Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
While most of the Old Timers here at the Doctrine might prefer to keep things the way they have always been, satisfied laughing at the antics of the scotts and yelling and shouting, ‘what a bunch of rogers those people are‘ as we drive around Wakefield on Saturday Night, we can no longer settle for that simple, amusing form of entertainment.
Why is that? What is wrong with that? After all, we know what we mean when we point to a person and say, ‘hey! see that scott looking bored over there? who wants to bet I can make him get all hyper?’ Well, while that served our purposes in the early days, the readership of the Wakefield Doctrine is growing and with this growth there is an increasing need to understand this thing of ours in ways that just did not occur to us in days prior, aka the ‘good old days’. Well, times change and the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it is not flexible. So what’s up with the drive to expand the knowledge base? Why are we being driven, cajoled, posed-the-thoughtful-question, asked to explain how the Wakefield Doctrine applies to life and people and such?
Two words: Molly, Claire, Nell and (now) AP –that’s why.
They are the new generation of people who have happened upon the Doctrine blog and ‘get it’, they see the use and values it has to offer. The thing is, they have learned about the Wakefield Doctrine from this here blog. They do not have the background understanding that some of the older DownSprings have, but they do not have the limitations that these selfsame old-timers are subject to, and so Molly and AP, Claire and Nell are asking questions about how the Doctrine works and how it might apply in situations that simply never occurred to some of us. That’s just great. (lol, and all italics aside, it is great! The Wakefield Doctrine is moving in directions that none of us thought it would and it is still fun, so welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine!)
To the topic of today’s Post; clarklike females (Part 1)
(New Readers are reminded that the Doctrine is gender neutral, which just means that ‘type’ precedes the gender. The Doctrine is also culture neutral so that the examples of culturally approved (or dis-approved) behavior is for the purposes of illustration only.) In this case:
So what are we to assume from this photo of the fetching Ms. Paltrow (if that indeed, is her real name!)
The external, observable characteristics of the clarklike female have been long-established; the style and fashion decisions are best described as eclectic. There is a creative quality to ‘the look’ that most clarklike females aspire to that is quite unmistakable.
(“Yo clark! DS#1 here. As a clarklike female let me pick it up from here”)….. speaks to their inner nature(?) Fashion and the female clark = simple expression. Yeah sure, that’s it. If you don’t already know this about theclarklike female, footwear will figure prominently into their “look”. Spot the boots worn “inappropriately” and you most likely have a clark on your hands. Look at the pic above. Only a clarklike female would wear what appears to be “combat” boots with an otherwise sexy, tease-me outfit. LOL Combat boots sexy? Yes, for some men. But that says more about the man than the clarklike female and better left for another post.
It has been said within the pages of “this here blog here” that clarks are the “blue monkeys”. Yes and no. When it comes to the fashion thing, there is a degree of measurement, a level of blue that differentiates the clarklike female from other clarklike females. And it can be boiled down to the level, type and/or method of accessorization. Hats, scarves, jewelry (yes particularly jewelry)…. It goes without saying that it can be challenging to newcomers of the Doctrine to spot clarklike females based solely on their clothing/fashion sense. Remember that to a clark, fashion walks hand in hand with posturing and body language. Let’s do a compare/contrast thing – if we were to take Gwyneth, remove the boots, put stilettos on her feet and position her either on her back or side then we would be looking at a scottian female (if we didn’t already know she was a clark, that is) So what does this picture imply? Challenge. Mystery. Inaccessibility. Protection. Confidence (real or imagined). Individuality.
Having knowledge of the Wakefield Doctrine for many a year, what I have not had is the challenge of speaking about it with those who are newly discovering it’s simple, yet at times nuanced facets. It is proving more difficult than I thought to explain my people:) There is an almost instant type of connection…a knowing that is instinctive when clarks speak to each other. It is easy to jump ahead and assume that another clark already knows what I mean when perhaps it takes a little more clarification. blah, blah, blah, blah blah.
Interesting perspective, DS#1 … for (newer) Readers, the ‘blue monkeys’, is a term that we use around the Doctrine to reference the propensity of clarks (both male and female) to manage to stand apart from the crowd. Interestingly, if you ask a clark why they want to: dress, act, sound in a manner that sets them clearly apart from the norm, most (clarks) will honestly not know what you are talking about. They will deny that they are deliberately attempting to set themselves apart from the crowd, if anything, they will maintain that they just want to blend and be accepted. ( Where did the term, ‘blue monkey’ come from? according to some stories there was a sociology (or it might have been a psychology ) experiment conducted in the 1960’s in which one young monkey was taken from their troupe, dyed blue and return to his fellow troupe-mates. Apparently monkeys are not color-blind and the monkey was totally ostracized and outcast and all the kinds of things that the group likes to do to the outsider. I don’t think they killed him, but I could be wrong on that.) ( It might have been green dye, but the term has come to be used to connote a person who inadvertently or un-consciouly manages to present himself/herself as a undeniable outsider.)
(Molly here… ) While I would agree with DS#1 that there is an instinctive knowing, when two clarks meet, but it does not make the awkwardness of being an outsider go away.
clarks are reserved. They tend not to volunteer too much information — at least not to begin with; therefore, getting to know a clark takes some persistence. clarks also don’t like to pry… So, you can imagine how it is when two clarks meet.
clarklike females also influence a reserve in others. In a social setting, when a male is flirting with virtually all the females present, though he will flirt with the clarklike female, it will be different somehow. He will treat her with more respect than he shows anyone else. More than once, I have had people comment (concerning a random flirt), “He must really like you — he’s treating you differently.”
As to fashion and the clarklike female, I was really surprised to find out combat boots were standard dress code. Clark challenged me to talk to DS#1 about clothing — I thought it sounded dumb, but I took him up on it. After all, what could she know about my wardrobe? But I was the one in for a surprise. I’ve owned my combat boots since I was 15… in fact, I’m wearing them right now…
One of my favorite clarklike females is Julie Andrews, with the many, varying roles she has played. She is always poised sincere, even when having fun. She doesn’t take any nonsense, even when jumping into chalk pictures or attending tea parties on the ceiling, and there is always an element of creativity. Now, if you look through pictures of her, you may not see the hats, scarves and jewelry mentioned (unless you are looking at pictures of Mary Poppins), but her posture and eyes still give her away. No matter how straight and tall she stands, there is a slight slouch, and even when she looks straight into the camera, you can see that she is somewhere else.
