Challenge Your Status Quo *the Enemies That We All Need

This simple sentence published by Ali Davies in Google+ stuck with me.

“Being willing to challenge your own status quo is an essential part of getting on the path to creating change.”

A very true statement and a very challenging one, too. Personal change can only happen if a person wants to change. Leaders can only facilitate change if they first start with themselves. It takes personal motivation and a lot more.

Change fails often.

Change becomes a fad. A moment embraced quickly and fades just as fast.

Change becomes like a new piece of clothing. It looks sharp at first glance but then gets pushed to the back of the closet.

We see the data. It shows trends going in the wrong direction, ratios out of sync, and surveys with bad results.

We stare at change. It is an icy stare. We can see it, feel it, but cannot make it happen. The reality is we are entranced with the status quo.

We get caught up in daily routines. We get stuck and keep stuck.

Change feels uncomfortable. We like being comfortable.

Change seems to belong to someone else. We like to point fingers.

Real change can happen if we move to the levels where we really need to go.

Change succeeds when embraced more deeply.

Change takes hold more successfully if done from an emotional, social, and spiritual level. True change takes a deeper look and true engagement at each of these three levels.

Emotional. Feelings play an important role in change. Our emotions can hold us in a status quo state. Even though we may be in an unhappy emotional condition, other emotions may hold a stronger grip on us. Fear is one. Comfort is another. Our disposition to our various emotional states play a role in whether or not we discard the status quo and move in a new, better direction.

A few key questions to answer may be helpful:

1. Which emotions do we hold to a higher value? Do these emotions enable change or prevent it?
2. What is our emotional commitment to our current ways?
3. What emotion is driving us to change? Or, what emotion do we need as a driver to achieve the required change?

We need to be emotionally committed to the desired change. It takes self-control. It takes getting our emotions in the right priority order. We need to tap into the right emotion that is going to enable us to change.

Social. Our social community plays key parts in our duel between the status quo and change. Friends, family, and co-workers participate. Some, for whatever reason, may hold us back. It could be intentional or unintentional. In many ways, it doesn’t matter. We need to ask ourselves whether or not our social interactions and relationships are really helping us or not.

For me, this really boils down to two key questions that I have highlighted in previous posts:

1. Do the people around you make you a better person?
2. Do you make those around you better?

A mutually-beneficial relationship is the best kind. At times, it may be more challenging to support someone in the change they need to make. It could be due to a change in our relationship with them or just a tough, but needed, change to make.

We need to ensure we have supportive, challenging (for the right reasons), and mutually beneficial relationships in place. Strong relationships challenge. Strong relationships care. Strong relationships make us better and interrupt the status quo when required.

Are people holding us back or down or enabling us to move up and forward? We need the latter to engage meaningful, worthwhile change.

Spiritual.  Our core beliefs matter. Our life philosophy matters. How we approach change depends on how we view continuous learning, improving ourselves, serving in our community, and other values. In many ways, it depends on how we view our humanness. Do we view it as a static state? Or, do we view it as evolving and growing?

It is not forgoing key principles. It is ensuring we have defined our values, principles, and philosophies to drive our live in a purposeful way.

The key questions to answer in the spiritual dimension may be:

1. What do we really hold dear and close to how we live and lead our life? What are our life and leadership drivers?
2. Are our core beliefs and values aligned with the change desired?
3. What values are tripping us up from moving forward in new, better directions? What values do we need to embrace to lead and live in a balanced change-purpose way?

We need to spend the time as early in our life as possible to explore our spiritual side and determine our core empowering beliefs and philosophies. It prepares the foundation for a life well-lived and a leadership model well-formulated.

Challenge your status quo.

“Challenge your status quo” is the statement that sparked this. As I thought more about it, it dawned on me that we need to go deeper to do this in a proper and real progress-oriented way.

The new reality, I believe, is this:  Change can only happen from within and enabled through the right social and emotional conditions. We stare at our status quo, and we freeze. It is a stalemate, unless we go deeper and understand what we need in our living and leading capabilities to change and proceed in good, purposeful directions.

Author: Jon Mertz

Follow Up to My Last Post

 *All you churchgoers, church leaders, presidents *including you Obama, law-abiding citizens and pillars of your community, I wouldn't piss on your heads if they caught fire!

