Is it just me?

I've read my fair share of self-help books in the past, present, and probably well into the future. Often I find insights to help my brain wrap around the dysfunctional planet. Sometimes the book is just a pleasant bedtime story to lull myself to sleep with, a distraction to keep my mind off of the insanity. But, other times I run into philosophies that anger me and tempt me to throw the text into the trash.

The first such philosophy was given to me through "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". It's been many years since I've read that book, and I remember very little of it's message. I should perhaps read it again to see if my opinion has mellowed. However, I remember that the premise being put forth was equal to that of men will never change, so women have to suck it up and change to compensate for the fact that men are not going to change. Part of this message was regarding that women can't have a best friend and confidant in their spouse. They must go find girlfriends to satiate their need for someone to spill their guts to. This angered me.

Why am I to tip toe around a man's "cave" and let him be who he most wants to be; but that man is not the least bit responsible for providing me with any comfort or camaraderie? One may make the assumption that only women are reading the book. But if a man reads the book, what sort of double standard is being set forth here? Why am I responsible for adapting myself to soothe the male ego, but the male is free to be blissfully himself without the least concern for my needs? If that is the case, then I don't need them.

I'm assuming that the authors are considering the plight of the person seeking more peace in their lives. It is undoubtedly true that you can not change anything but yourself. It would be foolish to lay forth methods of trying to help some poor lonely housewife enlighten her husband. The assumption is made that only the person reading the book will ever change because those that are not reading the book will never have the information necessary to alter their behavior in the slightest.

My latest read has brought me again to this thought. "How to Win Friends, and Influence People" sets forth enlightened principles (well so far, I'm only two chapters in). But again focuses on the reader grotesquely contorting himself and his behavior to compensate for the vast ignorance of humanity. It is foolish to expect to be able to do anything different. Yet I can't help but wonder where are the books that set forth the principles of receiving information and criticism when you were not expecting it? Why is there no book entitled, "The truth is your own mirror." or "How to receive criticism without blaming the person who's given it to you." or "Dealing with the truth of bad news in an enlightened way".

Yes, yes. We should all do our absolute best to be kind to people, and do unto others as you would have them do to you and all that. But you and I both know that being nice to someone is not completely the end of the story. I can treat you with the utmost respect, and if you're having a bad day or take what I said the wrong way you're still going to go off and get angry or upset about it if I say something that you didn't want to hear. So, it's now my responsibility to not only control my emotions so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities, but I also have to read your mind and figure out what it is that you're wanting or not wanting to hear from me?! I find this concept completely insane and impossible to accomplish. Tyrants used to kill messengers of bad news. How is this still acceptable in any setting? Particularly when the bearer of the news is not the creator of the news.

I would like to see a book authored for the purpose of explaining what to do when you've done and said everything in the best manner you know how, and people get defensive and attack you because they didn't like what you said. Something that you said in innocence triggered their own childhood lack, or "I'm not good enough" buttons and suddenly you find yourself being ridiculed and called dirty names because of it. Am I now to be responsible for the dysfunctional personality of every human on the planet? I alone am responsible for cajoling them into a calm state of acceptance that life may be composed of different scenarios that they never imagined? Or am I only responsible for the way I respond to their dysfunctional behavior?

In following with the belief that we are each only responsible for ourselves, I can not see that I am the blame behind someone else's negative reaction to something they did not wish to hear. Where are the words to disarm the ignorance of men who refuse to take responsibility for themselves? What is the method by which living up to your own example and convictions releases you from criticism from those who can not or do not want to do the same for themselves? "The truth shall set you free" sounds great on paper. All I've found is that the truth acts as a mirror and people think I am that which they hate; when in reality it is themselves that they are looking at with disdain.

I am not responsible for what you see in the mirror. I am only responsible for living up to my own truth, and speaking honestly and to the best of my ability. If you find fault in the manner in which I've carved out my life, it is you who are being judgemental. I am not being judgemental by living to my own convictions and speaking them openly. I am speaking truth. My truth. If your truth is different from mine, so be it. I do not take offense. However, if you believe me to be judgemental because my truth is different from yours, then I have only inadvertently provided you with a mirror by which you are seeing your own truth.

Don't kill the messenger.