I liked your point, Molly, about how clarks tend to not volunteer information. I don’t get how (some of this) can be, but most clarks seem to share the sense that things told to us in confidence (or even simply in a one-on-one conversation) are meant to be held in confidence. We, as a people, tend to not be in the know in most social environments, as part of the price of membership is that the individual is expected to contribute information to the group. A very rogerian thing, but most likely the reason clarks are often out of the loop…
I also liked the concept of ‘when two clarks meet’… it was noted early in the development of the Doctrine that you can tell you are talking to another clark because there is a tendency to ‘bump into each other’ conversationally speaking (lol) Both (clarks) will start to say something at the same time and then stop and…then both will … you know (and sentence fragments! We loves our sentence fragments, which is no problem if the other person is a clark, of course!)
oh, and ‘the slouch’ damn! it’s still amazes me to see the characteristics show up where they are predicted to… New Readers? one of the primary identifiers of the clark personality type is a certain slouch in posture, a slightly overly causal stance (standing and seated)… it has everything to do with the fact that we are on the defensive…kinda
Shout out to Nell and Claire and AP… stop in guys. I am sure we will hear from Ms AKH and possible the Progenitor roger (yeah, right). Good discussion, yo.
About clarkscottroger
Comment, Part 1
As I sit here trying to recall any clarklike female friends from my past, well, I cannot! At least not any of more than a casual knowing from college days. Molly is the first of my clarklike female friends as a result of the FB and the Wakefield Doctrine. The term she uses “reserved” is so on point. It is a descriptor that perfect strangers have used with me. Immediately, I ask the question (about reserve) “why?” Why are clarks reserved, why do we not volunteer information, why are we the private ones? (note to self: fear)
To jump around a bit I suppose I could posit that the reason I did not have any clarklike friends growing up is that rogerian and scottian people better augmented my personality. That would support Molly’s statement that it takes persistance to know a clark. If anyone is still reading this (you clarks lol) then you know that at this moment my brain is filled with many trains of thought as to what I have written thus far. Being under a time constraint it is difficult to isolate one thought and expound on that. One only?! You crazy?!! LOL. Our brains don’t work that way when it comes to this. Since I have to run I would like to pass the baton to Molly. Or Claire! or even AP for surely, as a clark, she instinctively recognizes herself somewhere on this page:)
P.S. As an “oldtimer” living with the Wakefield Doctrine all these many years I have not had the challenge of conversing with those who are new to it so I just want to say thank you! You make my brain hurt! But in a good, have to stretch the muscle way:D
You state that clarks are tend to not be in the know in their social environments. I see this being true for my husband (a clark). If he wants to know something, he has to track down information. However, my personal experience has been just the opposite — because I don’t share information, I often get called when others have a secret they ‘just can’t keep!’ The conversation usually begins, “I’ve got to tell you something — I promised I wouldn’t tell anyone, but I know you won’t tell anyone — so I’ve got to tell you!”
I also find it interesting that DS#1 has had very few clark friends, as I seem to have an over abundance of clark friends. Maybe it is that kindred spirit and persistence — we don’t bore each other.
(..sideways joke: normally when I write a Comment like this from the dashboard of the blog, my name and email etc is automatically filled in…this time it was blank so I had to sign in… and my first thought was, “Man that didn’t take long!”)
Molly, for me the ‘in the know’ is (meant to be) more akin to what we might call gossip. As far as information about things, we clarks not only know a lot of things we are exceptionally gifted at: inferring, supposition and otherwise gaining information backwards.
That your friends and family seek you out as the person they are comfortable is so not a surprise. That qaulity of ‘the value of keeping a confidence’ is a primary clarklike characteristic.. the question I would ask (that hopefully ties into the first part of your Comment) is, if you accept that the price of admission to the social web that we think of when we hear the word ‘gossip’. (the price) is information…how likely are you to contribute anything you have come by from all the people who talk to you?
…I think we all know your answer.
lol! I get your point. The reason I know so much of everyone’s business is because I so rarely contribute… and even when I contribute, it is more so *my* information, than anything I have been told. :)
Example: (for the non-clarks out there) “I like so and so because…” or “I don’t trust so and so because…”
HOLD ON THERE….
Combat boots do not a clark-like female make. The picture? Surely not a clark-like female. No way in hell. Combat boots or not. You gonna tell me that’s not a scottian female having fun with her attire? Sorry. Ain’t happening. I bring this up (combat boots) because there has been a lot of discussion and references to clark-like female attire, especially footwear. Yo! All you clark-like females! You are not the only ones who wear combat boots!! Phew. OK. Enough about that…
I will say that “reserve” is an appropriate term as far as clark-like females go. However, is being reserved intentional or just part of their psychological make-up? Or are they both the same thing?
I agree…
…not that the other (two) types of people )of the female persuasion) would not wear combat boots (or a similar design footwear), but it is about the intent of the wearer…both conscious and unconscious.
I would venture that a clarklike female would like ‘combat boots’ because they are: different-but-interesting, different-but-comfortable, different-but-a-challenge-to-wear-in-a-fashion-sense and finally, different-cause-they-are-different (lol)
as to rogerian women…they will be seen wearing combat boot when it happens that they are in the military and that is a part of the ensemble-de-martial
and scottian women? wearing combat boots? probably, but more than likely they are wearing them tied together by the laces and hanging around their neck… (the rest of the costume I will leave to the imagination and presumption of our Readers) lol
LOL
Hello Clark, Downspring#1, Molly and everybody!
I don’t have all day, but I can focus on one point that has always been my undoing somehow: fashion. I do not know if it is my extremely limited resources that prevents me from having the “clark” look, but I can say without flinching that if I could I would have these combat boots as you girls called them. I have a very keen interest in boots… one that my wallet does not share, that’d be the undoing I am talking about.
What was that? my wardrobe… looks like a battle field and I lost the battle. I have been able to renew a tiny bit this winter with clothes that suit me better, but there is still a lot of work. A big part of my clothes were given to me so they are not too small and not always in harmony with me, myself and I.
The posture… yesterday in school, waiting for my friend who’s a clark too I believe but I am not too sure about that… so please to check her out onKaleidoscope… so I was saying, I was waiting for her and I sat with my mini laptop at a table, in a somewhat very relaxed posture (as if I was in a sofa, but really was sitting on a hard chair) and typing my next three blog “stories”… I look all around me, while typing… yes, I can type without looking… and smiling because I felt observed and the observers had question marks revolving around their heads as they spoke half hidden behind their hands to one another… as if I could not see them. It was very amusing.