 With the American Indian population decimated, you continue the lie that Chris Scumnutts Discovered America.

My Mental Midget President and His FollowersTalk Mierda

Do Indians Rightfully Own America?

Critics of libertarianism occasionally claim that, if libertarians are correct, the entirety of America rightfully belongs to the Indians.  After all, we stole it from them, didn’t we?

Unfortunately, the preceding question is missing a lot of scare quotes.  Yes, “we” stole it from “them.”  (And much much worse).  But both the “we” and the “them” have been dead for centuries.  Many of “us” aren’t even descended from either side.  In any case, the last time I checked, both libertarians and virtually all of our modern critics reject the doctrine of inherited guilt.  So barring abundant scare quotes, we stole nothing from them.

But what about the Locke/Nozick historical theory of justice?  Isn’t anyone who fails to return stolen property to the Indians violating their property rights?  While I’m not a big fan of Murray Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, he has a methodical and plausible response to all questions of this form.  I almost never post lengthy blockquotes, but here I’ll make an exception:

It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, “produces” them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner.

Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones’s title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its “first” (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor.

But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.” Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter.

Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones’s title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep
it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides. In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now – after Jones has been apprehended – in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to “homestead” it – to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner.

But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this “first” person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.

To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don’t know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can’t find out either way, then the hypothetically “unowned” property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can’t find the victim or his heirs, then (c1) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title.

The implications for the Indian question are straightforward.  Namely: In the extremely unlikely event that any particular Indian can show that he personally is the rightful heir of a particular Indian who was wrongfully dispossessed of a particular piece of property, the current occupants should hand him the keys to his birthright and vacate the premises.  Otherwise the current occupants have the morally strongest claim to their property, and the status quo should continue.  Anything more is just the doctrine of collective guilt masquerading as a defense of property rights.

THE ORIGINS OF AUTONOMY: NOT AS LONESOME AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT

By Contributing Writer Molly Wilder

Autonomous man is–and should be–self-sufficient, independent, and self-reliant, a self-realizing individual who directs his efforts towards maximizing his personal gains. His independence is under constant threat from other (equally self-serving) individuals: hence he devises rules to protect himself from intrusion. Talk of rights, rational self-interest, expedience, and efficiency permeates his moral, social, and political discourse. (Lorraine Code 1991, What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge, p78)

Thus Lorraine Code describes the conception of autonomy in the popular imagination–and often in the academy as well. This conception of autonomy is obsessed with the self, as evidenced by the language Code uses to articulate it: “self-sufficient,” “self-reliant,” “self-realizing,” and “rational self-interest.” And the word ‘autonomous’ originally meant “self-rule” (derived from the Greek αὐτόνομος, from αὐτο-, ‘self’, and νόμος, ‘rule, law’). The image of the self that Code evokes is that of a citadel, forever warding off external attacks. These attacks are characterized as coming primarily from contact with other people—suggesting that relationships with other people are in themselves dangerous to the self. Though relationships may be valuable in some ways, they are a constant threat to the self’s interests.

Feminist philosophers have largely found this conception both accurate and deeply problematic. Though some feminists have therefore rejected the value of autonomy all together, many have instead sought to reclaim autonomy as a feminist value. Since the late 1980s, feminists have proposed and argued for a myriad of alternative conceptions of autonomy, which have collectively come to be known as theories of “relational autonomy.”

Theories of relational autonomy vary widely. Some, like Marilyn Friedman’s, still recognize the value of independence and conceive of autonomy as an internal procedure that is available to people of many different beliefs and circumstances. Such an internal procedure requires some sort of critical reflection on attitudes and actions, but places no limits on the outcome of the procedure. Thus, this sort of procedure makes it possible for a person to count as autonomous even if she endorses attitudes or actions that may seem incongruous with a liberal Western image of autonomy, such as discounting her own right to be respected or remaining in an abusive relationship.  In contrast, theories like Mariana Oshana’s put stringent requirements on the kind of actual practical control necessary for autonomy, significantly limiting those who can count as autonomous. Such theories might consider a person autonomous only if her circumstances meet certain conditions, such as economic independence or a wide range of available social opportunities—conditions that might not be met, for example, by a person in an abusive relationship.

