RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)?

RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 10:34:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus {clipped only because there was so much stuff that I wanted to leave it all -- but then, the post was WAY too big!... so I only left the end, so y'all would know whose post to read to get the full impact} I have to go do other stuff, but I am sure I have offered up enough hijack for thought for now. Thx for listening! See, now I don't consider this a hijack at all... I think it's really germane to the discussion at hand. I see your point about most women really not wanting an 'adult child' -- to be honest, I make it pretty clear in my profile that I'm not into the 'adult baby' scene... but I think that somehow I see a difference between the needful, passive servant and a child. While that servant may need detailed directions, xhe isn't going to throw tantrums when xhe doesn't get hir way, or intentionally mess things up just to get attention... at least in my experience, the servants we've had who have been needful and who required external support and a very clear structure were often -very- dedicated and diligent... they just needed to know that the situation was very secure, and know that they could have their confusion managed, either through thorough preparation or through a heirarchy that allowed for clarification where there was confusion. I will admit that, now that my Darling and I are in our 'reconstruction' phase around here, the challenges of a deeply needy servant fall more to us than when we had a clear hierarchy in place, and a Chatelaine and Butler to handle the repetitive questions and issues that cropped up -- but I -still- find something enticing about that needful, passive, servant of -either- gender, and I would be likely to choose that person over someone who was more of a go-getter. Just to be balanced, though, I know that my Darling really doesn't like having a needful servant. She wants to be able to speak-and-go... and even have a servant who comes in and can see automatically what needs to be done. She'd rather have a servant -do- something and have to correct how it was done, than have a servant have to -ask- and get a description of how we want it before setting out. It's always worked out well for us when our household was larger, because the self-directed servants typically ended up in 'trainer' or 'first servant' positions where their initiative was very useful -and- buffered my darling from the more needful, more externally-directed servants. One thing that we're trying to sort out now is that preference variance between us... as we interview servants, we keep encountering that whole "too needful for SR/to self-directed for CF" thing. I appreciate the whole issue of -not- being a submissive, but being service-oriented for other reasons. For you, it was an ethnic/cultural issue. For me, it was maybe a bit ethnic/cultural, but the service ethic was really cultivated during my years being involved with the monastary. I think that's why I was able to do what I did with the House -- I'd already dealt with the dichotomy during my seminary years, so I didn't have to fight myself quite so much when I started training with the House. I know that I couldn't go back now, though. One thing that I remember from being Chatelaine was the whole issue of dealing with needful servants and task assignments. I think that there are certain things that you can assign a needful servant to where you don't have to monitor every step--things that can be taught once and then just repeated, and things that play to a particular servant's strengths (for example, we had one servant who was very passive, but a fantastic cook... as long as she had a planned menu, she was fine. If you came in and said 'fix me something to eat', she was as lost as a lamb lost in the forest in a fog.) Anyway, I appreciated what you had to say. I think there's still a very powerful gender bias in the community at large... both in terms of the 'common' world, and in terms of WIITWD, and I think that is really sort of a shame -- it seems to me that it isn't so very hard to be happy with oneself, and not presume that someone else's honest self-expression somehow degrades ones own being... but people just don't seem to grasp that so well. We keep letting outsiders and outside prejudices influence our self-perception, and I think it inhibits us from really loving ourselves as we are, regardless of the circumstances that we find ourselves in, and regardless of whether we fit in some culturally-ordained box. I suspect that, until we're able to do that for ourselves, we're going to have a hard time, as a community, accepting the individuals who -do- slide towards the edges of what is considered 'ok' for their age/race/gender/religion/culture. All we have is today, but it seems to me that we let people suck the joy out of it by accepting their judgements about whether we're allowed to be happy in our own skin and in our own minds... and then we, in our misery, turn around and suck the joy out of someone else's life by judging them. shrugs Calla Firestorm