Did I not say I would keep it short? I should stop saying that, I have no clue what short means…
Soon time to go to class so, have a great day and that was a great read! Looking forward to part 2.
/Claire
Hey Clark! Claire just called you a girl! LOL…. Old joke aside (whereby one accuses another of being a “girl” – the implication(s) being based only in the most stereotypical of pejoratives). Where was I?
RE: Molly’s statement that “…when two clarks meet, but it does not make the awkwardness of being an outsider go away.” I would suggest that this is because clarks are so much of the head/mind, masters of internal dialogue, if I may borrow that term, that even with another clark there is a recognition of their lack of a particular social skill referred to (maybe not in this decade… or the last) as “social chit chat’. The ease with which to initiate or remain engaged in rogerian type conversation with another clark requires much more energy than you would think.
Let me throw this question/statement out to you clarklike females, in particular the ones already mentioned, and you! Jasmine Tea! help me out here,
“…in the initial, ‘(I) don’t really know you’ social situations, do we fail to sustain a conversation with another clark because of:
(a) privacy issues(reserve),
(b) lack of interest, or
(c) the simple lack of social skill? Or…
(4) could it be that awful, awful thing, self consciousness?
When I think wa-ay back, I had a best friend from about 6th grade to 8th grade. Coincidentally, she shared the same first name. I will go out on a limb and say she was a clark. After graduation we went to separate high schools and the friendship ended. In high school, my primary 2 “best friends” were a roger and scott respectively. There was a 4th who was more best friends with the roger of the group and yes, she was a clark.
You are next Ms. AKH. No. It’s as simple as that. Look again at the picture and then tell me that this is “a scottian female having fun with her attire”. A scottian woman having fun would not be postured on her stomach, she would be postured more as I described earlier in the post. And she certainly would not be wearing boots in this scenario. I do not dispute that there may be some scottian women out there who own “combat” boots but really? paired with lingerie? Methinks not. The type of fun you allude to, as far as scottian women are concerned, is always of a more overt nature. Over the top fun you might say:) The “no mistaking my intentions” kind of fun for sure. Boots+lingerie = scott. Uh, uh.
Damn, this is wearing me down. There are so many “layers” to this Doctrine stuff. lol
But now to Claire. One day those boots will reside in your closet:) In the meantime, I can relate to the frustration that economic limitations can produce when looking to one’s wardrobe each day. clarklike females are not inclined towards “uniform” dressing. Not really. I trust that somewhere within your closet and drawers you have one more clarklike ensemble waiting to be put together! btw, have you inquired of your friend if she has the “boots”? lol Will go check out her link .
S’all I have for now.
Can’t resist tossing something in here; a little story from the roger side.
Several years ago, when my niece Olivia was just six, I had a gathering of re-enactors at my house to send off a 21st Miss member who was moving to Pennsylvania to attend law school. Olivia was over for the weekend.
We had all pitched in for a commemorative sword, and everyone was in a full formal dress uniform. Olivia was intrigued by all this, and was having quite a good time being the belle of the barbecue.
But at one point, she grabbed me by the hand and dragged me aside to tell me something terribly important.
She whispered fervently, ” Rog…they all have the same shoes on! ”
And BTW, the heel plates on brogans really tear up a hardwood floor.
cool… and very true (from the rogerian perspective*)
*see: reply to AKH re: shoes of the three women**…
**and/or rogers***
*** which, in this case, is not the obvious joke but rather a shift from the view of fashion (of the three) to the place and appreciation of uniforms which is, of course, totally huge with rogers.
I would suggest that Olivia is not a roger. That she would notice the shoe congruity might suggest either: the odd detail-noticing of the clarklike female or the specific feature-focus of the young scottian girl****
***current thinking about scottian girls of your niece’s age is that she should (at that age) have shown a tendency to the ‘tomboy’ (as we used to call it)
@DS1 It would seem that your interpretation of scottian women (as it applies to this post) is on the narrow side. We scottian females do not just “roll over.” We are quite adept at teasing which could be with attire or anything else. Personally I think that combat boots and lingerie are not only playful, but also exciting, even enticing. Unexpected. And that is what makes the above picture so not a clark-like female. I would suggest using your imagination. But that is better left to our male counterparts.
Any thoughts from all of you guys out there?
This is an excellent example of how life/reality is viewed differently! I can appreciate all that you are saying Ms. AKH….which is why I now have to ask that (the) other clarklike females join our conversation. Molly, Claire, Jasmine Tea and yes, you AP? Can you confirm and clarify my point(s) for AKH and our readers?
P.S. It is easy to get caught up in the notion of not seeing the forest for the trees. I tend to agree with clarkscottroger’s answer the other day – “more than likely they are wearing them tied together by the laces and hanging around their neck… .” lol
thoughts? us guys? hey roger!! why don’t you take this one, yo
lol
I don’t know that calling on me for help is the best move, DS#1, but I will give my perspective:
I like my combat boots (which are real combat boots) for practical reasons. They are my go-to boot when ever I have a long day ahead of me. I have never worn them for the sexy factor, which is why it SO surprised me when my husband called them sexy.
If I were to pair them with lingerie, I would add fishnet stockings to the mix… To me, Ms. Paltrow looks uncomfortable and bored.
I’m going to go out on a limb here… I would guess that one of the big differences between a scottian woman and a clarklike female (besides one is a woman while the other is just female) is that the scottian woman KNOWS when she sexy. And not only when, but how sexy she is.
I, on the other hand, am constantly surprised at how my sweet, innocent or cute clothing is often seen as overtly sexy by others, but my attempts to dress sexy often fall flat. Of course, I don’t think I’m pretty, but my husband thought I was one of the two most beautiful women at college, and he wasn’t the only one.
So, I guess my point here is that it has more to do with perspective than the actual clothing. The scott knows what she is doing and the affect it has on others. The clark is dressing for herself, often unaware of what she is presenting to the world.
well said, Molly, “….has more to do with perspective than the actual clothing“,
…and after all is that what this thing of ours is all about?
The world which a clarklike female wakes up to (her ‘perspective’) is different from the world to which the scottian woman awakes. Both have lives in what is, in an overall sense. the common world, the one that we all share, however, as the Doctrine makes clear, your choices and options, solutions and compromises are defined by the world that you are in (the world of a clark). Just as the other woman might wakeup in the predatory-prey world of the scott… looking into that world totally makes sense of the (other) one’s fashion choices.
