If the topic is in O it must be big. And if you're a free-lance writer, whose articles are regularly published in O you must be a very cool, excellent, smart, writer. That's what I think after reading some of Catherine Price's articles and going to her web page. http://catherine-price.com/ In contrast, "Aiming Higher" by Catherine Price in the January 2011 O magazine tells all that Catherine, the author, has "many flaws"; flat, lifeless hair being a top preoccupation right now. She confesses that she's not very compassionate to herself. "I have a gift for letting trivial things suck me into a vortex of self-loathing." Whew. Price labels it self-directed anger. I call it heavy-duty negative self-talk; always a harsh put down which can generate feelings of anxiety, helplessness, hopelessness, tension, and sadness too.
Price goes on to describe what comes next. "Anything can churn my mind into an emotional whirlpool that gathers strength by pulling in unrelated failings . . . ." Eventually she moves from flat hair to "Why am I so pathetic?" Recognize that kind of thinking? Women Who Think Too Much by Susan Holen-Hoeksema addresses it as overthinking.
I'm writing about Catherine and her article because she is similar to thousands of women who have the NST habit. She is undoubtedly an intelligent, capable, attractive, successful woman, with what many of us would think are substantial credentials. And she has acquired a thinking habit that's bumming her out. Bah humbug. My guess is that any negative self-talking blog readers would think how silly Price is to dump on herself that way because wow she really is a star. I would also imagine that many NSTers have friends and family who regularly tell them that they are being way too critical of themselves, who remind them of their strengths and attributes in realistic ways. But it doesn't work. As with Catherine Price, the habit hangs on.
She knows that her thoughts are irrational and silly, and asks herself, "Why can't I stop them?" That question implies more criticism. e.g. "Something's wrong with me that I can't stop thinking irrational and silly thoughts." For action and potential progress, I suggest instead the question, "How can I stop them?" Price chose cognitive behavior therapy as her how. She says, "In the world of CBT, if you want to change the way you feel, you have to change the way you think."
In honor of Price's openness and her choice to take action I'd like to suggest cognitive restructuring, a CBT approach, as The Technique of the Week. If you want to dive into this stuff you can read Feeling Good by David Burns or A Guide to Rational Living by Albert Ellis and Robert Harper. If you want to get started, here's a beginning CBT approach.
• Start to pay close attention to your negative self-talk. Write down one "thought of the day" for a week: at breakfast, lunch, dinner and bedtime. If you're not having a negative thought when you check with your inner voice, just note that down too. If possible, do this exercise without judgment. Write the thoughts down as you would write down the titles of library books on a shelf or the makes of cars driving by.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Words As Signals and Much More — In the Words of Anne Doyle
Here's the link http://blogs.forbes.com/annedoyle/2011/05/12/women-are-not-guys-and-men-are-not-the-norm/ if you want to see the article by a new Forbes collaborator in its home. With Anne Doyle's permission I'm publishing the article on my blog in full. I like the direct, open, and real person Doyle style, the homage to the old feminism, the cheeky comments (expecting more of the President), and the "words do matter" theme. As always I'm interested in your thoughts and reactions. Please comment on this post if you have time!
We’ve had three stunning examples in less than a week of the cultural headwinds that women are still up against, ranging from the need to “spin” Hillary’s body language, photo-shopping her out of of history and crediting only “the guys” for the complex, clandestine operation that closed the Osama Bin Laden chapter.
First came the riveting photo from the White House Situation Room of President Obama and his national security inner circle monitoring the raid on Bin Laden’s lair.
The good news is that two women — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counter-terrorism Director Audrey Tomason – are part of that circle of trust. The bad news is the ridiculous angst the photo triggered over the gender differences it captured. The men were stone-faced, revealing little. It was only the expression and body language of the most powerful woman in our nation that most clearly communicated the tension, high stakes and, yes, even fears that every leader in the room was experiencing. No surprise there. We socialize men and women to express emotions very differently.
But here’s the astonishing part. After the now-iconic image was released, Clinton, whose hand was raised to her mouth in the photo, felt she needed to explain the gesture by telling media she was “trying not to cough” at the instant the photo was taken. Are we still that uncomfortable with powerful women behaving like women rather than “men in skirts” that even she needs to spin her actions that deviate from the male norm? And since when is the behavior of only fifty percent of the human race “the norm”?
The next astonishing example came just a few days later when an Orthodox Jewish, Brooklyn newspaper, Der Tzitung, made the outrageous and journalistically flawed decision to air brush Clinton and Tomason out of the Situation Room photo. Why? Because the paper has a “long-standing editorial policy” of never publishing photos of women, supposedly to “show respect for women.” Please! The newspaper has since apologized, but their policy stands and reveals plenty about the deeply-ingrained gender biases that women still face – even in the U.S.
