesn’t feel right. If the answer still doesn’t feel right, ask more questions till it does, step back to digest and let the answers given, answer the inner question. Sometimes the trite answers I have received indicated much greater issues.  Question these and if unworkable, sadly you may have to step away. Been there, done that. Wish it weren’t so. So keep moving, but be open as much as you humanly can. Believe in love, believe in love. Guess whose coming to dinner, to every dinner you will ever have? You. So believe in love and allow it in or you will never have the fulfillment you crave. We all want connection. Unfortunately, many find the cost too much to bear.

My personal experiences to date have shown me to look for deep connection, not quick “fun” ones. What I have seen though is, so many people looking, and when they find it they hunker down in their bunkers and take pot shots at love. They figure that if they shoot at love enough, what they don’t kill will be real. Brilliant aye. Think about this, have you done this? Does it ever produce love, or a trail of bodies and lost love? I will leave you with that thought to mull over, perhaps to influence your next act of – love, connection, or buying more ammo.

I know when it hurts, it hurts badly, like you want it all to end. But a life of isolation, even in a gilded cage, without the risk of loving for me is meaningless. Not so it seems for everyone. You decide what your life means and live it. Blessings on the journey.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/182922-how-to-teach-manly-men-to-be-romantic/

Well, it seems Mel Gibson has done it again, shot himself in the foot, or at least vomited on it. His latest drunken emotional tirade aimed at his wife has made headlines. His level of desperation seems to have increased as his reason decreases proportionally. His alcohol problem is long standing without a doubt. He has issues that probably stem back to childhood.  In this he is not alone; most of the world has such problems. His emotional state is being clearly further destabilized by his gold digging wife purposely. She wants custody of their child and all the riches she can take from him and make from the tabloids.

His handling of what has clearly become a crisis is counterproductive, at least for him. Alcohol, as any other addiction is a symptom of unresolved issues that are then projected onto others during his drunken tirade.  Thus, the cause of his feelings are assigned to others, “they are responsible for my feelings”, like Jews, Blacks, or Women in general. While we may not like the actions of others, we own our feelings and are responsible for them. This level of responsible ownership is difficult to stomach for many – Mel being one of them. He surely feels helpless in the face of loosing his child.

Real men aren’t supposed to feel helpless are they? So Mel blames it on Oksana and the system. While the system barely works and she surely is culpable of enflaming him, he uses alcohol to numb his pain rather than express it, cry, talk, etc. Nothing we numb goes away, it only festers. Then the alcohol releases the festered emotions in the form of emotional vomit. Mel is an example of this. Obviously this is not a healthy way to express ones emotions, and therefore, healing does not occur. Further, he causes more issues for himself by his aberrant behavior, like being investigated for abuse, which will lessen his standing as he fights for custody rights of his child. This also lessens self-esteem.  And all of these acting-out behaviors further fuel the fire of his inner turmoil. It is a vicious cycle being fueled by alcohol. Something we’ve seen before in others.

OK, so we’ve looked at Mel, but what about the wife? She has been given a restraining order that prohibited her from releasing her “secretly” recorded tapes. Somehow, unbeknownst and much to her dismay, they got released. She is shocked, shocked, just like Captain Renault in Casablanca.  Liar, liar, panties on fire.  Donald Trump who had met her, said she was a gold digger. She has played Mel well. She will come out with lots of money, her child, and she doesn’t have to fluff him anymore. She has won, and done great damage in the process, but is uncaring having lost her heart way back when. What’s a little more karma?

Because ‘nice girls don’t get angry,’ they learn to get what they want and get even. She is not the first to demonstrate this, or the last. But one of the pawns in their WWE match, called marriage, is the child. How will this affect her? What example does it reinforce? Certainly, this is not one of a wise, powerful and loving female. He certainly is not showing what a powerful and loving man can be either. And life goes on…