I will concede that Ms. Paltrow does, in fact, look bored and would submit that’s because she is just modeling but not a true scottian female. If she were, those eyes would be ablazing. Hadn’t really looked at the face but briefly as we were all concentrating on the attire… which brings me back to my initial point.
Right, okay. So I don’t really know too much about anything to help prove any points yet. One thing I do know is that I am overwhelmed. Can someone make me a Wakefield Doctrine Terms Glossary? Perhaps that would help me a little. Another thing I do know is that I love combat boots! But see, I am trying to be a scott when everyone else is saying I am a clark. I will just wear my boots around my neck – except my laces have been pulled out to tie back my hair!
I promise to keep reading so I can contribute more later :) until then I will take meticulous notes so I will remember who is who. Where did you all come from?!
Good idea about the glossary, that might be useful now that we are getting so much new input from Readers and real people.
Molly is talking about doing a forum thing (no, not like going to school…lol) there are a lot of things happening around here at the Doctrine, you are welcome to join in on the fun.
I will leave it to the DownSprings and FOTDs to introduce theyselves, to you and such
Au contraire AP! You are a clark with a significant level of secondary scottian aspect. How I know this thing?:
” except my laces have been pulled out to tie back my hair!” Classic!
I appreciate your comments immensely and agree that a glossary would be helpful.
I look forward to hearing more from you as we move forward here at the Doctrine.
(By way of an) introductions, I was around at the time of the “eureka” moment as described in the About page. Having said this, it was not until the birth of the Wakefield Doctrine Blog that I realized the full potential available to me to “better” myself, which is to say become more cognizant of the why’s of individual behaviors…my own included. Solves a whole lot ‘o mysteries.
A true thing AP, that, if you know what type of reality a person experiences, how an individual views life, know their “life lens” if you will, you will understand the reasoning behind their actions, what motivates them. There is a treasure trove to be had here at the Doctrine:)
At the risk of getting all “groupie” and such, last night’s Saturday Night Drive Call In Show was enjoyable and extremely enlightening.
After a bit of technical talk, our conversation rounded it’s way to a rather unexpected place:)
We had been discussing why it was that females who are clarks are referred to as clarklike females but when speaking of female scotts they are referred to as scottian women.
I made the statement that female clarks are “girls“, that we are always referred as such. Not so for scottian females. This observation was supported by our very own scottian woman, Ms. AKH. Huh… This led Molly to ask me a question which then sent the rest of us a thinkin’. She wanted to know if someone had given me the nickname Girlie (I am aka GirlieOnTheEdge) or did I give my own self this moniker.
My answer was that “Girlie” was indeed a pet name bestowed upon me long ago by someone close to me. I did not name myself such. She then asked me if anyone else has called me Girlie. Yes! was my resounding answer. Perfect strangers at work have on occaision called me Girlie. She then said that she also was called Girlie by her neighbors.
If you have followed any threads within these hallowed halls, then you know that there are individual “eureka” moments when those new to the Doctrine realize that there are consistentcies/shared experiences by total strangers! And it can all be traced back to this, The Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.
I seem to be running a little long, so back to last night. After the realization that at least 2 clarklike females living thousands of miles apart who have never met are called “Girlie”, we got onto the topic of food. Yes, food! Not just the type of food clarks, scotts and rogers enjoy but all manner of things to do with the act of eating food. Seriously! This Wakefield Doctrine shit is nothing but amazing. And fun as hell! Oops..it’s Sunday and damn if I am swearing like a wannabe scott:D
P.S. Thanks again guys for a great Saturday Night Show!
Molly! yo
This might be a good place to throw in a pitch for your forum.. fora…forae? (anyway…) the place that you are creating where Readers can go and feel like they can say anything* and learn everything** and just relax**
* er…might want to watch out for the scotts…
** yeah, well everyone knows that rogers already know everything****
*** relax? clarks? yeah, right
**** everything that they know is worth knowing…lol
I think that in order to establish MY type of hat several things should be known (I’ll be brief, tho boxers will do)
1. I am a professional drummer-songwriter-performer – for many, many years
2. I am degreed, grad degree from SMU (unfortunately, this brings up many boring conversations at parties)
3. I think it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that every person read as many Charles Bukowski books as they can – to understand life on the tails side of the coin of life.
4. Money is good.
5. Lots of money is better
6. Sports is only as exciting as the amount of money you have wagered.
7. Horses are smart – jockeys? Not so much. But, I suppose an endless supply of Adderall and riding a wild beast for a living for one reason only is a rush and a good way to make a living, on the edge.
8. That hamburger sure looks good.
9. You will never make an A in a class where you disagree with the prof. I’m Summa in all my degrees only made on B, when I disagreed with a theology prof on the motives if/or there were a God. He gave me an 89, which proves God does have a grudge at times.
10. Late night TV means you haven’t worked hard enough during the day or can’t find your Ambien.
“…Please, if’s not too late
make that a cheeseburger”
Thanks for the quick response, Steve
…ok I will go out on a limb and say that our (diminishing) supply of clark hats is not at risk…lol
Anyone want to call the remaining choices?*
Let’s select the hat for the newest (damn) head here at the Doctrine, yo
*Remember… justify your decision with crystal clear logic or (if you are a scott) go ahead and just shout it out lol
SCOTT, hmmmm, I think I am a SCOTT, as I drink my Irish Laphroig scotch and my surname in English. I am of Northern Euro descent, so in regards to the above photo, I don’t care what nationality T & A is = if it is what SCOTT likes, I’m a SCOTT. However, I have this idea I must spill out: I met the man responsible for the Human Genome Project in Wash DC.
Now, if we can get this thing to work, we could have the PERFECT rock singer, I feel I have the combination of three DNA profiles to make the perfect rock singer:
1. Elvis Presley’s FACE
2. Mick Jaggers LIPS
3. Steven Tyler’s MOUTH
and maybe a 4. John Mayer’s EGO
What ye thinketh? And, please let me know if I’m a SCOTT, would hate to walk around today wondering !
Maybe me bagpipes in the closet might seal the decision?
Hello Steve Crabtree! Unlike our other, absentee Mr. Crabtree, you are not a scott. Hope you don’t mind that I have used your comment format for my explanation(s) as to why I think you are a roger (and not a scott). I will refrain from voicing what I think your secondary characteristic so as to not confuse anyone…. however, it should be an easy guess for some.
Reasons why/why not:
1) The longevity at which you are in your profession (implications behind your emphasis on that longevity can be discussed)
2) Would a scott ever be bored at a party, never mind being held captive in a “boring conversation”? NO!