And there are theories that aim somewhere in the middle, such as Andrea Westlund’s, whose conception of autonomy requires some accountability and connection to the outside world, but does so in a way that provides latitude for many different belief systems and social circumstances. Specifically, on Westlund’s account, a person is autonomous only if she holds herself open to criticism from other people. While this dialogical accountability is not a purely internal procedure like Friedman’s, as it involves people other than the agent herself, it does not inherently limit the outcome of the procedure as Oshana’s does. See this collection of essays for more on the theories of Friedman, Oshana, and Westlund, as well as other contemporary theorists of relational autonomy.

These theories, while diverse, share a rejection of the idea that autonomy is inherently threatened by relationships with others. On the contrary, they argue that certain relationships are in fact necessary to the development of autonomy, its maintenance, or both. These theories have provided a much needed new perspective on the concept of autonomy, and continue to provide new insights, particularly with respect to understanding the effect of oppression on selves.

But their core idea, that autonomy requires relationships, is an old one. Long before autonomy became so closely aligned with the protection of the self from others, a prominent strain of philosophy recognized relationships with others as crucial to the well-being of the self—rather than as a threat. To illustrate, consider these excerpts from an ancient philosopher, Aristotle, and a modern philosopher, Spinoza.

For Aristotle, the ultimate good in life, a kind of long-term happiness, is a self-sufficient good. The word he uses is ‘αὐτάρκης’ (derived from αὐτο-, “self,” and ἀρκέω, “to suffice”). He clarifies: “And by self-sufficient we mean not what suffices for oneself alone, living one’s life as a hermit, but also with parents and children and a wife, and friends and fellow citizens generally, since the human being is by nature meant for a city.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097b9-11, tr. Joe Sachs) Aristotle, then, explicitly understands self-sufficiency with respect to happiness to require certain kinds of relationships—those of family, friends, and political compatriots.

Though Aristotle does not discuss the concept of autonomy, this passage and others suggest that his ideal of independence was one that required intimate relationships, rather than being threatened by them. Aristotle famously wrote of humans as “political animals.” On a first reading of this phrase, it is apparent that humans are political simply in the sense that they tend to form social institutions by which to govern themselves. But the phrase might also be read to suggest that even at their most independent, humans are the kind of animals that rely on one another.

Spinoza, likewise, identifies the well-being of the self with happiness, and he argues that happiness consists in having the power to seek and acquire what is advantageous to oneself. One might reasonably summarize Spinoza’s view of happiness as the achievement of one’s rational self-interest. For a contemporary reader, Spinoza’s language naturally evokes the conception of autonomy articulated by Code, a conception in which the wellbeing of the self is naturally threatened by others.

Yet Spinoza explicitly argues that “nothing is more advantageous to man than man.” (Ethics, P18, Sch., trans. Samuel Shirley) On Spinoza’s view the only effective, and therefore rational, way for individual to seek her own advantage is with the help of others. In general, Spinoza criticizes those thoughts and emotions that push people apart—and he argues that when we fall prey to these things, we not only lose power, but we fail to act in the interest of our true selves. An individual’s true self-interest, he argues, is necessarily aligned with the true self-interest of others.

The examples I’ve given remind us that, despite the apparent radicalism of arguing that the concept of autonomy is inherently relational in our contemporary cultural context, the conjunction of terms of self and terms of relationality is both ancient and long-lived. The very concepts that Code uses to describe the kind of autonomy that sees relationships as a threat—self-sufficiency and rational self-interest—were once thought of as concepts that in fact required relationships.

Thirty years after she wrote it, Code’s depiction of autonomy as an atomistic individualism threatened by others still well-captures the general sense Americans have of autonomy. Although feminist philosophers have been fairly successful in gaining wide recognition of the importance of relationships to autonomy among philosophers who study autonomy, their impact has not been as wide as might be expected given the strength of their arguments. One major exception has been the field of bioethics, in which the discussion of feminist theories of relational autonomy is quite lively. Yet these theories have not been robustly taken up in other professional fields such as business or legal ethics. Nor have they been taken up in a pervasive way in mainstream philosophical ethics or political theory.