Listen: KXYL 7-15-10

RI# 286

Listen: WFTL 7-15-10 PT 1, WFTL 7-15-10 PT 2

RI# 285

An article written by W. Bradford Wilcox, published in the Wall Street Journal on June 18th cites recent movies like “The Switch,” coming later this summer, where Jennifer Aniston plays a forty-year-old professional who has given up on Mr. Right (basically on men) and marriage, but decides her life is incompletely accessorized without a grown-up’s doll (aka: child). For Ms. Anniston, perhaps art is following life. The movie explores, no make it propounds as acceptable, this egocentricity. She will have a baby without a father for the child simply by procuring some crème. At least she is willing to buy it, not trick some poor unwitting fool into ‘naturally’ donating it and being shackled into a lifetime of financial responsibility; a job that they did not sign up for. The movie celebrates donor inseminated single mother families, similar to the “The Back-up Plan” and the soon to be released “The Kids Are All Right.”

NO, they’re not ‘All Right,’ but Hollywood’s holier-than-thou agenda is pushing this perception. This would be an understandable position for an angry woman that blames men for everything, especially failed relationships.

Of course, a child raised by a mother with a ‘sperm-donor’ for a father will survive and most likely be glad to be alive, but the lack of a strong loving father to guide them will be felt. Equally, a child reared solely by their father, with an ‘egg-donor’ for a mother, will fair equally as well, and this child will be equally as thankful. HOWEVER, both mother and father are important factors in the development of a child. DUH! To think otherwise is pure egocentricity. Coming from Hollywood that would makes sense.

I consider the decision to have a child by a donor (male or female) to be completely and totally immature and egocentric. It is nothing more than “it’s all about me.” This is devoid of consideration for the affects of this decision on the child. There are tons of justifications, but none will be really valid for the child, but many will be born anyway. You want a child adopt one from foster care.

How are decisions like this possible? My first book, Men – The Gods of Love, discusses men’s inability to balance their rational mind, the masculine, with their emotions, the inner feminine. My second book, Women – The Goddesses of Wisdom, discusses women’s inability to balance her emotions with the rational mind, their inner masculine. For today’s woman, they difficulty is see in the masculinized woman. As an example, taking decisive action (masculine) to create a child based on emotions (feminine) is the situation in choosing a sperm-donor dad. The true goal for a woman, discussed in my second book, is the paradoxical need to remain feminine, incorporate the inner masculine power and using reason to balance the two. This is having the wisdom to know correct action, not just feeling-based action. The preposterous idea that a dad is not an important factor may be OK for an unfulfilled egg donor (mother), but is wholly unreasonable. This is a premeditate abuse of the offspring. It is based in narcissism, plain and simple. “I feel I am not complete without a child.” “I can’t figure out how to have a healthy relationship (it’s all men’s fault anyway), so I will just create this accessory to my life.” This bypasses the all-important learnings about relationship and self.

Of course, a mother that has not matured her relationship skills will not be able to teach correct relating to her children, but she doesn’t give it much thought. It’s all men’s fault anyway she believes. While honoring people’s feelings is important, acting on them without reason as a guiding factor, or supporting another’s actions without regards for the consequences of their actions, in this case the children, is unwise.

Anger is inherent in this idea. Considering men as sperm donors is the same as marrying one for money. In both cases the men are not seen as humans, or related to, only for how they can be ‘milked’. Women seem to be able to get what they want materially, why can’t they get it emotionally? My above-mentioned book delves into this predicament and it I not all men’s fault. Relationship is a dance, both can change it or stop it at will. Many women think they are wise and men are clueless.

‘Newsflash!’ Both men and women are clueless, yet it has become fashionable to blame men. Ladies, take off the war paint and look deep, you are no better at relating than men. You may be more emotional, but it is egocentric and therefore destructive. This is not a healthy basis for relating, or child rearing. I consider child rearing ‘job one,’ not an addition to one’s lifestyle, or something to get so one can feel fulfilled. Consideration for what is best for a child must be the first thought, not an afterthought. So providing the proper role models on which to base life is tantamount.

