Categories
AS IT TURNS OUT GENDER

Who Controlled Your Formative years?

Depending on who you read or the year in which you read it, a child’s most formative years are 0-8. It used to be through seven, then zero through five. Whichever it is, a few years after birth is when the infant, toddler, child learns the quickest and forms a basic foundation of character.

Formative vs learning.

formative: serving to form something, especially having a profound and lasting influence on a person’s development.

learning: the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught.

Based on what I’ve read, the formative part is the most vague. Character I suppose can be taught or learned by watching how others behave, but it seems that character building is, or at least should be, something that continues to develop until death of the organism.

Learning, the same thing. More rapidly in the beginning, maybe that’s how it looks from the viewer watching the development of the child, but maybe in later years and throughout life, learning happens just as quickly. Compare amount of learning in the first four years of life to four years in college, and the college years would win. So I’m not sure if the learning happens more rapidly in the beginning than it does during other later stages of life.

To look at formative one must define it more precisely. For instance, when does a child develop their defense mechanisms in a psychological sense, instead of being more or less imprinted by outside stimuli without a filter mechanism?

What does age of reason mean? A child reaches the age of reason at seven years old. According to researchers it’s when a child can distinguish right from wrong. What does right and wrong mean? At seven years old suddenly a child’s conscience gets activated? What activates it? Why would it happen suddenly and not progressively? Why wouldn’t the child be using these skills as they develop even when not fully developed?

There are a lot of questions about those early years and how a child develops, but even if the answers are somewhat intuitive rather than more empirical, there seems to be a consensus on a child being adversely affected by early trauma, that becomes more deep-seated or stuns the psyche to a degree that remains lasting even if it is not remembered, which can influence the person’s entire life thereafter.

Yet simultaneously we’ll hear that children shrug off what the adult calls trauma easier than adults do. They bounce back quicker. They’ve yet to learn how to carry grudges. One minute to the next is a new, better or worse experience. Never-the-less it’s a continuous journey of learning by observation and forming views, even when those views are not attached to language.

So here’s my point.

Raise your own kids, especially during the formative years, now called by researchers 0-8 years old.

Many wealthy kids were essentially raised by black African of Spanish speaking Nannies. These usually low-paid employees had full reign over those under their charge. If you have a problem with their views and actions now that they’re adults in important, powerful positions that affect your life, then look to who raised them. Not their parents.

Wealthy parents characteristically distance themselves from their children early in life detaching to make them stand on their own. But children are children. They turn to love their Nannies, but obviously based on the white hatred coming from black Africans 24/7 for long past grievances, it’s becoming clear that those Nannies did not love those children back.

So here we have a bunch of loveless rich kids, raised by Nannies who hated them for their white color and money. How does a child process that? Kids sense when someone doesn’t like them, and while the parents are gone, God only knows how many children were damaged in their formative years by hate-filled caretakers. Children see nuances in behavior better than adults – that’s my non-scientific view.

  • ‘No, no I wasn’t angry with the children; it was the parents I was angry at/.
  • Anger comes through intentional or not. The child might not understand that you hate their parents, unless you tell them; all they understand is that you’re cool to them. That coolness lingers through life.

I saw a movie once that showed black women working for wealthy families make a chocolate pie out of their own feces flavored to disguise the contents. Then it showed the white woman who was the target of the hate prank eating it, appreciative that someone had made her a pie and seemingly loving every bite, while the black woman filled her with sweet talk to distract her so she’d actually eat it.

I’m assuming it was based on a true story, since black Africa would have objected if it weren’t true, right? Maybe they wouldn’t have objected, but loved the hate so much that it was worth keeping it in the movie even if it made black maids look bad.

Who could trust a black maid after that? That’s a scene that never leaves the consciousness, much less the subconscious or unconscious mind. I suppose the movie industry would claim art imitating life there. Did it really happen though? It could have. But did it? If it didn’t then there’s a hole in the art imitating life position.

I often wondered why white people would entrust their treasure (their children) to people who hated them, or on the other hand to people that black Africa claims white people hate. If you hated the black race would you hire someone from it to raise your child in the formative years? If white people love their children like black people say they do, then why hire someone from a race they hate to nanny their children? I still don’t get it.