But the most discouraging example of the cultural muck women are still slogging through came disguised as colloquial language used by the president of the United States. During his globally-televised interview with “60 Minutes” about the Bin Laden operation, President Obama used the word “guys” over and over and over. By my count, he used the male-branded word close to 30 times. Not simply to refer to the Seals, who were all guys, but to the entire team of highly-skilled intelligence officers, CIA staff, Cabinet members and military personnel who played essential roles in the operation’s stunning success.
Women Are Not Guys. I’m tired of being told that the word “guys” is “gender neutral” and includes women. I’ve heard that before, decades ago when grammarians and most major newspapers insisted that the pronoun “he” included women and the use of he/she was clumsy and unnecessary. Because enough people understood how powerful language is, today the inclusive “he/she,” flows off our tongues without a second thought.
As the former Director of North America Communications for Ford Motor Company, I have prepared multiple CEOs for high-stakes interviews, including with “60 Minutes.” A leader’s choice of words in a major interview is critically important.
Here’s my test with language. Put the shoe on the other gender’s foot. What if we just start using the word “gals” instead of guys every time we are talking about or to a mixed gender group ? How long would men tolerate that? They would be insulted and wouldn’t accept for a minute the explanation that “gals” is now a gender neutral word that includes them.
And I’m not the only one who is tired of being called a guy. Shortly after the “60 Minutes” interview aired, a friend I haven’t been in touch with for years called me from Washington, D.C. to vent her outrage. “I’m sick and tired of being referred to with male language. I am not a guy,” she told me. “My husband says I’m over-reacting and being menopausal. But my reaction has nothing to do with hormones. The Bin Laden operation was not a male-only effort. There are plenty of women on the intelligence teams that worked for months to prepare this plan.” That was the reaction of a high-level professional who reports directly to the White House and has written speeches for two four star generals. It’s her job to understand the power and impact of well or poorly-chosen language.
Presidential Words Have Power: Here’s the final point. I expect more of the president of the United States – especially when the world is watching. Barack Obama’s oratorical skills carried him to the White House. His ability to use words to inspire, guide and lead people is one of his greatest strengths. He is also, arguably, one of the most progressive and enlightened leaders in the world when it comes to the urgency of empowering half of the world’s citizens. Millions of women look to the U.S. as their greatest hope for release from cultures that deny them basic human, legal and social rights, let alone freedom from systematic gender violence.
I have just returned from an inspiring 2 ½ days at General Electric’s legendary Leadership Development Center in Crotonville, N.Y. I was privileged to join 180 women leaders from all over the world for GE’s ninth Leading and Learning conference for its own top female executives and selected guests. This year’s theme was all about the “Passion and Possibilities” that women bring to leadership as catalysts for solving the challenges of our times and moving culture forward.
The closing speaker was Gloria Steinem, who received a standing ovation from the multiple generations of highly-accomplished women in the audience. Steinem’s message is the same today as when I first heard it in the early 1970’s: The world becomes stronger by releasing and empowering the uniqueness of each individual. She challenged us to “Keep sending out signals” that help to move our culture forward.
Here’s my signal: Language is powerful. Words Do Matter. They reflect our thinking, reveal the biases we all carry and shape our ever-evolving culture.
We will never truly be “one of the guys.” Just ask any woman who has tried to join Augusta National Golf Course or integrate herself into the “inner circle” of a male-dominant, power group. So let’s stop passively pretending that it doesn’t matter when we disappear into male-branded language. Being called “guys” may feel less consequential than photo-shopping women leaders out of historic moments. But it’s a step backwards rather than forwards in our long cultural march towards the highest development of humanity. The change we want to see in the world all begins with our own actions. What signals are you sending with your words?
Anne Doyle is the author of Powering Up: How America’s Women Achievers Become Leaders. She has been tested in multiple-leadership laboratories, including men’s sports locker rooms, the auto industry, political office and parenting (which she insists is “the toughest!). She can be reached at: www.annedoylestrategies.com, http://www.facebook.com/poweringupwomenbook and Linked In.
Image by US Embassy New Zealand via Flickr
First came the riveting photo from the White House Situation Room of President Obama and his national security inner circle monitoring the raid on Bin Laden’s lair.