Academics from New York Universities, like sociologist Judith Stacey or Cornell’s psychologist Peggy Drexler have propounded these unisex families. They proclaim that mothers do as well with child rearing with donor fathers as they can with real ones. The feminist movement has been teaching emotional entitlement to women, a form of egocentricity, instead of healthy empowered self-care, blended with care of others. Hollywood celebrities are aggrandized for their egocentric actions, instead of being corrected. This harms relationships and perpetuates the concept of entitlement. Entitlement, the concept that I am owed everything, is prevalent in the U.S. and it has hurt us. It prevents gratitude and giving. Just watch a teenager for a demonstration of what becomes adult behavior.

Ms. Drexler wrote a book that declares that what she calls “maverick moms” (a masculine label), includes single women who chose donor insemination. Rather than tackling the task of creating a normal working male-female relationship, they say a woman can raise boys equally as well as mothers who went the ‘old fashioned way’ with, per her thinking, the outdated notion of father. The idea of fatherhood and motherhood in partnership as models for the children is considered unnecessary and therefore moot. Supposedly, only a “caring and supportive” model of mothering is necessary. I guess these academics didn’t have a great relationship with their fathers. Sorry to hear that, but don’t diminish fatherhood as your personal coping mechanism. Especially, as your academic status places you in the roll of authority figure.

These academics’ view ran into a major roadblock this month, with the release of the report, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor,” by the Commission on Parenthood’s Future. The report is a study comparing random samplings of four hundred eighty-five young adults; ages eighteen to forty-five, conceived through donor insemination to five hundred sixty-three young adults conceived the ‘old-fashioned way.’

Mr. Wilcox reported, “Significantly, the single women who chose to have a child by donor insemination were better-educated and slightly better off than the parents who had biological children together. So the study’s results cannot be dismissed on the grounds that affluent married couples were being compared to poor single mothers.” This was an excuse many have cited to dismiss the idea of two parent families. Those that support the sperm-donor father as acceptable, ignore God, nature, universal intelligence or the like who created masculinity and femininity. To them it is just luck, cosmic Three-Card-Monty.

The above study points to a different understanding. It shows that children conceived by single mothers who chose donor insemination are not as “All Right,” as the pundits would have us believe. “Young adults with maverick moms and donor dads report a sense of confusion, loss, and distress about their origins and identity, and about their inability to relate to their biological father and to his kin.”

Our fathers and mothers are our first role models of masculinity and femininity. What sort of model of masculinity would a child learn about a sperm donor? It doesn’t matter if the child is a boy or girl. Both need to learn from a healthy father. No question, there are unhealthy ones, or ones that were absent, just as there are now more unhealthy absent working mothers.

The predicament for the children can be compared to that of adopted children. Many have an inner sense of confusion about who they are, where they really fit in, and why their biological parents didn’t want or care about them. The above-mentioned study says that seventy-one percent of the mother/donor progeny report: “My sperm donor is half of who I am,” and seventy-eight percent wonder, “What my sperm donor’s family would be like.” Half report that they “feel sad” when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers.”

OF COURSE THEY DO! Donor offspring are similarly much less likely to report that they can rely on their family. Fifty-six percent report depending more on peers than on family, compared to twenty-nine percent of young adults born to two biological parents. You can’t count on a sperm donor to be there for you, guide you, protect you, set boundaries, or discipline you like a father would. Further, inside these children know something is not quite right with how they were created. “Why would mom choose not to have a husband who would be a father for me?” they might naturally think. “They didn’t have a fight and get divorced, she just chose for me not to have a dad.” Would it be any wonder if a child thought this? Resentment would be a bi-product. This would produce rebelliousness.

I have witnessed families where the mothers resort to bullying by screaming, withholding, and manipulating. They may get what they want including their kid’s attention, but are resented and ultimately ignored. This diminishes what they wish to teach and devalues femininity, as well as masculinity, and the family. In fact, looking at many divorced households without a father present to discipline, one will see an inordinate percentage of discipline problems.

The loss felt by many sperm-donor offspring contributed to the above study’s statistic that one hundred seventy seven percent of them are more likely to have trouble with drugs and alcohol than children born into NORMAL, read that, two biological parent families. Yes, normality is not wrong or bad, no matter how hard you wish to twist it. I think people should be able to do what they wish as consenting adults, but where it affects others, especially kids, I draw the line. Children need male/female role models and peer groups are not a replacement for that learning.

RI# 283