The Happy Feminist

TALK IS CHEAP -- MORE ON HEARTLAND CHRISTIAN ACADEMY

There were a couple of very interesting and moving comments in response to my post about Heartland Christian Academy, which I will reproduce below:

From Kari:

hi my name is kari i was actually sent there to heartland christian academy for 3 years i have now been out for a year there is alot of horrible things that went on there that no one even knows about.. they cut my hair to above my ears they would not allow us to talk for weeks at a time we were forced to read the bible and got to 25 church services if not more in a week we lived in dorms with no windows and we had a courtyard were we could "go outside" but there were 30 foot walls around it so we could only glimpse the sky one punishment was to hit us with a big paddle while being bent over by grown men until we couldnt take anymore and we would fall out they also made us dig 6ft by 6ft graves and made us lay in them how sick is that they told us we were burying our old selves and now god could live in us if people needed to unite over something this is it it is an evil place and yes torture is describing their acts they should be shut down immediatley i tried to kill myself there and i know several kids tonight that are locked up there are contimplating it my email is leaveit2kari87@yahoo.com we need to do something

*************************************************

From Galnoir:

OMG! My husband and I drove past the Heartland compound just this past Friday . . .

I will pass this info on to my state reps and ask what can be done to shut them down. (Unfortunately, the Missouri state lege is in the hands of some real whackos, on up to Gov. "Boy" Blunt, so I won't hold my breath ... but I'll do what I can.) 

**************************************************

These kinds of comments always bring me up short because they are such a sharp reminder that all I am doing is sitting in my comfy chair and opining.  I obviously have certain very strong ideas but it really doesn't make much of a real-world difference how badly I feel for the children at Heartland Christian Academy or how evil I think it is. 

As far actually doing something, I feel as though I don't really any brilliant ideas but I will open the thread up for discussion. The difficulty in this case is that the State of Missouri's prior efforts on behalf of the children at Heartland have been found to be outside the bounds of the law and the State has been punished for it.  A juvenile officer was ordered to pay $800,000 to Heartland to compensate it for an improper mass removal of juveniles from the facility.  It appears that the State has done all it can under the law for the time being and it appears likely that the State will tread carefully in the future.  Any solution would probably require passing new legislation in Missouri-- perhaps some sort of law regarding state monitoring of juvenile boot camps or boarding schools.   

Here is what I will do, as little as it is: I am going to email this post to Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education (PTAVE) and to Prevent Child Abuse Missouri because they may have more practical ideas than I about what could be done.  And I certainly urge anyone who is a Missouri resident, like Galnoir, to speak to your state rep. about the situation and about whether any legislation could be passed to remedy it.

As for children who are currently in Heartland and contemplating suicide, I am not sure I know enough about the situation to give good advice.  But here are my thoughts: If you have specific information about a child at Heartland contemplating suicide, the authorities would surely intervene in some way.  But I am not sure how far such intervention would go in protecting these children FROM Heartland, as opposed to merely preventing the imminent threat of suicide.  Heartland itself may end up dealing with the situation and I don't know if they take a punitive approach to suicide attempts. (Kari, you know better than I do how Heartland is likely to respond to a suicide attempt.)  Another option might be to inform these children's parents if you have their contact information -- although presumably the parents actually approve of Heartland's methods. (Kari, I will email you the link to report this matter to the Missouri Department of Social Services, if you choose to report to them any imminent danger to a child at Heartland.)

It's frustrating. I wish I had better ideas as to how to respond.  Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. 

FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROTEST LINE AND THE FEMININITY FENCE

Had to drag limp, exhausted body home after long day out of the office in nearby metropolis.  In one of the comments threads, I promised a follow-up post on Heartland Christian Academy, but I will have to wait until tomorrow to deliver.

Meanwhile, please check out these excellent posts I have been meaning to highlight. One is Maia's disagreement with my post about the Columbia University protest of the speech by the Minutemen founder.  The other two are written by Winter over at Mind the Gap! -- one contains her reflections on her experiences of white middle-class femininity and the other is her lesbian feminist self-analysis on the issue of gender and appearance.  Great stuff!