daddysprop247 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 11:08:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I suppose my major concern with people who are totally dependent, incapable of managing by themselves is that eventually their relationship will end and they will become drones on society. Just as I object to motorcyclists who don't wear helmets, because it will be my tax dime that supports them for 30 years in a head trauma hospital, so it will be my dime paying for shelter for those who have no life skills. I don't care if prop's relationship is something that squicks me or not, as long as she's in it. I do care if he drops dead or tosses her out and she winds up on welfare because she isn't capable of getting a job and becoming self supporting. My line is when their inability to function becomes my responsibility. okay, that's a reasonable stance. however why is there an assumption that because someone is not capable of functioning independently in the world, that (without a strong controlling partner such as a Master) they will become a drain on society at large? it would certainly never occur to me to sponge off the welfare system, or wander around aimlessly looking for a handout. i would imagine most slaves or utterly dependent types suddenly left without a Master would return to family or dear friends, whoever was there for them in their life before becoming property. or, as it is in my case, they would be left to the care of another Master. however even without these options, having a very dependent, submissive nature does not rob one of the ability to contribute to society, to be useful, or to work. in fact one with such a nature may be especially driven to do these things, rather than simply use those around them. so while no, i could never be entirely self-sufficient and independent, i have always been more than willing and able to work and earn my way, whether through a typical job or personal service to another.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 12:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 okay, that's a reasonable stance. however why is there an assumption that because someone is not capable of functioning independently in the world, that (without a strong controlling partner such as a Master) they will become a drain on society at large? it would certainly never occur to me to sponge off the welfare system, or wander around aimlessly looking for a handout. i would imagine most slaves or utterly dependent types suddenly left without a Master would return to family or dear friends, whoever was there for them in their life before becoming property. or, as it is in my case, they would be left to the care of another Master. however even without these options, having a very dependent, submissive nature does not rob one of the ability to contribute to society, to be useful, or to work. in fact one with such a nature may be especially driven to do these things, rather than simply use those around them. so while no, i could never be entirely self-sufficient and independent, i have always been more than willing and able to work and earn my way, whether through a typical job or personal service to another. This is a misconception that I really, really feel compelled to talk about. It's been my experience, over the years, that it is actually -easier- for someone who is passive, service-oriented, and who takes direction exceptionally well to find work, even when someone who is bull-headed, self-directed, independent, and project-oriented like myself (and who gets bored with repetitive stuff -very- easily) is much harder to place. I don't know why people seem to think that just because someone is passive and works better with direction, that that person is somehow unemployable and incapable of working. I'll tell you what, completely aside from my desire to have one of these folks for myself on a private basis, I could use one of these folks at my current job, and I'm not the only one! Calla Firestorm

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 12:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 okay, that's a reasonable stance. however why is there an assumption that because someone is not capable of functioning independently in the world, that (without a strong controlling partner such as a Master) they will become a drain on society at large? it would certainly never occur to me to sponge off the welfare system, or wander around aimlessly looking for a handout. i would imagine most slaves or utterly dependent types suddenly left without a Master would return to family or dear friends, whoever was there for them in their life before becoming property. or, as it is in my case, they would be left to the care of another Master. however even without these options, having a very dependent, submissive nature does not rob one of the ability to contribute to society, to be useful, or to work. in fact one with such a nature may be especially driven to do these things, rather than simply use those around them. so while no, i could never be entirely self-sufficient and independent, i have always been more than willing and able to work and earn my way, whether through a typical job or personal service to another. This is a misconception that I really, really feel compelled to talk about. It's been my experience, over the years, that it is actually -easier- for someone who is passive, service-oriented, and who takes direction exceptionally well to find work, even when someone who is bull-headed, self-directed, independent, and project-oriented like myself (and who gets bored with repetitive stuff -very- easily) is much harder to place. I don't know why people seem to think that just because someone is passive and works better with direction, that that person is somehow unemployable and incapable of working. I'll tell you what, completely aside from my desire to have one of these folks for myself on a private basis, I could use one of these folks at my current job, and I'm not the only one! Calla Firestorm [Applauds Loudly] They make the world a brighter place as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes people hate what they see in themselves through others and sometimes they hate what others are and just wish they were. It's the one who can respect another that's truly happy with themselves. You can look for the downside in anything I guess for the sake of argument but these type of people have a place here. Just like everyone else.