Moreover, they have been decidedly less successful in changing the popular conception of autonomy, particularly within the United States, where the threatened-self conception of autonomy is so revered in the nation’s mythology. Indeed, many Americans might be surprised to learn about the history of this conception and its relative novelty. While some philosophers are already doing this, perhaps it would be fruitful in going forward for people in all fields to spend some time tracing the development of their conceptions of autonomy and self—they might be surprised at what they find.

Perhaps one reason relational theories haven’t been taken up is because of their feminist origins. Some of the wariness, surely, is simply sexism, both explicit and implicit. But beyond that, there may be a perception that the theories are specifically tied to the interests of women. Yet, to borrow a delightfully biting phrase from Spinoza, if someone were to pay a modicum of attention, they would see that is not the case. The historical precursors of their ideas demonstrate this. While the contemporary standard bearers of relational autonomy may be feminists, the basic ideas are as old and general as philosophy itself, and if the ideas are true, they should prompt Americans to seriously reconsider their national assumptions and priorities. If autonomy is in fact relational, it calls into question standard American justifications and understandings of a huge array of policies and practices, everything from gun control to education to marriage.

Molly has just received her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and is currently developing a dissertation that brings together the professional ethics of lawyers, neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, and feminist theories of relational autonomy. She wants to know, can you be a (really) good person and a (really) good lawyer at the same time? Beyond her dissertation, Molly has varied philosophical interests, including philosophy of tort law, children’s rights, privacy, and communication. When not philosophizing, Molly enjoys reading children’s fantasy, finding places to eat great vegan food, and engaging in witty banter.

The Badass Personalities of People Who Like Being Alone

 It's obvious that I enjoy Psychology Today yet the studies and applications are biased. The college courses and applications were designed for "mainstream America if and or mainstream society". Do you remember the SAT bias of asking a teen from a middle class family what escargot is and also asking a lower class teen the same question?

There are people who like being alone, maybe even love it. What do you think they are like? Does your mind immediately leap to the misanthrope or the dreaded loner hiding away somewhere plotting his next murder? As Anneli Rufus told us in her wonderful Party of One: The Loners’ Manifesto, those stereotypes don’t capture real loners. True loners are people who embrace their alone time. Those who lash out are typically alone against their will. They want to be included. They want to be loved by the objects of their desire. But they’ve been excluded and rejected instead. That exclusion and rejection (among other things) fuels their hostility and rage.

What’s the truth about people who like being alone? Thanks to some newly developed scales for measuring attitudes toward being alone, we now have research-based answers.

First, though, we need to understand what it means to like being alone. One sense of “alone” refers to spending time alone. The “Desire for Being Alone” scale, developed by Birk Hagemeyer and his colleagues, measures that.

People who score high on the desire to be alone AGREE with items such as:

When I am alone, I feel relaxed.
I like to be completely alone.
They DISAGREE with items such as:

I feel uncomfortable when I am alone.
Being alone quickly gets to be too much for me.
A second meaning of alone is the way it is used to refer to people who are single. (I think this usage is misleading and inappropriate, but I’ll save that argument for another day.) Thinking about single life as something some people fear, Stephanie Spielmann and her colleagues developed a “Fear of Being Single” scale. I’m interested in the personality characteristics of people who are UNAFRAID of being single, so I just reversed their scale.

People who are UNAFRAID of being single DISAGREE with items such as:

I feel anxious when I think about being single forever.
If I end up alone in life, I will probably feel like there is something wrong with me.
Details of the Studies

Personality was measured for two groups of people in the “Fear of Being Single” studies. One group consisted of 301 people recruited online, with an average age of 29. Only 33 were married; 131 were single and not dating, and the others were dating. The other group was comprised of 147 Canadian undergraduates, with an average age of 19. Only 2 were married, 105 were single and not dating, and the others were dating. Results were averaged across both groups.

article continues after advertisement

Two groups of German adults participated in the “Desire for Being Alone” studies, and unfortunately for people like me who are interested in single people, all the participants were coupled: They had been in a serious sexual relationship for at least a year. The first study included 476 participants (average age: 35), and the results were averaged across the men and the women. The second study included 578 heterosexual couples (average age: 42). Results were reported separately for the men and the women.