I HATE THIS KIND OF CRAP -- UPDATED

Yeah, I hate this kind of crap.  The Young Republicans at Columbia University invites speakers from an organization called the Minuteman Project, which advocates stronger enforcement of immigration laws.  As soon as Minuteman Project founder begins to speak, student activists rush the stage and shout him down.  Ugh.  *Pounding head on desk.*

Now, don't get me wrong.  It's not like I'm a big Minuteman Project fan.  In fact, I don't know much about them other than what I have gleaned from briefly scanning their site.  They claim to be acting lawfully to push for stronger immigration enforcement measures.  The fact that they are in bed with the Eagle Forum (bleah) and have vaguely racist sounding statements as part of their platform leads me to believe that they may be a truly noxious bunch.  ("Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious melting pot.") 

But this college kid b.s. of disrupting things while going on a self-righteous trip bothers me to no end.  (Not so much now, since I am not part of that milieu any more, but it bothered me in college.)  Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished history from the Underground Railroad to suffragists chaining themselves to ballot boxes to Rosa Parks to sit-ins to protest segregation to the nonviolent actions of Mahatma Gandhi.  Columbia students rushing the stage to prevent some crazy person from speaking is a distorted shadow of past efforts.  These kids are aping their betters from days gone by and, by doing so, making the Minutemen look like the reasonable ones. 

I think it's a tricky question, tackled by far better minds than I, as to when civil disobedience is appropriate.  On the one hand, I think it's important that we (the United States) be "a nation of laws, not men."  On the other hand, there are times when individuals definitely should act to protest violations of human rights or second-class treatment of certain citizens.  I think we would all applaud people who sheltered Jews from the Nazis or who assisted runaway slaves in nineteenth century America.  If abortion were ever banned in this country, I imagine at least some readers of this  blog would assist women in obtaining illegal abortions.

I don't know where the line is drawn, but I think that breaking the law, at least in a country like the United States whose principles of governance I believe in, is something that should be done sparingly and with care.  And I do have two basic principles that I believe in: (1) Civil disobedience should never be used to prevent someone from speaking, no matter how insane or evil one believes that person's ideas to be; and (2) Civil disobedience should actually be related to the evil one is protesting, ideally to prevent the evil one is protesting, or to avoid contributing to it.    

UPDATE:  Just after I published this post, I saw this link in the Punkass Blog thread, regarding the protesters' side of the story.  Specifically, they claim that it was the Minutemen supporters who disrupted the speech and precipitated violence in response to the peaceful protest inside the auditorium.  I am still not buying though.  The protesters walked on the stage with a large sign.  They had to know that they would be removed and that this would disrupt the speech itself. 

TURNING THE BIBLE INTO A PUNISHMENT

People Magazine reports in its October 23 issue on the shocking reality of Heartland Christian Academy, a boot camp for juvenile delinquents in Missouri.  Founded by a rich insurance executive named Charles Sharpe, it sounds as though it operates on the principle of tormenting these kids as much as possible. The lead paragraph of the article notes that 14-year old Matt Smith has been paddled with a two-and-a-half foot wooden paddle 300 times in the last 19 months -- that's almost 16 times per month, or about every other day.  Some of the punishments were for things like looking at a girl or passing a note.  At some point, isn't it obvious that the paddling isn't working and perhaps some other tack should be tried?  It was Smith who stated, "They take the Bible and turn it into a punishment."

The whole article is depressing beyond words.  The school seems to be built around a model that focuses on punishment and shame as the primary or only antidote to adolescent bad behavior.  The punishments include frequent paddlings, isolation, food deprivation, hours of extra chores, and shaming.  The shaming includes forcing girls to wear an ugly "granny" dress, and boys to wear a bow tie and suit.  Those who run away or self-harm have to wear an orange jumpsuit. 

Past investigations revealed that one 16 year old student was forced to sit in a metal chair overnight.   Five staffers were also arrested for forcing 11 kids chest-high into a manure pit.  They were acquitted on the grounds that that is not child abuse according to the legal definition.