If Blacks don’t love their own children, as many black people have said about other black people, then why hire them to take care of yours? It didn’t make any sense, still doesn’t.

Dog sitting isn’t much different. Why hire someone from a group who claims to think and act as one, when you know through watching the movies and living in the neighborhood what some groups think is okay to do to dogs?

The movie industry has long said that movies are art imitating life. Some of it is. But life also imitates art. Just go back to the ‘bobo doll’ experiment – the adult acts aggressively, and in turn the child acts aggressively. It’s basic copycat behavior. See aggression in the movies, and people act more aggressively in their own homes, on the road and later in the community.

To say that this bobo doll experiment was a ground breaking discovery, when copycat behavior was around since humans existed was disingenuous.

For the movie industry to produce movies depicting violence against women as nothing more than what they see at home, actually makes the behavior seem normal to the observer and even justified.

Why not tell the story without punching women in the face or raping them or torturing them or otherwise demeaning them?

Evidently people like to watch it, which some in the field of psychology may describe as cathartic or vicarious pleasure. Maybe the social engineers are responsible, thinking if people watch movies containing violence against women, the violence against women rate will plummet in real life.

Men get out their frustration with women by watching other men on the screen punch, rape or mutilate them. They get a release. How does that effect women? That men are getting a release from watching men abuse women, when a woman is sitting in the same room watching the same movie?

But that’s not what really happens. Watching aggressive behavior heightens a person’s autonomic nervous system, putting them in a fight or flight mode; there is no release until the person fights or flees – or drinks a liter of alcohol and lets the alcohol do the fighting for them.

The bobo doll experiment does not conclude that by watching aggressive behavior it makes one avoid aggressive behavior or that someone achieves a release from seeing a doll get beat up.

Quite the contrary, yet when the movie industry puts forth these arguments with their own studies citing aggression on the screen does not translate to real life or that it has no affect, congress throws its collective hands in the air and settles on symbols denoting violence on movies watched, so the tender-hearted people can avoid them.

Just so congress knows, the tender-hearted people are often the ones in the community who become targets for said violence. ‘Well, toughen them up, make them watch, put violence in every God-damned movie, so nobody cares’.

Why put it in if nobody cares? Somebody cares.

The USA had begun to move away from the particularly gruesome, real to life violent scenes. Then all of a sudden there was this influx of foreign films that made the Mafia films of the past look like high school plays.

What was particularly shocking was the closed full-force fists to women’s faces by men, equal to men punching men. For people who have never seen that, it’s shocking. I suppose the men will argue that if they punch men in the face, they should be able to punch women in the face if women want equal treatment.

And believe it or not, that’s the view of many men in Eastern Europe and Africa. And anywhere that Eastern Europeans and Africans populate outside of their respective countries, those beliefs are present. Asia, same thing. Middle Eastern countries, same thing.

I grew up thinking an equal fight was one on one. Not so with the Africans – with them it’s a pile on. Kick a person when they’re down and the whole crowd does the same. Samoans beat you until they’re satisfied; if you die, then that’s what it took to reach their point of satisfaction.

Nobody needed a study to prove it. It’s copycat behavior, but in the movies there’s just so much of it. Again I think the social planners think it actually reduces violence in the community, but with all the shootings happening, alongside the influx in violence toward women and men in movies offered by Netflix, where people can turn it on 24/7 and get their daily fix, it’s too prevalent to be coincidence.

Add to that the size of the screens and the accompanying music to magnify and heighten the violent experience, and it becomes over kill, over saturation, beyond satisfaction.

One shouldn’t conduct a study on violence using emergency room visits or domestic calls to police as their data to determine accurately the violence level in the home, at the workplace, on the street, and then claim no correlation exists between what happens on the screen and what happens in life. If aggressive behavior can be copied by children, it can be copied by adults, whether in person in real time, or by watching a film.

If a pornographic film can induce sexual behavior, then so can a violent film induce violent behavior.