Personality Characteristics

The “Big Five” personality characteristics were measured for all the participants in both sets of studies:

Neurotic: tense, moody, worries a lot.
Open: original, curious, imaginative.
Extraverted: Outgoing and sociable, talkative, assertive.
Agreeable: considerate and kind, trusting, cooperative.
Conscientious: reliable, organized, thorough.
The studies of people who like spending time alone also included a measure of their sociability, as measured by items such as, “I find people more stimulating than everything else.”

The studies of people unafraid to be single included measures of six more characteristics:

Relationship-contingent self-esteem: The extent to which a person’s self-esteem is contingent on how their romantic relationship is going (when they have one).
Need to belong: People who are high in the “need to belong” are especially likely to agree with statements such as, “I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need.”
Hurt feelings proneness: These are people whose feelings are easily hurt.
Rejection sensitivity: People who are particularly sensitive to rejection are especially likely to expect to be rejected and feel anxious about it.
Loneliness: Measured by items such as, “How often do you feel that you lack companionship?”
Depression: Measured by items such as, “I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends.”
article continues after advertisement

The Findings

If our stereotypes about people who like being alone were true, then we should find that they are neurotic and closed-minded. In fact, just the opposite is true: People who like spending time alone, and who are unafraid of being single, are especially unlikely to be neurotic. They are not the tense, moody, worrying types.

People who like spending time alone, and people who are unafraid of being single, are also more likely than others to be open-minded. People who are unafraid of being single are more agreeable than people who are afraid of being single. (People who like spending time alone are no more or less agreeable than people who don’t.) And people who are unafraid of being single are also more conscientious than those who are afraid. (The results were not consistent for people who like spending time alone.)

The question I am asked most often about the personality of people who are single is whether they are more introverted. The one relevant study suggests that they probably are. But research on single people typically includes all single people, whether they want to be single or not. The studies I’m describing here tell us about people who are unafraid of being single (or who like spending time alone).

People who are unafraid of being single were more extraverted than those who are afraid of being single. Perhaps this finding is consistent with research showing that single people, on average, have more friends than married people do, and do more to maintain relationships with friends, neighbors, siblings, and parents. But again, the research on the social ties of single people includes all single people, not just those who are unafraid of being single.

article continues after advertisement

People who like spending time alone were not any more or less extraverted than those who do not, but they did score as less sociable. Those two scales (extraversion and sociability) measure similar things so it is odd that they did not produce consistent findings.

All the other personality characteristics were measured only in the studies of people who are unafraid of being single — and the results were resoundingly affirming. People who are unafraid of being alone are not overly sensitive to rejection and they don’t get their feelings hurt too easily. When they are in romantic relationships, their own self-esteem does not depend on how those relationships are faring. They do not have a particularly strong need to belong. And they are less likely to be lonely or to be depressed.

Put all that together with their openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and low levels of neuroticism, and people who are unafraid of being single look totally badass.

People who are unafraid of being single are not just talking a good game. Other studies have looked at their behaviors and those results are affirming, too. People who are unafraid of being single have standards. For example, in speed dating events, they give their contact information to fewer people. And when they do get into a romantic relationship and find it unsatisfying, they are more likely to break it off than people who are afraid of being single.

Despite all that is good and affirming about people who are unafraid of being single, they cannot expect to be celebrated or even respected by other people. People who like being single, or choose to be single, are threatening cherished worldviews about what people should want and how they should feel. Other people evaluate them more harshly than single people who wish they were coupled – even expressing more anger toward them.

As more and more people openly embrace their single lives, maybe things will change. Happy singles will become part of our cultural landscape, and those who are threatened by them will recede to the fringes.

15 Things Women Want From the Men in Their Lives

15? More like >

I’ve conducted a lot of research regarding women's friendships and the ways that people can most effectively maintain healthy connections over the long-term. In a recent study, however, we explored what women, from 18 to 75, need from the men in their lives. Not surprisingly, the qualities women seek in heterosexual romantic partners, male friends, and men in general, are not all that different from what they seek in a friend. This makes sense: Any good relationship is built on some basic, down-to-earth qualities.

Specific to Romantic Partners

Women don’t need partners who invest all their energy in trying to prove how strong, manly, masculine, macho, or heroic they are. They just want men who are willing to meet them where they are and treat them fairly and equitably — and are able to make sure that the romantic spark keeps burning.