3) WHO KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU WHAT WE ALL SHOULD BE READING in order to…….
4) Don’t know anyone who thinks otherwise – have to exclude this item. Additionally, I’m thinking scotts don’r really talk about money like this.
5) Sure it is. Not sure of this one either. See #4
6) Sounds about right for a roger. scotts tend be more “involved” in sports – more emotionally engaged with sport(s)
7) A touch of sarcasm, a dash of condescension, a pinch of humor?
8) This one makes me think of last night’s Call In Show when the conversation turned towards food and the type of relationship each of the 3 “types” has with it.
9) Perhaps this is what happened but there is an echo, a little reverb perhaps, of sounding similar to “rogerian rational” whereby “fault” (responsibility) is often attributed to outside forces
10) This one. #10. This one points more towards your secondary scottian aspect (oops, guess I slipped) as the rogers I know love their late night TV:)
Now, I could be completely wrong here. I’ll just have to read your comment in response. Then I will be better able to either confirm or readjust my answer. Or perhaps it will be someone else that sets me straight. A little heads up on clarks Steve ( and this is for you AP) – one of our characteristics is the fear of being wrong and from that the feeling of embarrassment (as a result of being wrong) at the real or imagined laughter at our expense. But thanks to some work on my own scottian aspect I can say fuck that!, this is what I think. Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine! LOL
THEN! I’m a FUCKING ROGER!!! LOL, hooray! Let’s roll with it, damn it. Now, this might dent my fender, but how to get a damn pic on my profile? I mean, I could put a pic or not just a deathly gray nothing would be fine (Bukowski) but, tell me how, and I will think about adding a pic of meself, like the others who have the world by the balls. I can’t even swim, yeah I can, but not right now. Just need adjustment for a pic.
thank you for your thoughts and responses on my off-the-cuff remarks. Some are true, some are just BS. Most are true, I think.
Holy shit! Steve you are so not a scott. Sorry man. While I spent way too long writing my last comment (clarklike affliction for going on and on) your second round of comments had yet to appear on my page but now that I have read them I’m sticking with my original determination. You are a roger. Hey, don’t mind all the negative stuff you hear about rogers. We all have our dark sides as well as the other ones. LOL.
There is so much “proof” of your predominant rogerian self in your second comment that I will cede the floor to our other FOTDs in order for them to sort it out for you:D Again, glad you finally made it here. Hope you will do your people proud and stick around for more than a day!
Thank you. I am “officially” a ROGER and don’t you forget it, damn it!
btw – how in the F do I get a pic in the box instead of that pinhead white ball on top of a snowcone?
thanks for any help.
Steve, I have to disagree with you. There is already a PERFECT rock singer, and Metallica has had him for the last 30 years. ;)
Other than that, I’d say you are a roger. In your first comment, you’re telling people what they MUST read. The only people I know who talk like that are rogers.
Molly, could it BE that you are a bit biased toward Metallica(I love ’em too), with the mention of YOUR name in Whiskey in the Jar? Me thinks so :) (Molly’s Chamber’s) ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Now, I was not insisting that people read Bukowski, no, however = your opinion about Hetfield is the same as my opinion of Chinanski, and we both know what people say about opinions, right? It’s just that everything is an acquired taste and I always have a little bit of sarcasm in my comments. After all, all other shit is boring if it’s right on the nut, right? The person wearing a polka dot dress with an accordion at the party will probably get the most attention. While most others will be fitted in the little black dress and tux, accordingly.
Being a musician, a professional musician for 40+ years, I must say it’s dangerous territory when you say he or she is the BEST singer or player or band = because? Style. All have a different style that appeals to the mu receptors in YOUR brain. I say that Steven Tyler might *MIGHT* be the very best or Mick or Freddie Mercury might be the best and several people will agree with me and some with you – (but, Freddie? Probably more with me, sorry) I do love Whiskey in the Jar’O, tho. I am a Taurus and I would BET that most ROGERS are Taurans. I respect your opinion, but try Bukowski, start with his famous novel POST OFFICE, but his poetry is best, I suggest SCREAMS FROM THE BALCONY or THE LAST NIGHT ON EARTH POEMS 1981-1984. You will find them quite interesting.
Now a question for you = careful here, remember, it’s dangerous = who is the best drummer ever? I will await your answer.
Steve the Roger
Easy ….Billy Cobham …wait a minute… no make that… John Bonham! ( no, too dead)…. I got it, Mitch Mitchell!! no, retired
alright here’s one that only a rogerian drummer would know ( without using google, that is) Marvin McQuitty so damn good (and I don’t even know how to play drums)
Most regular people will always, most definitely, say NEIL PEART of RUSH. why? Because he is great and he IS Rush. How about the HANDS of Buddy Rich? None better, ever. Or Steve Gadd, or Dave Weckl or Vinnie Coliauta? Vinnie Paul, Gerry Brown, Terry Bozzio, Tony Williams, Max Roach, Art Blakey, Travis Barker, the list goes on and on. As with any art the BEST is impossible, IMHO. It’s who you like, what pushes your buttons.
There are two Nancy Wilsons, both great, but the least known, and my favorite, is the older soul singer, Nancy Wilson, voice like creamy silk. Melts you to the bone. Then the Heart gals are awesome. All different. Like which is better, lobster or steak? Both good. So, best to say “MY FAVORITE singer is_________” and you are safe, at which time someone will disagree with you (every time). Guaranteed. I’ll throw out who I think are the two best ROCK drummers of all time. Look at their works = Tommy Aldridge and Ian Paice. Both played with bands like Deep Purple, Whitesnake, Black Oak Arkansas, and Tommy played with Ozzy when he had Randy Rhoads on guitar (FAB GUITARIST) rip Randy. So, it’s completely impossible to discern Matisse over or under Van Gogh. I like them both.
Steve the Roger
…agree in principle…but you got to admit that some musicians fall in the class of….mutants
I would submit 2 (one living and one dead) musicians as being as close to ‘the Best’ as is allowable given the parameters of the conversation (and the mere fact of offering 2 guitarists as ‘Best’ tells you everything else lol).
The reason I like the designation, ‘mutant’ is that as you watch them play you are forced to recognize that they are pulling the notes, the music, the song, the style, whatever…out of a place that few people (musician or real person) even imagine exists, never mind visit there… it’s like the instrument of choice is not very important in the sense that they will express the music with the instrument at hand… this is especially apparent when you watch Jeff Beck play (the other choice for the appellation of ‘mutant’ is, of course, Jimi Hendrix).