DesFIP -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 3:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 so while no, i could never be entirely self-sufficient and independent, i have always been more than willing and able to work and earn my way, whether through a typical job or personal service to another. Prop, being able to work and earn your way is being self sufficient and independent. It may not make you totally ecstatic to be in such a position, but it is self sufficient. You earn the money you need to have food, clothing, shelter, transportation. But not everyone who has been isolated from family or friends for many years will be able to return to them. And even if the jobs you seek are housekeeping ones, you still need a place to live while finding those jobs. And that's what we mean by an exit strategy, a place to stay while job hunting, enough money to cover going on interviews, transportation, food etc. Because without those, you will be on the street and homeless people have enormous trouble finding jobs simply because they don't have an address or phone number to give out to potential employers. Even Burger King wants an address for its files and a phone number to tell you that you got the job.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 4:22:57 PM)
quote: OneMoreWaste, you really need to take a step back and get to know folks around here. Once you've spent time on the Ask A Mistress forum, you'll see which men love to talk. (try to get mine to shut up...) You might want to engage a few of them in conversation, and see what happens. Actually, while I don’t have nearly your real-time experience I’ve been around for a while in various forms, here and in other on-line forums, going back to when the alt.sex newsgroups were still viable. This isn't my first or only profile, just the one that best fits my mood lately. I’m not saying that submales don’t talk, just that compared to other demographics they’re less likely to engage in certain types of conversation. And I think pixel and undergroundsea just make it seem like there are a lot of chatty guys here ;) quote: Do femdoms want CEO's? This one does not. While I would like someone gainfully employed, an executive type is spending too much time at work to suck up to ME, and isn't that his real job? :) Truly, why are women stuck with this stereotype that we are greedy bitches who want to crush The Man under our stilettos? Who thought that up, anyway? Certainly not I; next time I have insomnia I’ll do another FemDom Survey and see who these ladies are (what I wouldn’t give to be able to run arbitrary queries on the CM database- talk about fascinating!) quote: I admit freely that I do not do well with passive people. I need someone assertive who speaks up, and doesn't need detailed directions. That does not mean that I don't want to be the one making decisions, it means that when I say, "I need X done this weekend" I mean just that, and I don't want to have to offer up a timetable. (snip) It's easy to be a passive personality when you are the junior, the one taken care of. How many women want to take on an adult child? How many VANILLA women describe their mates as the "grown up child"? By and large, women don't want to take on an extra large child. Women do not want to have to think for someone who should be able to on his own. We have plenty of stress all on our own, thanks! This, I think, is the glaring difference that shows why passive personalities have trouble finding appropriate female dominants. Traditionally, women pick up the slack. A female dominant wants to be SERVED, she does not want to have to be an auxiliary brain. Now I think that you’re the one harboring/perpetuating an unreasonable stereotype. I object to the idea that being passive or naturally submissive equates to standing around with your mouth hanging open until someone tells you exactly what to do and how to do it. To be certain, each individual handles situations in their own way, has their own knowledge and skill set, neuroses, etc., so I'm sure that there are people who behave in this manner. But to equate not being a "leader" with ignorance, zero initiative, and a child-like inability to follow all but the most basic instructions is exactly the sort of prejudice that i believe the OP was addressing. Long-ass example- I was doing stage crew for our college sketch-comedy troupe, one of 3 people, obviously the muscle rather than the brains. The crew head and the other regular had to miss a show for another activity, so I was temporarily promoted to "head". The director got a couple of our mutual friends to help, but since I had the experience, I had to lead. I said sure, because, you know, they asked. So, I watched the rehearsals, mapped out a plan of what needed to be moved where and when, where it would be prepped backstage, etc. Hadn't done it before, but the mission was, get the stuff where it needs to be when it needs to be there, get rid of it when it's not needed. No problem. But, when it came to managing "my crew", I ended up doing things like hauling an 8' table up onto my back and running it out solo, then making another trip back for the props to go on it, rather than getting one of the others to help carry it out with everything in place, because, well, if I could do it myself in about the same time, there was no reason to bother them, right? And how would I decide which person to ask? If I always had Jim help with the heavy props, would Rosie be insulted by the inference that she was weak (she was 5'0 and scary thin)? And what if my directions were unclear, and they did the wrong thing? Then I'd have to decide whether to fix it onstage and make it clear to everyone that they screwed up, or leave it as it was, and hope the director blamed me rather than them, since I was in charge, and hope it didn't screw up the actors too much. Since some scenes were a lot more prop-intensive than others, should I delegate things that didn't really need to be delegated so that we'd all be doing an equal amount of work through the show? Would it be rude to send them out during a scene change without me and be the lazy overlord, or would it show that I had confidence in them? So, they ended up standing around like WTF did they ask me to help, while I ran myself ragged. Moral: an inability to be in charge does not necessarily mean an inability to "do" things.