Except for specific investigations in response to specific complaints, however, the State of Missouri does not monitor, supervise, or regulate Heartland Christian Academy. It is a faith-based facility and therefore free of any state monitoring.  Aside from my disapproval of the actual tactics used at Heartland, I am frightened by the vast opportunties for abuse and sadism in an unmonitored institution based on a punitive a model with scores of potential victims who, as "troubled teens," will automatically be seen to lack credibility if they report. 

I can only imagine what it is like to live in this kind of punitive atmosphere as a teenager.  Especially at that age, I would imagine it would feel like a hopeless and despairing eternity of being trapped and helpless and abandoned.  I am sure some or most of the kids did bad things, and shaming and punishment seem like they should work  and that it's the "tough" thing to do. But I suspect that these tactics produce only short-term compliance and lead to far worse behaviors and misery for these kids in adult life. 

YOU'RE ON NOTICE! -- UPDATED

Via Pandagon.  You can make your own here (and yes, embarrasingly for me, you'll be able to see my prior efforts there as well).  UPDATE: My efforts are quickly being replaced by others.  I like the person who put "yellow ribbon magnets" and "The Uniform Commercial Code" on notice. 

GOD TRULY IS MADE IN OUR IMAGE

Check out this fascinating article about a Baylor University survey into Americans' perceptions of God. 91.8% of us believe in some kind of a God or higher power.  But the Gods we believe in are quite different, falling into four broad categories which also predict the political tendencies of believers:

Authoritarian God  This one has some issues with anger.  He is very judgmental and will definitely punish us for our sins.  He is also very engaged in our lives and in world affairs. 

31.4% of Americans believe in this kind of God (and 43.3% of southerners).

32.1% of these believers think that God is on America's side in world affairs.  These are the people who want an active, Christian-values based government.

The Benevolent God sets absolute standards for humanity but is primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible.

23% of Americans believe in this kind of a God. 

Although there are Jews in this category, more than half of these believers want the government to advocate Christian values.  They are also most likely (68.1%) to say that caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.

The Critical God:  The Critical God has his judgmental eye on the world, but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort.

16% of believers believe in this guy.

"This group is more paradoxical," Bader says. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world. Their politics are definitely not liberal, but they're not quite conservative, either."

Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research.

The Distant God:  This God created the world but does not especially care about it or intervene in its affairs.

24.4% of believers believe in this God. 

This group tends towards so-called moral relativism.

********************************************

I have always thought that if I were to believe in a personal creator God that he or she would definitely have certain characteristics that probably reflect my own predilections and personality.  My God would either be benevolent or possibly a distant spectator, watching us with curiosity but detachment, kind of like the way I watched my sea monkeys when I was a kid.

What I can't wrap my mind around is the authoritarian Jack Chick kind of God.  After all, if I have no desire to have my enemies be tortured eternally in a lake of fire, surely GOD isn't so petty or pathological that he would consign people to hell for telling a lie in 5th grade or for having honest doubts about his existence? 

Also, it never fails to amaze me that people (at least in this day and age) never posit an evil or malevolent God. With all the suffering in the world, why do we assume that God is a good guy rather than a sadist?  I wouldn't go that route, because I tend to think that anyone who created corgis and daffodils must be a good sort.  But still.

Another possibility no one ever seems to think about is that maybe God is powerful but fallible.  Maybe he has had to figure things out by trial-and-error (natural selection anyone?) and maybe he wants the best for us but doesn't have full control over all the forces he unleashed in the world from death to natural disasters to our tendency to kill each other.  In short, maybe he is doing his best.

I am actually exhausted, which is why this post is a bit fanciful.  If you think I am going off the deep end, just go read the article about the Baylor study. It has lots of other great statistics about religious belief in the U.S.  (Note that it has been criticized for possibly posing questions in terms that make more sense to Jews and Christians than to other types of believers.)

THE GIMP-O-SPHERE

Alas has been doing a bang-up job publishing nuanced posts about disabilities issues, primarily written by one of its newest bloggers, Blue.  Blue has her own blog called The Gimp Parade.  I am looking forward to exploring her blogroll which looks to be a great way of getting to know the Gimp-o-Sphere.