The good news is that two women — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Counter-terrorism Director Audrey Tomason – are part of that circle of trust. The bad news is the ridiculous angst the photo triggered over the gender differences it captured. The men were stone-faced, revealing little. It was only the expression and body language of the most powerful woman in our nation that most clearly communicated the tension, high stakes and, yes, even fears that every leader in the room was experiencing. No surprise there. We socialize men and women to express emotions very differently.
But here’s the astonishing part. After the now-iconic image was released, Clinton, whose hand was raised to her mouth in the photo, felt she needed to explain the gesture by telling media she was “trying not to cough” at the instant the photo was taken. Are we still that uncomfortable with powerful women behaving like women rather than “men in skirts” that even she needs to spin her actions that deviate from the male norm? And since when is the behavior of only fifty percent of the human race “the norm”?
The next astonishing example came just a few days later when an Orthodox Jewish, Brooklyn newspaper, Der Tzitung, made the outrageous and journalistically flawed decision to air brush Clinton and Tomason out of the Situation Room photo. Why? Because the paper has a “long-standing editorial policy” of never publishing photos of women, supposedly to “show respect for women.” Please! The newspaper has since apologized, but their policy stands and reveals plenty about the deeply-ingrained gender biases that women still face – even in the U.S.
But the most discouraging example of the cultural muck women are still slogging through came disguised as colloquial language used by the president of the United States. During his globally-televised interview with “60 Minutes” about the Bin Laden operation, President Obama used the word “guys” over and over and over. By my count, he used the male-branded word close to 30 times. Not simply to refer to the Seals, who were all guys, but to the entire team of highly-skilled intelligence officers, CIA staff, Cabinet members and military personnel who played essential roles in the operation’s stunning success.
Women Are Not Guys. I’m tired of being told that the word “guys” is “gender neutral” and includes women. I’ve heard that before, decades ago when grammarians and most major newspapers insisted that the pronoun “he” included women and the use of he/she was clumsy and unnecessary. Because enough people understood how powerful language is, today the inclusive “he/she,” flows off our tongues without a second thought.
As the former Director of North America Communications for Ford Motor Company, I have prepared multiple CEOs for high-stakes interviews, including with “60 Minutes.” A leader’s choice of words in a major interview is critically important.
Here’s my test with language. Put the shoe on the other gender’s foot. What if we just start using the word “gals” instead of guys every time we are talking about or to a mixed gender group ? How long would men tolerate that? They would be insulted and wouldn’t accept for a minute the explanation that “gals” is now a gender neutral word that includes them.
And I’m not the only one who is tired of being called a guy. Shortly after the “60 Minutes” interview aired, a friend I haven’t been in touch with for years called me from Washington, D.C. to vent her outrage. “I’m sick and tired of being referred to with male language. I am not a guy,” she told me. “My husband says I’m over-reacting and being menopausal. But my reaction has nothing to do with hormones. The Bin Laden operation was not a male-only effort. There are plenty of women on the intelligence teams that worked for months to prepare this plan.” That was the reaction of a high-level professional who reports directly to the White House and has written speeches for two four star generals. It’s her job to understand the power and impact of well or poorly-chosen language.
Presidential Words Have Power: Here’s the final point. I expect more of the president of the United States – especially when the world is watching. Barack Obama’s oratorical skills carried him to the White House. His ability to use words to inspire, guide and lead people is one of his greatest strengths. He is also, arguably, one of the most progressive and enlightened leaders in the world when it comes to the urgency of empowering half of the world’s citizens. Millions of women look to the U.S. as their greatest hope for release from cultures that deny them basic human, legal and social rights, let alone freedom from systematic gender violence.
I have just returned from an inspiring 2 ½ days at General Electric’s legendary Leadership Development Center in Crotonville, N.Y. I was privileged to join 180 women leaders from all over the world for GE’s ninth Leading and Learning conference for its own top female executives and selected guests. This year’s theme was all about the “Passion and Possibilities” that women bring to leadership as catalysts for solving the challenges of our times and moving culture forward.
The closing speaker was Gloria Steinem, who received a standing ovation from the multiple generations of highly-accomplished women in the audience. Steinem’s message is the same today as when I first heard it in the early 1970’s: The world becomes stronger by releasing and empowering the uniqueness of each individual. She challenged us to “Keep sending out signals” that help to move our culture forward.
Here’s my signal: Language is powerful. Words Do Matter. They reflect our thinking, reveal the biases we all carry and shape our ever-evolving culture.
We will never truly be “one of the guys.” Just ask any woman who has tried to join Augusta National Golf Course or integrate herself into the “inner circle” of a male-dominant, power group. So let’s stop passively pretending that it doesn’t matter when we disappear into male-branded language. Being called “guys” may feel less consequential than photo-shopping women leaders out of historic moments. But it’s a step backwards rather than forwards in our long cultural march towards the highest development of humanity. The change we want to see in the world all begins with our own actions. What signals are you sending with your words?