OneMoreWaste -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 4:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I don't care if prop's relationship is something that squicks me or not, as long as she's in it. I do care if he drops dead or tosses her out and she winds up on welfare because she isn't capable of getting a job and becoming self supporting. My line is when their inability to function becomes my responsibility. This has been a very interesting thread so far, so I'm not going to derail it by asking what your solution would be for, say, people who are born mentally or physically handicapped and will never lead a "normal" life... but it's really tempting. [:-] I know, I know, I should be exercising instead of screwing around on the computer, shame on me...

SlaveIndigochild -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 5:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW This is a misconception that I really, really feel compelled to talk about. It's been my experience, over the years, that it is actually -easier- for someone who is passive, service-oriented, and who takes direction exceptionally well to find work, Calla Firestorm This i find to be the case for myself. almost my entire existence is service based...in my role as master's property, in my role as mother (to three children), in my role as care-taker of an ageing parent, in my role as teacher, in my role as therapist. The 'slave' within me passes very well in society and it something i have been able to capitalise on. There is no dissonance in what i do in any of the jobs i have.....]this thought only occurred to me a few days ago. Indi.

NihilusZero -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 5:37:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW This is a misconception that I really, really feel compelled to talk about. It's been my experience, over the years, that it is actually -easier- for someone who is passive, service-oriented, and who takes direction exceptionally well to find work, even when someone who is bull-headed, self-directed, independent, and project-oriented like myself (and who gets bored with repetitive stuff -very- easily) is much harder to place. More deeply, I also think, is the attachment to the pervasive notion that the degree of submission is congruent to the level of human worth and that, somehow, at a certain threshold of surrender, the sub/slave loses the credibility of being able to be of sound judgment when it comes to healthy personal assessments and decisions. Psychologists would understand this from knowing that pretty much the entirety of psychological disorders stem so much from self-diagnosis and subsequent reinforcement. Not to totally derail things, but apotemnophiliacs are an example. Where one desire/want/need is so extreme that it triggers most onlookers to immediately question their overall sanity and capacity for self-sufficient thought...which is what I think many people want to swap to when questioning self-sufficiency in more materialistic ways (physically, financially, etc.).

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 7:57:17 PM)
Are you happy prop? Do you feel safe? Are you well cared for? Are you loved? Do you feel desired? It's so easy to project your own wants, fears, desires, hates, even if they seem well intentioned and so on into the mix..so much so that sometimes you miss the truth of it all. Is she actually fulfilled? Have submissive like this completely lost themselves or have they found their way? Again you could do the what if game and come up with all the negative excuses to justify your side, but how silly is that in the end? Some people hold on and others learn to let go. If she's learned to be what she is and is okay with that, then she's got one up on more people than i care to count.

mistoferin -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 8:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys Are you happy prop? Do you feel safe? Are you well cared for? Are you loved? Do you feel desired? It's so easy to project your own wants, fears, desires, hates, even if they seem well intentioned and so on into the mix..so much so that sometimes you miss the truth of it all. Is she actually fulfilled? Have submissive like this completely lost themselves or have they found their way? Before you continue to hold prop up as though she were a perfect example of how fulfilling these types of relationships can be you may wish to go back and take a look at her own words. She's been here several years and has often talked about how her Daddy beats her in anger and rage and breaks her bones, has her raped and beaten by others, how frightened she is of him, how sometimes she has wanted to kill herself because she saw it as her only way out of that relationship. If we take her at her word then we have to believe that her Daddy has taken advantage of her "weakness" and she is his victim. I certainly would not use theirs as an example of a healthy relationship.