There’s no reliable assessment that can predict whether someone is going to be a good match for you or not; no dating-site algorithm can accurately predict the human heart. Even when a potential partner brings all of the following qualities to a relationship, that's no guarantee that the two of you will have good "chemistry" or meet up at the right time for each of you to enter a new relationship. However, recognizing what we know that we need from the important people in our lives increases our “relationship quotient” so that we can at least be aware of areas worthy of enrichment prior to establishing a new romantic connection.

The traits that women tend to value and need most from the men in their lives can be categorized in three discrete areas: moral integrity (from all men); relational sensitivity (from friends and partners); and satisfying intimacy (from romantic partners).

Traits of Moral Integrity

Mutual respect is an all-or-nothing proposition: Once a person loses respect for a partner, all bets are off. Women should be given the same respect that men offer other men. When a person is made to feel disrespected or patronized, the relationship is likely to end sooner rather than later. In terms of romantic relationships, even when you’re angry or disappointed by a partner, respect should be maintained.

1. Open communication that occurs regularly and tactfully is essential. A healthy relationship flourishes when communication is clear.
2. Honesty is another "make or break" trait: Don' give someone any reasons to doubt you.
3. Trust and trustworthiness allow relationships to deepen.
4. Taking responsibility for actions and behavior. Long-term healthy relationships require a high level of maturity. Without it, disagreements and conflict worsen as couples engage in the “blame game.” Communication fails and emotional damage can be done that cannot be easily repaired.

Traits of Relational Sensitivity

1. Women need men to show kindness, patience, understanding, empathy, and compassion. Regardless of the type of relationship, men and women should be considerate of each other's feelings. Recognize that a partner’s trials and tribulations matter to her and that partners’ roles are to cherish and care for and about one another.
2. Friendship between men and women is also desired. Being a friend to your partner means treating her in the patient, accepting manner in which you treat other close friends.
3. Emotional maturity is essential. It’s okay to have some childish fun when it’s appropriate, but it’s important for women and men to behave like grown-ups when it’s time to do so, too. Being aware that brute strength does not equal intelligence is also helpful in maintaining healthy communication and connection. Sometimes it’s better to sit back and think through problems before trying to manhandle your partner into a forced solution.
4. Being supportive to the women in your life can do a world of good. Supporting your partner is a primary role. Whether your partner or a friend needs emotional or practical support, be there to assist in small and big ways. Whether it’s taking time to listen, or more active involvement in major decisions, child rearing, finances, etc., make your presence a positive and supportive one.
5. and 6. Sensitivity coupled with validation of your partner's experiences are essential. The cultural experiences of adults vary greatly based on gender identity. Recognize your own biases in how you view other women and imagine how your partner might be negatively affected by a world that sees women as less than. Don’t assume she is making things up when she shares stories of prejudice, discrimination, or unfair treatment. Gender roles constrain behavior; playing a part in breaking down harmful gender roles at home and in the workplace benefits both men and women. Don’t make women jump a higher bar to prove themselves – women and men should be afforded the same rewards for the same investment. Gender shouldn’t be a disadvantage in a relationship or a work place.

Types of Satisfying Intimacy with Romantic Partners

1. Bring adventure and excitement into the relationship, in safe and welcome ways. Challenge your partner’s perspectives and allow your own to be challenged as well. Open yourself up to new experiences and ways of thinking as you make it safe and inviting for your partner to do the same. Intellectual stimulation keeps relationships dynamic.
2. Companionship and partnership go along with friendship and create the glue that keeps most long-term relationships moving forward. No one realizes how little energy they might have for sexual activities once kids arrive, or jobs demand longer hours, or illness or disability occur; there will be times when loyal companionship is what both of you need most from each other.
3. Saying “I love you” may not be easy; these words can be highly charged. Sadly, some people believe that saying them makes them vulnerable and more likely to be hurt. Your partner, though, deserves to be made aware of your love. If saying those three words just isn’t going to happen, make sure you show your partner love in ways that matter most to her. We all need to feel loved.
4. As for sex, women ask that men don’t make everything about sex – i.e., don’t do favors that you assume will result in sexual favors being done for you.  Your good behavior should not be viewed simply as a means towards a particular end. Good sex can’t be bought, and by expecting sex as a payoff for doing something that pleases your partner, you turn a potentially romantic encounter into more of a business deal. Few and far between are the women who want to feel that they owe sex to a partner.
5. Sexual activities that are geared to pleasing your partner, not just yourself, are what your partners need you to provide. Sex should be a fun adventure that allows partners to explore and expand their sexual connection, not just a repetition of the same old, same old. As one participant shared, “Men need to ditch the myth of female sexual purity once and for all: With the right partner, women enjoy sex every bit as much as a man.”