Anne Doyle is the author of Powering Up: How America’s Women Achievers Become Leaders. She has been tested in multiple-leadership laboratories, including men’s sports locker rooms, the auto industry, political office and parenting (which she insists is “the toughest!). She can be reached at: www.annedoylestrategies.com, http://www.facebook.com/poweringupwomenbook and Linked In.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Positive Self-Talk Can't Create a Positive Reality!
Here's a link to a good article by Heidi Grant Halvorson on Realistic Optimism.http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/05/be_an_optimist_without_being_a.html
It inspired me to jump from my Belief#1 to Belief#4. You'll understand why if you read both. You'll also understand my
somewhat over reactive negativity about positivity if you read my post below.
Dr. Tingley’s Belief #4: Positive self-talk cannot create a positive reality even after the negative self-talk habit is broken.
The positive thinking trend got its start in the 1930s with Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill and in 1951 with The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale. Both books introduced the concept that thinking positively is a useful practice. Both books explain in detail additional requirements for success: setting goals, outlining a plan, setting timelines plus personal characteristics of creativity, intelligence, and persistence.
Martin Seligman’s 1998 book, Learned Optimism added to the positive thinking trend, although more because it was misunderstood than because it added fuel to the positive thinking fire. Seligman, a psychologist and clinical researcher, has been studying optimists and pessimists for 25 years and has determined that optimists generally are healthier and live longer than pessimists.
Optimists believe that defeat is a temporary setback or a challenge, and will slightly delay a good result. In fact, they aren’t positive thinkers but just plain old realistic thinkers. Pessimists are definitely negative thinkers. They believe that bad events occur through their own lack of ability, luck, or skill. Outcomes will be poor and lasting. Clearly they are negative thinkers.
In case you aren’t familiar with the tenants of the two books, The Laws of Attraction and Love advise readers to send thoughts of what they want and love out to the Universe. The Universe will return and reward them with the relationships, skills, objects, and outcomes they desire. Byrne doesn’t discuss the means by which this miraculous process takes place, but apparently no laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, or math are involved. Instead the process seems fueled by magical thinking, a common practice of young children, but not of smart, sane adults.
The Law of Attraction is BS, fantasy, wishful thinking, group-think, grab-the-coattails, get-on-the bandwagon, and share the spotlight and the hoopla thinking. It is not grounded in any kind of science except science fiction. I know there are many intelligent men and women who’ve bought in, but in reality, the Law of Attraction wears not a single stitch of clothing.
Barbara Ehrenreich’s 2009 book, Bright-Sided, How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America takes on a gamut of positivity purveyors, including the American Psychological Association, corporate America, evangelical mega churches, and the positive philosophy for treatment of cancer. Ehrenreich also chewed up motivational speakers at the National Speakers Association convention who spoke passionately about the wonderful results of positive thinking and its connection to the science of quantum physics. The New Agey 2004 movie What the Bleep? was widely quoted by all speakers. Ehrenreich’s summary? It’s “inescapable pseudoscientific flapdoodle.”
I wish I had thought up that phrase myself. As part of a temporary consulting job for a New Age psychologist, I was required to see that silly movie 13 times – and talk to 13 different business clients about their “take away.” Fortunately I didn’t have to talk about my thoughts and reactions, which were definitely less eloquent than Ehrenreich’s comment. Somehow or other in my pre-job interview with the fringey psychologist, I missed her tilt.
Psychology Today blogger and Canadian researcher Jo Anne Wood conducted recent research on the effect of positive affirmations, a common technique advocated by believers in positive psychology. “Two experiments showed that among participants with low self-esteem, those who repeated a positive self-statement (‘I'm a lovable person’) or who focused on how that statement was true felt worse than those who did not repeat the statement or who focused on how it was both true and not true. . . . Repeating positive self-statements may benefit certain people, but backfire for the very people who ‘need’ them the most.”[1] In a nutshell, affirmations didn’t work for people who don’t feel good about themselves. It made them feel worse. No surprise that conducting a dialogue between your inner critic (“I’m unattractive, dull and dumb”) and your fake positive cheerleader (“I’m a lovable person”) doesn’t work well for you.
Bottom Line #4: Positive thinking is not the solution to the negative self-talk habit nor is it the way to live happily ever after.
[2] The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1995, 63, pp. 644-650.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
inShaWomen Are Not “Guys” and Men Are Not the “Norm”