MadRabbit -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 8:44:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys Are you happy prop? Do you feel safe? Are you well cared for? Are you loved? Do you feel desired? It's so easy to project your own wants, fears, desires, hates, even if they seem well intentioned and so on into the mix..so much so that sometimes you miss the truth of it all. Is she actually fulfilled? Have submissive like this completely lost themselves or have they found their way? Before you continue to hold prop up as though she were a perfect example of how fulfilling these types of relationships can be you may wish to go back and take a look at her own words. She's been here several years and has often talked about how her Daddy beats her in anger and rage and breaks her bones, has her raped and beaten by others, how frightened she is of him, how sometimes she has wanted to kill herself because she saw it as her only way out of that relationship. If we take her at her word then we have to believe that her Daddy has taken advantage of her "weakness" and she is his victim. I certainly would not use theirs as an example of a healthy relationship. Yet another 8 page thread centered around prop.... So much attention....

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 8:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys Are you happy prop? Do you feel safe? Are you well cared for? Are you loved? Do you feel desired? It's so easy to project your own wants, fears, desires, hates, even if they seem well intentioned and so on into the mix..so much so that sometimes you miss the truth of it all. Is she actually fulfilled? Have submissive like this completely lost themselves or have they found their way? Before you continue to hold prop up as though she were a perfect example of how fulfilling these types of relationships can be you may wish to go back and take a look at her own words. She's been here several years and has often talked about how her Daddy beats her in anger and rage and breaks her bones, has her raped and beaten by others, how frightened she is of him, how sometimes she has wanted to kill herself because she saw it as her only way out of that relationship. If we take her at her word then we have to believe that her Daddy has taken advantage of her "weakness" and she is his victim. I certainly would not use theirs as an example of a healthy relationship. I'll let her tell me if she wants to. If that is the case, then she needs to get out. That still doesn't diminish the qualities of an extremely submissive female for me. It doesn't make her "weakness" bad in general. Only bad for someone who would take advantage of it in a malicious way. As for her type of female, they still are more valuable to me in my own personal preference. If he is doing that, it's a tragedy indeed, in all areas of concern.

mistoferin -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 8:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys If that is the case, then she needs to get out. As his legal ward...she is not in a position to choose.

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 9:02:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys If that is the case, then she needs to get out. As his legal ward...she is not in a position to choose. How's that?

mistoferin -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 9:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys If that is the case, then she needs to get out. As his legal ward...she is not in a position to choose. How's that? Icarys, it has been gone over and over and over on these boards. He has legal custody of her. If you search old posts I promise you that you will learn more than you ever wished to know.

daddysprop247 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/25/2008 9:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Prop, being able to work and earn your way is being self sufficient and independent. It may not make you totally ecstatic to be in such a position, but it is self sufficient. You earn the money you need to have food, clothing, shelter, transportation. But not everyone who has been isolated from family or friends for many years will be able to return to them. And even if the jobs you seek are housekeeping ones, you still need a place to live while finding those jobs. And that's what we mean by an exit strategy, a place to stay while job hunting, enough money to cover going on interviews, transportation, food etc. Because without those, you will be on the street and homeless people have enormous trouble finding jobs simply because they don't have an address or phone number to give out to potential employers. Even Burger King wants an address for its files and a phone number to tell you that you got the job. it seems we have a fundamental disagreement here on primarily two issues: the idea that independence (or the ability to be independent) is required in order to live and thrive; and the idea that it is always a healthy and wise thing to go into a longterm committed relationship with an "exit strategy" in place. you take issue with those who unnecessarily sponge off of tax-payer provided government services...so do i. but does one need the ability to function independently in the world in order to avoid becoming a moocher of the system? absolutely not. it has already been mentioned, and reiterated by Calla Firestorm, that dependent-type submissives often make good, dependable workers. they are not drooling drones waiting around for someone to come along and punch in the proper buttons. but, let's set aside the issue of employment for a sec. after all, being able to hold down a job and be efficient in that job, does not define independence. the point i'm trying to make here is that one need not ever be independent in the first place...there is no crime or shame in having to be dependent on others for high function and healthy survival...no shame in serving, as it is in one's nature to serve, and needing some (earthly) higher power to help keep it all together. just as i serve my Master, and he in turn protects and provides, one can serve in the outside world, and be provided for. now, as far as the exit stragey. imo this is antithetical to the whole idea of slavery...heck, antithetical to marriage. you are making a lifetime commitment, a complete giving over of self to another, but in the back of your mind you are needing to be assured that if all goes sour in 10 or 20 yrs you will be taken care of? that's not a logic or mindset that i can comprehend. not for one second have i ever worried or wondered about what would be my fate should something happen to my Master, or should he decide to kick me out onto the streets....because that is not my concern, my concern is living this life, here and now, as his devoted slave and mate. "what if" never crosses my mind, not because i do not acknowledge all possibilities, but because they are just not relevant to my life or my service to him.