I bring all this up because I have been meaning to rectify one of the many deficiencies of this blog, namely the paucity of posts about disabilities issues.  In honor of my husband (the Happy Gimp), I ought to be writing about this stuff more. Part of the problem is that my husband makes his gimpiness look so easy to handle (and he is fortunate that his disability, paraplegia, allows him near-total independence and integration into society in ways that many other disabilities would not).  Thus, I am very shielded from many disabilities issues.  But if I probe my husband's thoughts, I find that, as a person with a disability and as a disabilities-rights attorney, he has pondered this stuff every bit as deeply as I have my life-long commitment to feminism.  Really, he ought to start his own Happy Gimp blog, but until he does, I should take up the slack a little  bit even though my thinking on these issues is not as deep or as nuanced as his. 

Meanwhile though, do make sure Alas and/or The Gimp Parade are on your list of regular reads.  And check out this very simple and informative video called Ten Small Business Mistakes by the U.S. Department of Justice, which addresses many misconceptions small business owners often have about the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Even if you don't own a small business or don't reside in the U.S., this video is helpful in terms of becoming more conscious of things that can be done to make it easier for people with disabilities to function in society. 

WHY PHILOSOPHY EDUCATION IS SO IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TODAY

Who do you suppose spends more time considering the history and the concepts of western philosophy and their modern-day relevance -- fancy-pants liberals in New York and California or the so-called "values voters" who subscribe to the ideas of the conservative religious right?

If you guessed the latter, you'd be on target.  If you spend a lot of time listening to your local politically and religiously conservative Christian radio station, as I do, you will hear a lot of criticism of modern Western philosophy from the Enlightenment onward.  The following are some chestnuts I have heard repeatedly from radio preachers and in conservative blogs and articles around the internet:

-- Liberals (supposedly) believe that there is no absolute truth.  But the statement "there is no absolute truth" makes no logical sense: 

Is the statement, "There is no absolute truth" absolutely true? If it is, then there is something that is absolutely true - that statement itself. If it isn't absolutely true, then why insist that we should all believe it?

Silly liberals. 

-- Or how about this one (from the same article linked above):

Based on the falsehood that "All is relative", many people say, "It is alright to believe what you want, as long as you don't try to impose it on others". But this statement itself is a belief about what is right and wrong. Those who speak out this belief most definitely want to impose it on others.

Of course, these arguments assumes that all liberals are extreme relativists.  This argument erroneously assumes that those of us who believe in choice in such matters as abortion and sexual preference do so from a position of relativism.  (In fact, I believe in absolutes but I don't think there are absolutes in the sphere of sexual preference any more than there is an absolute moral law determining whether I should drive a green car versus a blue car.) This argument also ignores the fact that there is such a thing as degrees of relativism. These arguments are in fact aimed at a straw-relativism stripped of nuance. 

-- Another classic one I heard was from a guest on James Dobson's radio show.  He told an anecdote about the time his elementary-school aged son asked him what to say to people who claim there is no way to know whether Jesus was resurrected.  He pointed out to his son that if there is no way to know whether Jesus was resurrected, there is also no way to know whether George Washington really lived, yet the people who question the miracles of Jesus's life surely don't question the existence of George Washington.  The guy's son nodded in awe at his father's wisdom.  (Of course, this guy's little boy is not familiar with the fact that historians do not take the historical record as gospel truth but instead are trained to read primary historical texts critically and skeptically with an eye towards the possible biases, cultural milieu and other motivations of the historical author to possibly write less than accurately or even to fabricate events.  There is also the issue that there is less reason for skepticism regarding someone's existence as opposed to a claim that somebody literally rose from the dead.)