In the case of violence against women in the home it will do no good to ask if the couple just watched a film with violence in it. It could have been last week, or last month or they could have witnessed a blow up at work. It’s the constant deluge, throughout films, in most films that contain violence that slow triggers the brain into thinking it is acceptable behavior. They become so desensitized to it, that their own violent action becomes almost automatic. She deserves it.

Some will cite that violence in the home and community were around long before movies existed. That’s correct, but not to the same extent of duration, degree, and frequency as it does now with gruesome, abhorrent, perverse acts of depravity on screen, on demand.

One hesitates to even use the word violent any more, since black Africa recently showed the world that burning cities to them was not violent, that punching people in the face with a cinderblock was no more than getting an ass whoppin’.

Violence means different things to different people, races and ethnicities, gender too. ‘If she’s gonna fight like a man, she’s gonna get punched like a man’.

My lingering question is why does anybody need to punch anybody? What does it say about the culture that encourages and applauds it? Why? Especially against women who most of the time are not an equal match in physical prowess. If they were, then men and women would compete in sports and they don’t.

Do the cultures that don’t allow women equal rights status exhibit more violence toward women? I suspect so, but I don’t know.

What I do know is that humans copy behavior, across the board.

Different cultures, ethnicities and races behave differently behind closed doors. The implication here is that they also behave in similar ways both private and public.

If you can copy bad behavior, you can copy good behavior. It’s the way the system is set. Fifty-fifty, you choose and the Universe hopes you choose wisely.

If the bad behavior has greater impact in duration, degree and frequency, then there are negative consequences – ‘not intended’ the movie industry will claim based on their scientific studies on violence in films. Something else, besides the movie triggered that person to do what they did.

That’s one of those science-based lies.

Why is the movie industry so hell-bent on keeping the most gruesome violence in their movies if it doesn’t have any affect? Movies are all about affect.

They say violence in movies imitates what happens in the real world. Yes, but with one major caveat.

No one in the real world actually sees the gruesome act in real time, otherwise every violent crime on earth would be solved – the whole world would have seen it.

Contrary to what the movie industry would have you believe, the familiarity factor is missing, so there’s no buffer or filter with which to emotionally deal with what they see on the screen; it’s raw. And it startles. People have to turn away from it.

Not every person who had a bad start in life due to the people charged with raising them in their formative years becomes narcissistic, but if you’re going to single out one race as being distant and insensitive to your needs as an adult, look to who raised them, then look at who raised you and why you seek reassurance from narcissistic people now that you’re an adult.

Frankly I think white people hire black people and Spanish speaking people to nanny their kids, because they trust them. Unfortunately the world is seeing that trust eroded and rightly so. Faking that you like somebody’s children so you can get a job, no matter the color or ethnicity is always bad for the children. Find a different career focus than the one that includes caring for somebody else’s children in their formative years.

As it turns out, many of those wealthy white people grouped in the top one to ten percent whom the black activists were sticking it to during the year-long riots across America were nannied by black and brown people during their formative years.


  • Facebook Patterns Its Policies After Dictatorships
    Facebook Patterns Its Policies After Dictatorships
  • ‘Axolotl weirdos can regrow their brains’…
    ‘Axolotl weirdos can regrow their brains’…
  • Two Bishops Defeeted
    Two Bishops Defeeted
  • Spain Is A Torturer Of The Innocent
    Spain Is A Torturer Of The Innocent


NEW POSTS COME TO YOU!

Join 256 other followers





By Sharon Lee Davies-Tight, artist, writer, chef

Chef Davies-Tight™. The Animal-Free Chef™. ANIMAL-FREE SOUS-CHEF™. FAT-FREE CHEF™. Word Warrior Davies-Tight™. HAPPY WHITE HORSE™. SHARON ON THE NEWS™. BIRTH OF A SEED™. Till now and forever © Sharon Lee Davies-Tight, Artist, Author, Animal-Free Chef, Activist. ARCHITECT of 5 PRINCIPLES TO A BETTER LIFE™ & MAINSTREAM ANIMAL-FREE CUISINE™.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.