What Everyone Deserves

Women need the men in their lives to be feminist allies who want to see the women in their lives succeed every bit as much as they want to enjoy their own success. Men should take time to recognize and acknowledge a woman's strengths and respect her for all that she brings to their relationship. And when it comes to romantic connection, women want the same things men want; they might just want them in a different order.

Why You Need To Mind Your Own Business

Do you ever feel like people are judging your actions? Why do people feel the need to make others feel like crap about the decisions they make? Do you ever find yourself filled with anxiety when thinking this way? Often times people become so preoccupied with the opinions of others that it limits their potential in any given situation. Whom people choose to associate with is their opinion and no one else’s business. Making people feel bad for their personal decisions is selfish and completely immature.


People who are unable to mind their own business are most likely internally miserable. They seek to find faults within others just to make themselves feel better. Offering insight to a friend whose present situation seems distressed can be helpful at times but there is only so much advice you can give without pushing the limits. Even if you don’t agree with what someone else is doing sometimes, you need to take a backseat and let them make their own mistakes.

“Everyone has faults and there is a fine line in helping someone get through their indiscretions and chastising them for it. It's easier said than done for people to help each other rather than hurt, because some people might not even be aware that they are simply being a pain in the rear end versus being helpful.”
For some reason, it is common for people to pass judgment on others' relationships. Don’t like their relationship status? Just be happy it isn’t yours. If someone is happy and you simply don’t agree, do not offer your opinion if it wasn’t asked for.

Just because you don’t understand the relationship does not mean it is bad; if it works for others, let it be and stay out of it. It is really as simple as that. If everyone just stopped offering their outlook on things and waited for it to be requested, there would be a whole lot less drama in this world. A relationship only involves two people, not every associate or friend these people have.


If you are not friends with a person and he or she does not personally know you, then do not make the mistake of letting his or her opinions and attitudes persuade you. These types of people thrive for attention and live for chaos. They tend to lead boring lives and have no excitement in their own, so they act in this manner to create something out of nothing. They seek to fill the gap in their lives by discussing the lives of others by judging them harshly, so that they can feel better about their own miserable existences.

“What I choose to do with my life is my choice and not yours, and what choices I decide to make is mine and mine only, and who I associate myself with is my decision and it's none of your business.”
People are too quick to judge other people’s shortcomings, but are reluctant to look internally and evaluate their own. Some people really just have nothing better to do than to gossip about others. They just seek to cause trouble because they thrive on drama. These people need to get a reality check and realize that this is an immature way to go about life.

If any situation doesn't involve you, instead of getting in the middle or putting your two cents in, you should mind your own business. If a situation concerns you or you have experienced something of a similar nature, then it's time to stand up and to talk.


There are people in your life that will always have your best interest at heart, so it is important to value those opinions. However, often times there are people in your life that seem to be on your side, but when push comes to shove, they will judge you harder than your worst critic. These people are detrimental and will relish in your shortcomings while continuously pointing them out every chance they have.

“Worry about your character and not your reputation, because your character is who you are and your reputation is only what people think of you.”
If you are happy with who you are as a person, other people’s opinions should not even faze you. Everyone has their own battles to fight and insecurities to face and these challenges would be a lot easier to overcome if other people weren’t forcing their unwarranted opinions onto them.

Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Shouldn’t this be common sense? Even if people care, most of them are ill-equipped to give advice based on another person's needs and typically want to feel as if someone is listening to them. Giving advice is usually about the ego of the advice-giver, not the feelings of the person being given the advice.

“Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others.”
The best way to tackle nosy people is to ignore them and to let them say what they say and keep moving on with your life. This will hopefully set them right. Try not to lose your temper for such people, as some do it unknowingly and some do it knowingly to irritate you. It is unfortunately the way of life, you will come across many people like this, it's better to keep your mind cool and to respond to those whom you feel are important to you so that they may talk sense to you and about you.