…no doubt it is about taste and appreciation and there is no such thing as ‘The Best’ when placed in the context of individual taste…but even ‘appreciation’ is totally subject to the level of understanding (of the art) on the part of the listener….still does not make one good and one bad…. or better or worse… but the real magic is anytime you can spot someone who is showing us the glimpse of (the) genuine creativity that I believe all musician strive for,,,
http://youtu.be/Ln6b_nBM-V8
Check this out on the drummers question. Even the best drummers say WOW on this video, it is greatness.
Steve the Roger (don’t know if you allow links) if not, got there anyway and be blown away. Really.
Good Point, clarkscottroger, agreed. 100% That’s scary, ha ha!
Why is CLARK in red on the cap? Superman was Clark Kent, with a red S, is that it? Just a wild guess?
I’m Batman.
SC
the color of the name is for illustration purposes, your hat may vary in color….
Go Steve,go! I believe I am in agreement with you. I like to say when referring to an exceptional artist (musical or otherwise) that __________ is one of the best ________, Then I’ll proceed to extoll the virtues of said individual, etc..
Psst…Steve. No correlation between astrology and the Wakefield Doctrine. Have 3 family members all fire signs and all rogers. As a matter of fact, the Progenitor roger is in fact a fire sign.
Having said this I understand (because you are a roger) that you look to already more”established” and “accepted” beliefs as they pertain to personality thangs and such. I don’t know about anybody else but it sure is refreshing having a roger in the house. Historically, this can only mean that a scott is just around the corner. lol
WE won’t even ATTEMPT best guitarist. I grew up 6 miles from Stevie Ray and Jimmy Vaughan’s house. I was 13 and used to hang out there when they practiced. So, yeah, I’m a bit biased toward SRV. Him, Jeff Beck, there’s so many, Steve Vai is incredible, but all different in style.
Makes the world go round.
Roger, I mean, Steve
actually we do the ‘scary that you knew that’ stuff way good…
There is plenty of time to get really scared, Steve. Lately our conversations (here at the blog) have centered around making the blog more readily accessible for new Readers, to help them to ‘get’ the Wakefield Doctrine. Frankly I kind of like the natural selection thing that is happening (at this stage of our little blog) the people who do ‘get it’ and survive the first interactions have a little extra on the ball (as the old people would say)…
…there is a saying around the Doctrine, “with the Wakefield Doctrine you will know more about the other person than they know about themselves”
(There is another, more recent saying around the Doctrine, “what??! I thought you were watching him, you know how we agreed that he shouldn’t be allowed un-supervised access to the Comment section! He can write Posts, but for god’s sake you know what happens when he starts chatting….!”)
A bit biased? Metallica became my favorite group, the very first time I ever heard them, nearly 20 years ago… And it was Hetfield’s voice that sealed the deal, of course, the guitars didn’t hurt anything…
I know exactly what you are saying about ‘the best’ being a matter of taste and what resonates with a person. IMHO Freddie’s okay, but Jeff Scott Soto’s covers are better. My favorite keyboardist is Tuomas Holopainen of Nightwish (I just like the way it is incorporated), and the drummer from Nightwish is fun to watch, but I have no opinion as to the best drummer. The musician who amazes me is Jon Oliva.
As to literature, our taste varies greatly. I would rather read The Postman than the Post Office. Better yet, give me some Tolkien. *smile*
I’m not positive, but I am guessing that to get an avatar, you need to go to Gravatar and upload a picture to associate with the e-mail address you are using. At least that is what most WordPress avatars are.
I wanted to go back to AP’s comment about the boots… Clarklike females very to the degree in which the clarklike tendencies in clothing are seen. Yes, I have combat boots, but I wear them like work boots or in place of sport shoes. I’m not much for wearing them with dresses or lingerie… even though my hubby would love it. When I dress up, the look is scottian, though I doubt I would ever be mistaken for a scott.
As DS#1 mentioned, the way people call her and I Girlie says a lot about how we are perceived.
Very refreshing to have people with varied, and good, taste on here. thanks god. I like to learn from others, and your comment has me going after looking for your favorites. Lars, he is a bit much, not the best drummer, but he IS correct about stealing music off the internet. I’m a songwriter with ASCAP and I agree with him – if you like an artist, just buy the song of CD, c’mon – it’s like stealing. I’m glad you have decidedly choices and tastes and ours may overlap. That’s the beauty of conversation (smart conversation, I might add). JR, I’ve read them. Freddie had stage presence and was ‘the cock of the walk’, so good. I would guess I’m a bit older than you, so I can understand your likes, but I like ANYTHING that sounds good, but UNIQUE, in music, is key. You can’t sound like someone else. You have to have your own sound, style, so we agree, I think. AS for me being a ROGER? I am a nice ROGER, but I do call bullshit when I smell it. I’ll leave you with “have a nice evening” and great to converse with you. Do, tho, read some Bukowski. He’s edgy, and not everyone’s cup o’ tea, but he is an interesting writer. btw – his alter-ego is a guy named Chinanski. My new listen is a band called Gotye, good stuff. Later, Jolly Roger (Whiskey in the Jar) pun intended.
sc
BTW = today is the anniversary of Johnny Cash’ death. I loved Cash. His version of “Hurt” the video, if you don’t shed a tear? Your soul has taken a vacation. Check it out on youtube. So good. Done right before him and his wife passed away.
Here’s my two cents on the combat boot thing.
A scottlike female would have taken the time to consider the effect of the contrast between the boots and the rest of the ensemble. The clarklike female would have already had them on ( because it was …Tuesday….?) and would have added the rest of the ensemble without necessarily noticing the contrast. Pretty freaking adorable either way, in my book. And the roger girls? Sensible shoes rule! But they’d secretly like to think they were daring enough…
Drums? John Bonham. Singer? Doug Pinnock, King’s X.
Interesting Commentation
DS1, Who said I worry about being wrong and I dont like being laughed at?! Is someone spilling my secrets out there? Oh, right – it’s only me :) Wow, look what happened when I didn’t peek in for a while! So many comments!
Steve the Roger, hello
Molly, I have to break down and admit I am probably a clark HA! But I grew up around scotts and married one so I also tend to mimic their behaviors as a matter of survival – I think. Either way, black boots of any kind are a staple in my wardrobe. I also thought back to see if I remember ever being a “girlie”…I think people would be too afraid to call me that to my face. A mean clark – is that possible? =D
“female scotts can be spotted because they have prominent throat tendons (ask us why)”
Okay I’m asking why.