-- And my final example is from the far, far right, an idea stemming from the work of R.J. Rushdoony, who is popularly understood to be the father of Christian Reconstructionism.  From what I understand from secondary sources (I have not actually read Rushdoony), Rushdoony runs with the widely accepted idea that true neutrality is impossible to achieve.  His conclusions are different from those of people like me who believe that neutrality and objectivity are worth striving for in areas like journalism, and science, and historical research, even while we should remain aware that perfect neutrality is never quite possible.  Rushdoony concludes that the concept of neutrality is a sham and therefore Christians should therefore impose their views on others all the way.  Rushdoony's followers would have the United States become a Christian theocracy under Biblical law.  And by Biblical law, I mean Old Testament stonings and the whole nine yards. While I don't suppose that more "liberal" types like Tony Perkins and Dr. Dobson necessarily believe that, kernels of Rushdoony's theocratic ideas are undoubtedly present in their thinking as well.   

I am not saying that the popular critiques of Enlightement and Post-modern philosophy in conservative religious circles are especially sophisticated.  Far from it.  The first two examples are basically a debate with a strawman.  But the believers in the views of the religious right do have one strength that the rest of us educated but average folks don't have -- they are TALKING about philosophy and they are TALKING about its relevance in politics and in our everyday lives.  They have, indeed, declared war on the very foundations of western epistemology (epistemology being the theories of how to seek the truth and of how we know what we believe we know). They want to replace rationalistic and humanistic thinking with the Bible as the only and infallible source of absolute truth.  Meanwhile, the rest of us, even those of us with a solid grounding in the liberal arts, are not thinking on a daily basis about Truth and Knowledge and Absolutes and Relativism.  So the far right is able, even with some of the silliest arguments, to gain a foothold in the minds of average people because the leaders of far right are the only ones engaging in popular discourse about these concepts.   

But these concepts are important.  Figuring out right versus wrong, what should be considered illegal and what should be a matter of choice, and the separation of church and state are all crucial to the future of the United States, and the future of other countries where fundamentalism may potentially hold sway.  Unfortunately, I have only a smattering of philosophy study under my belt.*  If I could go back and re-do my undergraduate years, I would probably major in philosophy with a concentration in epistemology.  Figuring out how we know what we think we know is the crucial ingredient for making intelligent decisions both in our individual personal lives and as a nation and in virtually every area of human endeavor. 

So come on liberals.  Let's start having a general, popular dialogue about this stuff.  And let's start encouraging greater philosophical literacy among the citizenry so that we don't allow the religious right to define rationalistic and humanistic ideas for us.  My goal for next year (once I finish this year's goal of reading the Bible) is to read and study Bertrand Russell's very useful, very readable, and very long primer A History of Western Philosophy.

Of course, we'll have our work cut out for us.  A point of view grounded in the incredibly nuanced history of western humanistic thought is often not going to be  black-and-white.  It is never going to offer the certainty of having all the answers to life's questions contained in one book.  It is a lot harder to communicate nuanced thinking in public sound bites but I think we have to try to communicate the philosophical underpinnings of our point of view or the religious right will do it for us.   Which, if they ever attain enough popular influence, could lead to some scary things. 

*NOTE:  As I said, I was never more than a dilettante in the study if philosophy. In college I took a survey course on Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche, a course on Marx and Marxism, a course on the Philosophy of Aesthetics, and a seminar on Aristotle.  The only reason I took the seminar on Aristotle was to get away from my women's college and take a class at a nearby co-ed school.  But to my dismay, I learned belatedly that hot guys apparently don't take seminars on Aristotle.  I never took any kind of introductory survey course on western philosophy, although if I recall correctly, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance provided me with a fun overview. 

SECOND NOTE:  I don't mean to leave non-western philosophies out of the mix.  I haven't referred to non-western philosophy here, because on that score, I truly am uneducated. I do think that, for citizens for western countries, understanding western philosophy is of paramount importance because that is the basis of the societies we currently live in.   That is not to say that we don't have a lot to learn from comparative philosophy or that non-western philosophies don't have value or meaning.  Far from it!

NARCISSISM, EVIL, AND THE CAPACITY TO CHANGE - UPDATED

Hugo, who is one of my favorite bloggers, left this comment in the thread on Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

From the other side of the coin: years ago, I was diagnosed with a whole "personality disorder cluster". This was back in the days of the DSM-III, and I was one self-destructive, self-involved, egocentric puppy. One shrink had me pegged as "narcissistic personality disorder/borderline personality disorder" with (drumroll...) "psychotic features."