WhiplashSmile2 -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/26/2008 3:17:24 AM)
I don't have any problem with being somebody's fearless leader and to make decisions and guide and lead them. Yes, some desire, need and want somebody to make decisions for them. I know many people view this as a sign of weakness. In all honestly, I actually functioned in the role yesterday. My girl was at her wits end in dealing with a few things, these things would be difficult for anybody actually. I've had to deal with similar shit before, and I had a good idea about what needed to be done. I really had no problem with telling her who to get ahold of, what questions to ask, and what to say to these stupid people. I tend to become a solid rock for somebody to stand upon in the middle of the most fucked up things going on. However, I'm leading and directing, and helping them. At the same time, I'm sharing with them the method to my own madness as to how to get through this crap. So, I'm sort of training them at the same time. I'm just telling them what to do, the reason why to do it. I'm calming them down in the process as well. Often our own minds make some issue bigger in our imagination then it has to be. The world is not always an easy place, and life is not always fair, and well frankly there are a lot of stupid, dumbass lazy people in the world. Human stupidity as I call it. There are ways of dealing with this crap though. In terms of people in general, there are leaders and there are followers. I've undertood this dynamic since I was a kid. Being a follower does not automatically make somebody weak. The new band I'm in right now, the guys are actually looking to me for a lot things right now. When I came into the band I brought along with me a lot of energy!! It literally kicked the Energy Level of the whole damn band up several notches. Also, they trusted me enough in picking out cover songs and how to order them in a Set list. Amazing thing happened a couple of weekends ago, we played our first gig together. People's heads turned, people were standing there in Awe of watching the New and improved band. Anyways, this guys are putting their trust and faith in me now. More responsibility for me though. These guys are not weak, they are very talented and skilled musicians. However, there are other aspects to performing live music besides just playing music alone. Work wise, I talked a client into allowing me to rewrite some major sections of code. He's put his faith and trust in me that this is going to resolve the issues and problems and turn his web based business around. I've had to prove myself literally with anybody time and time again. Sure, I can make choices and decisions! I can be that leader with the direction. However, if I make shit choices and bad decisions or don't know what the fuck I'm doing or talking about. Nobody would be following my fucking lead.

DesFIP -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/26/2008 5:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste This has been a very interesting thread so far, so I'm not going to derail it by asking what your solution would be for, say, people who are born mentally or physically handicapped and will never lead a "normal" life... but it's really tempting. [:-] I know, I know, I should be exercising instead of screwing around on the computer, shame on me... That's an entirely different subject, as are elderly who are no longer able to work to support themselves. I do believe society has the responsibility to take care of the weaker members, those who cannot take care of themselves. But cannot is quite different from will not. And willfully crossing the line from will not to cannot because you prefer to stick your head in the sand and not think ahead is not something that gets my approval. BTW, I have an adult daughter with mental problems. Also an elderly parent. And as a Jew I resent the implication that I might believe in eugenics or cleansing of the society.

Icarys -> RE: So what's wrong with playing to one's strengths (or weaknesses)? (9/26/2008 6:25:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste This has been a very interesting thread so far, so I'm not going to derail it by asking what your solution would be for, say, people who are born mentally or physically handicapped and will never lead a "normal" life... but it's really tempting. [:-] I know, I know, I should be exercising instead of screwing around on the computer, shame on me... That's an entirely different subject, as are elderly who are no longer able to work to support themselves. I do believe society has the responsibility to take care of the weaker members, those who cannot take care of themselves. But cannot is quite different from will not. And willfully crossing the line from will not to cannot because you prefer to stick your head in the sand and not think ahead is not something that gets my approval. BTW, I have an adult daughter with mental problems. Also an elderly parent. And as a Jew I resent the implication that I might believe in eugenics or cleansing of the society. Where in the heck did you pick up on any implications for that, seriously?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625