(will leave the first two questions to them what was asked…)
as to the second Comment and the business of the prominent throat tendon thingies, that is simply another of the many observations (of the physical characteristics) of the three personality types, in this case female scotts.
as predators they spend a lot of time biting, ripping out throats and generally eating prey, and you know, as this Doctrine gets more ‘mainstream’ in it’s appeal, it is tempting to leave some of the early imagery behind, in favor of the more subtle, refined, “when observed in her natural environment, the scottian female gracefully maneuvers the (social) landscape, ever alert for her next victim”….
Well, the term we are using in the upcoming book that applies here is Initial Behavioral Metaphor, which in the case of scotts that means predator, often pictured as a lion, wolf or other pack-based, omnivorous aggressive life form…and so the thing about biting and throat-ripping?…and now, class, if you spend your life ripping out throats, which body part do you think tends to get….over-developed? Correct!
Very good researching (of the Doctrine) AP, the most parallel characteristic (at least in terms of prevalence among the type) is the ‘slouch’ of the clarks. Nothing as obvious (when present) as the throat tendons in the scottian female, the slouch is just a bit of bad posture, a slight hunching of the shoulders, an overly relaxed way of sitting in a chair (often with the head supported by one of more hands)… this being the result of living in the world of the outsider, always looking over the shoulder, trying to anticipate the next pointless, cruel attack…lol
time for just a few more questions… and the answers to AP’s questions and then we have to get the next Post up, if for no other reason than my scrolling finger is getting sore… ( you know, I am embarrassed to admit this, but sometimes I miss our little scottian downSpring glenn… you know, after a bracing conversation among mature adults, it can be fun to have some one put a contrast to things… oh well, the Doctrine continues) lol ( hey! he said scrolling finger!! )
(no, you’re right, not the same. lol)
Anyway lets get some questions down here that I can incorporate into the next Post…
…speaking of which, be on the lookout for another collaborative Post with the Progenitor roger looking at gender and extreme emergencies… still getting the bugs worked out, expect to see it this week…
…also, Molly is hard at work with her forum project, it has the promise to give conversations like this one (above) a more comfortable setting…or something like that
…AP has volunteered to help with the FB aspect of (getting out the word about the Doctrine)… looking forward to dat
…should be an interesting week yo
Like to address the female Scott’s throat tendons. Any female Scott’s, listen up:
1. Some bananas should be chewed little by little and not used for ‘practice’ for banana eating contests.
2. Would any female Scott’s wanna go out sometime?
Roger is in the bldg.
Steve the Roger (good morning, how about those AA last night)? I think ALL of those clothes will be returned this morning and jewelry too. I also think Robert Downey = FAIL. I also think that George Clooney should act more like Brad Pitt and Brad should act like George. Wait, are they the same person?
Let me add:
“I would walk 500 miles, yes I would walk 500 more, just to see these prominent plaid throats. I would also like to meet Sean Connery and borrow some of his chest hair.
steve the roger (it’s it always the morning where you feel more human, like a robot or Frankenstein coming to life? Get up out of a super comfy warm bed, feed the dog, make coffee, all work, no play, take out the trash, hurry to work, just general bullshit every morning, assuming Mon-Fri. And, isn’t it a bit racist for the Academy to go ape-shit over a BLACK winning an Oscar? Notice that? It’s almost like “Oh wow! A black, playing a black in a movie, gets an Oscar, CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS!? ISN’T IT WONDERFUL TO SHOW HOW NON-RACIST WE ARE”? SEE US? A STANDING F’ING OVATION!!! Over a supporting role. Gone With The Wind still lives.
No, I don’t have ADD, but wanted to say THANK YOU to AP for acknowledging me. Hello AP, thank you again.
Now, I have to get back to being a SCOTT.
Cheers,
Steve
http://www.reverbnation.com/kingcrab (gratuitous plug)
*wondering if anyone (yes I’m NEW) is going to catch the fact that I’m a F;ing ROGER, instead of what I described myself as, a SCOTT
I was just trying to pick up some Scott Women, the banana thing thru me off, big time, and I immediately ran and grabbed my Lou Reed Velvet Underground LP (you know the one, with the banana on the front) and I said “wait! let’s see if anyone is awake and catches the fact that I AM A ROGER – DON”T EVEREVEREVER forget that!
One pass and one pass only!
Enjoy your day, being a slave to something or someone = Bellboy, gotta get runnin’ now, bellboy . . .
Hey Steve…yeah we got that, there is nothing wrong with being a roger, you people build excellent airplanes, put together totally impressive armadas and if anyone says, ‘hey clark we really, really need to get a persecution vibe established here, what have you got in a socially embeded Inquistion?” I say, ‘there’s just one place I know’… (wait, one more semi-obscure musical reference).
… and we kid you people a lot, but when I go out to Salt Lake City next week, I do not, I repeat do not want to hear that there was a scott (or a clark, for that matter) in charge of designing the plane!.
Now get out there and take a walk on the mild side
Re: the musician thing? Nicely worded clark. I like the term “mutant” (of course I would. lol) Your description, in this case, about musicians “pulling the notes, the music, the song, the style, whatever…out of a place that few people (musician or real person) even imagine exists, never mind visit there… it’s like the instrument of choice is not very important in the sense that they will express the music with the instrument at hand…”.
Says it all for me. Guess I’ll list my favs some other time:)
Steve! It has been refreshing and we do have varied good taste here at the Doctrine! Thanks for the input. It has been enjoyable and instructive.
Yo, AP! No turning back now! You have stepped into the light, black boots and all. Nowhere left to go but forward, eh?:D Identify a scottian woman in your life and you will notice the tendons when she gets angry. Also look at the eyes. Angry scottian women have cold, steely eyes when they are pushed to the limit. Truly frightening! lol (note to yourself: does mean = defensive, defensive = mean?)
RCoyne…..so well put, the boot thing! Spot on.. No wonder you are the RagMan!! Naah, that’s not it. Must be because…you are the Progenitor roger afterall. You do know you can’t “half participate” don’t you?
Molly, miss Molly, girlie in arms:) I appreciate you wearing the apron and baking the cookies.
AP — You ask if a clark can be mean. I think so, but I don’t know that the world sees it as mean… there are a few clarks I have heard described as cold, nasty or defensive. (When a person REALLY tries.)
I’m going out on a limb here: I think clarks often FEEL mean, especially when when they impose their will on others or stand up for themselves. But these are often the times that win us the respect of others and put a stop to the pushing.