I don't think the good doc was far from the mark. I also worked my ass off in therapy and had a religious conversion, and while I can't say I'm free from narcissism altogether, I'm a damn sight better off than I was. Change does happen, though it is always a matter of both grace and willingness.

This comment stopped me cold.  The idea that my father could ever change seems so wholly unlikely that I somewhat irresponsibly implied or stated that change is impossible for a narcissist.

My thoughts on this issue are still in flux (after all I never even heard of NPD before this week) but here is my current, more nuanced take on the matter (recognizing of course that I am NOT a professional in this field):

If you are involved with a narcissist, do not invest in the hope or expectation that he or she will change.  That very well may be a pipe dream that could waste years of your life.  It is far preferable to either cut the narcissist out of your life OR concentrate your energy on protecting your own boundaries when you are dealing with the narcissist. 

If you yourself have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, however, you should NOT be getting the message that you cannot change.  That kind of message can too easily serve as an excuse for bad behavior.  One of the main reasons that NPD is considered tough to cure is simply that people with NPD often don't WANT to change.  No human being, regardless of his personality type, can change for the better unless he WANTS to.  People with NPD tend not to want to change, because wanting such a thing would mean admitting to being less than perfect or god-like.  But, if you have NPD, it is your moral obligation to commit to change because it is quite likely that you are inflicting damage on the people around you.  Even if a narcissist cannot cure the wounds within (although I am not stating that is impossible either), he can change his behavior.  Change is going to be hard work though because you have to embrace a humility that is totally at odds with how you have dealt with the world from a very early age.

This of course brings us to issues of good and evil that have been perplexing ethicists and theologians for generations.  A while back, I wrote a post called On Being Created in God's Image, which addressed the proposition that all human beings have inherent worth and should be treated so.  As I feared, I was challenged in that comments thread with the question of how the axiom that all human beings have inherent worth can possibly apply to "monsters" like Stalin, Hitler, or Idi Amin.  I gamely attempted to answer the question, but also sort of blew it off by saying, " . . . [T]he reality is that in most cases in daily life, we aren't dealing with mass murderers like Hitler." 

Yet, as I know all too well, there are plenty of cases in daily life in which we ARE dealing with someone who is acting monstrously.  "Evil" is not too strong a term to apply to the way my father tormented me when I was three, four, and five years old and well into my teen years.  There are in fact plenty of articles on the web equating pathological narcissism with evil, like these here and here, or even questioning whether narcissists are human.  It's the old conundrum of whether Hitler was a being apart from us or if he is us.  And if the narcissist doesn't give a shit about me, why should I give a shit about him?  Why should I treat him as if he has "inherent worth"?

These issues have been very confusing to far better minds than mine.  Ultimately, though, I stand by the belief in inherent human worth even for the most cruel and the most depraved sadist among us. After all, psychological theory holds that somewhere deep within the narcissist is a very wounded human being who was himself tortured or rejected during the most vulnerable period of his life.  Hitler was savagely beaten during his early years.  My father was belted across the face so frequently and viciously that he sill has a facial twitch decades after the fact.  It seems to me that that even the worst among us deserves some degree of compassion and dignity for the sake of the innocent, victimized child within. 

That's not to say that we don't have the right to be angry or to hold the evil among us accountable for their wrongs.  It is certainly not to say that we have any obligation to roll over to people like this and let them trample us.  But still . . .

I oppose the torture and humiliation of even mass murderers.  I will also make sure my father's basic needs and dignity are met in his extreme old age (not financially, which is already taken care of, but in terms of looking out for his interests if he is unable to do so himself).  If he ever underwent some miraculous change, I would be thrilled.  I would accept him and any genuine remorse he expressed with open arms.  But until then, I ain't counting on it. Instead, I think there are ways we can protect ourselves while recognizing that the "monsters" in our lives are not wholly monsters but also human beings with inherent worth.  I definitely don't have all the answers on where exactly to draw the line, but I think a line can be drawn.  The line may and should be drawn differently in each individual situation.  It's a matter of carefully feeling our way through that process. 

(UPDATE:  Of course, the literature I have been reading and my personal experience cautions that trusting a narcissist may be a bad move, since the whole point of the condition is the construction and display of a false self.  So it may be quite difficult to determine whether remorse expressed by a narcissist is genuine.  That's why these issues are so difficult-- narcissists create a situation whereby it is difficult to trust them.  I suppose if my father expressed seemingly genuine remorse and a determination to change, I would accept him with warily open arms, if there is such a thing.) 

NOTE:  I certainly don't mean to imply that cutting a destructive person out of your life is inappropriate, even a parent.  In fact, I think it is in many cases the best possible course. 

SECOND NOTE:  The other issue is that the dividing line  between the monster and us can be awfully blurry.  I have read that the children of narcissists often "mimic" narcissistic traits without being narcissists themselves.  But the more I am reading, the more I am thinking that may be too pat an answer for many of us.  I don't think that I have NPD, mainly because I am not lacking in empathy, but I think I have plenty of other genuinely narcissistic traits.  There have been times in my life when my mother has said to me (in very appropriate disgust), "You're just like your father." So there is the factor of, "There but for the grace of God go I."

ON BEING THE SMARTEST PERSON IN THE ROOM

Scheherazade has a thought-provoking post up about how being smart isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all.  We shouldn't worry too much or place too much stock in whether we are the smartest person in the room at any given time. 

Curiously enough, despite the plethora of insecurities I have, this has never been a concern of mine.  Like a lot of book-smart kids, I grew up having teachers and other adults fawning over me and talking about my intelligence.  But my parents always stressed that intelligent people are a dime a dozen, and I learned pretty early on being intelligent doesn't necessarily make you effective.  Just being brilliant doesn't really matter to anyone unless you can translate your brilliance into some sort of result that is actually valuable to yourself or others.  And to translate intelligence into results, you need other qualities like perserverence, and people-skills, and hard work, and lots of other qualities unrelated to intelligence.  And of course, there are many different types of intelligence.  If the goal is to use logic and analysis to figure out a problem or debate a point, I am your person.  If the goal is to write a song or build a cabinet, you would be better off with almost anyone else but me. 

Generally, I go through life assuming that, in terms of logical, verbal, analytical, and strategic ability, and the ability to grasp facts and concepts quickly, I am equal to virtually anyone I meet.  But I also assume that most people are equal to me as well, even people who are less knowledgeable or less educated than I am in certain areas.  I am always taken by surprise when someone seems deficient in the ability to reason.  But I also remember that a deficiency in reasoning ability doesn't necessarily mean that the person is deficient in other things that are equally important or more important.  I tend to assume that I am smart and perceived as smart -- but I worry inordinately about whether I am aggressive enough, creative enough, reliable enough, and hardworking enough.

Those are my preliminary thoughts.  I am probably going to post some more on this topic of what it means to be "smart" and the significance of being "smart."  Meanwhile, I would like to point you to these two kick ass posts Scheherazade linked.  The first post (by Megan) expresses a lot of what I was trying to capture in my post On Being Created in God's Image.  Megan says in her advice to smart people:

. . . [R}espect everyone. I don’t mean this as a variant on “everyone has something special that they are good at, and that person might just be an excellent scrapbooker” (which I’ve always disliked, because what does that leave the person who really isn’t good at anything?). No, I mean that you must respect everyone for his or her fundamental personhood. Respect every person as you do yourself, just for existing as a person and trying her or his best. Do not reason through why some people are more worthy of respect than others. Just respect everyone as an article of faith.

It will make your life better to respect everyone you meet. First, it feels good to move in a world where everyone is respect-worthy. It makes everyone brighter and shinier and more interesting. Second, people can tell. They can tell right away, before you speak or smile or do anything. People like to be respected and they will like you for doing it. It is nice to meet people who already like you. You’ll like them more too.