…”FEEL mean, especially when when they impose their will on others or stand up for themselves. But these are often the times that win us the respect of others and put a stop to the pushing.”
You insist on opening avenues of understanding (of the Wakefield Doctrine), we are all glad you are around, Molly…however, you might not share the feeling when you see the path (and it’s) implications that this line of inquiry takes one! I will leave it to DS#1 to frame a discussion of the implications, let this serve as a starting point:
“What is it about clarks that seems to make us feel bad/negative/like-we-are-being-MEAN when all we are doing is expecting the respect of the people of in our lives?” (If I have left a portion of the ton of bricks out of this inference), consider that if you do not force yourself into a state that you describe as ‘being mean’, what does that say about the more common state (of a clark).
Let me harken back to Steve. Buddy! We hear you stompin’ your feet. We do. Given your secondary scottian aspect, this is not unexpected. Btw, we will be expecting a picture of your soon to arrive hat for your (damned) head in the not too distant future. The Treaty of T and all.
Who should I really be thanking here? (not!) Clark or Molly? Damn. I’m never any good at breaking into the bad stuff. Need practice learning how to “baby coat” (classic rogerian expression) things.
Alright, I have opened a door badly and now have to leave. I promise to return. Later. Always later with a clark, eh? lol
Lets get back to the topic of the “mean-ness” of clarks. clarks have high expectations. Of themselves and those around them. Contradiction whirls around clarks like cotton candy on a stick (where did someone just talk about cotton candy?!) Simply put: clarks never “feel mean”. The reaction they engender might lead others to think they are being mean but that is simply not the case.
“What? this is not what I was supposed to be talking about?
This is what I also do, I play in HORSE RACING tournaments. this is from yesterday’s action EPS Tournaments.
My user name is kingcrabdrumhead
check it out!! Love me some horses, especially those that RUN!! Sport of Kings
In Music, I go by the name of King Crab, why? My first name is Steven, which in Latin means KING or CROWN
My last name is Crabtree = so, I came up with KING CRAB – make sense?
I play drums professionally, so I use KING CRAB
http://www.reverbnation.com/kingcrab
I write all my own songs and PLAY, SING, all instruments and vocals from my home digital studio. what you hear is all me, unless otherwise noted. I collaborate with others via file transfer with Logic Pro app.
In the horse tournaments, I use KINGCRABDRUMHEAD, which makes sense as a combo of who I am and what I do.
I am a ROGER, unless otherwise voted NO. I’m a DYI, or I work well in ‘some’ group situations, provided the direction is a correct one, otherwise I lead or get out, much like a horse in a race. I don’t know if this helps with anything, just throwing it out there. Being first is good. From the movie quote “It’s good to be the King”
However, I have no qualms with Queens of any sort, especially four of them in a hand. To gamble is to live – you feel ALIVE and nothing is more exciting than to WIN. Charlie Sheen WAS winning, but I’m afraid, in the end, he will be a loser – however, the show 2 1/2 Men was better IMHO with him. 100%
So, it’s a Monday and it’s slow – meeting an old friend tomorrow – might be working with him and his company, they book private jets for entertainers, near DFW airport. I would love that sort of work.
Hope everyone is having a good Monday = no matter what Karen Carpenter said about Monday’s.
Steve (Roger?) I think so, you better know it, or you can blow it. Lampshade is optional, it’s up to you, but no TV’s thrown out the window. yet.
Going way back in the thread:
“The world which a clarklike female wakes up to (her ‘perspective’) is different from the world to which the scottian woman awakes.”
Thank you Clark for getting that straightened out. lol (clarklike female vs. scottian woman)
All in good fun ladies, right?
Yo! Steve the Roger! And AP!
Welcome aboard! A little late here. But being scottian and all there are just always sooo many shiny red balls to run after… I’m sure you will come to understand scotts and shiny things.
And about the fucking boots y’all….. I have 2 pairs. And I am the farthest thing from being a clarklike female.
So there.
And yes, I am aware that I’ve surpassed a large part of this thread of comments. But like I said….
Okay, okay… Feel was probably the wrong word. Let me be more specific: It often seems that I have to behave in a mean manner to be heard or get someone to back the fuck off!
Treating people (especially my children) with the respect I want to be shown just doesn’t motivate them to do their chores and clean up after themselves. It seems to take every once of willpower I have to say, “No, you are not going to be a self-indulgent little vegetable. You are going to get up and do what needs to be done. I don’t care if you don’t like to. You live in this world — it is your responsibility to make it a better place, and that starts by looking after yourself.”
…or maybe I am seeing a secondary aspect coming out here? Help!
I think that maybe the word ‘feel’ was the correct word, but the thing being felt about is more than one thing…or something. Not sure yet what I mean, will have to play with it a little more, but I know that the actions and interactions that we clarks engage in that produce an exist of emotion are totally multi-faceted.
As usual, you are onto to something with this issue of (my interpretation) what do clarks do with emotions when they are being forced on us from multiple (and possible conflicting) sources?
(A less clarklike way saying this): when I am forced to feel something because of a conflict with something/someone in the world, how do I feel about that? and am I really dressing up and disguising my true feelings?*
Will get back to you on that.
*way to get ‘less clarklike‘ clark lol
@Molly
One of the first things that probably comes to mind for many people are their children (regardless of age). It takes every ounce of energy and persistence when necessary to be “the boss” for their own good. Of course we as parents (or perhaps I should speak for myself) never want to be the bad guy. Because then we DO feel mean. Doesn’t matter whether you feel mean. Just because you feel a certain way doesn’t make you out to be “that” kind of person. I guess my point is that it doesn’t matter if you’re a clark, a scott or a roger. We ALL feel at times emotions that are not particularly comfortable whether it be in defense of ourselves, to get respect, or for another person’s own good. Not pleasant but necessary.
@Clark
“…am I really dressing up and disguising my true feelings…”
hmm…. don’t think it’s relevant
( One more comment for the Post That Would Not Die…LOL)
Molly, that is just as spectacular a vision and use of anything I’ve ever seen in the WD. Clear, lucid, illuminative.
Your kids are most fortunate.
Under only slightly different circumstances, I would have expected you to have been labeled a roger. ( No surprise, but I’ve always thought that rogerian females actually run the world, while the rest of us prance around in our feathers.) But you’ve gone much further than that. Instead of people just learning to identify with their primary group, you draw credence to the idea of overriding one’s primary impulses for the higher purpose. Phenomenal.
( Note to Progenitor-in- Charge; there should be about a million post ideas stemming from this ( or at least one…)