Psychology and Stress

Effective coping requires you to focus on what you do, not on what you think, and not on the emotions you feel. How often have you said, “I’m so down, so depressed. I’ve got to get happier, get rid of this sadness about things. I’ve got to think more positively about things.” Another not uncommon comment therapists hear is, “I get too anxious. I’ve got to get rid of this anxiety.” In these comments, note how the focus is on emotions and feelings. This focus completely ignores the fact that these emotional states and feelings are symptoms; they are not the problem.

According to Dr. Michael Church: “Our thoughts and feelings are simply thoughts and feelings. They are not reality. Just because I feel or think I am a loser does not make me a loser. Just because I have been rejected does not make me a reject. The bottom line is, I am what I do. I am not defined by my thoughts and feelings, and I am not likely to get out of depression or any other emotional dilemma by simply thinking or feeling my way out. At some point, I need to change my behaviors which need to be aligned with my core values. If I am not living in environments corresponding with my value systems, then it is not realistic for me to be happy.”

 Emotions like anger and anxiety can be particularly troubling and even disabling. The question is, what kinds of actions can you take when you feel overwhelmed by such emotions. To help guide yourself in this process, it’s important to remember that emotions can be a warning sign that something other than the emotion needs to change—like an abusive marriage or a toxic friendship. Anxiety can be a signal that you are not prepared for a situation and might best prepare for it. Preparation may not alleviate all your anxiety, but it will give you confidence that you can perform well in spite of the anxiety. Also, keep in mind that “letting it all out” is not a good strategy. Psychological research shows that it’s not wise to “get your anger out.” Smashing things when you’re upset, for example, may actually make you angrier. So, it’s important to use this coping method with caution. If you’re going to talk to someone about a conflict, make sure you’re working on developing a solution, not just on venting or exploding emotionally.

Another important thing to consider is whether your emotions are helpful or unhelpful. Most folks have a tendency to label strong emotional feelings like anger and anxiety as bad, a sign of a psychological weakness. Suppose, however, you’re witnessing someone’s rights being violated, or you are in an unhealthy situation. Your anger can be helpful in such cases because it might give you the courage you need to take a stand or make a change. If, on the other hand, your anger is causing distress or hurting your relationships, you need to work on actions that reduce the conflict. Some examples: (1) Express your concerns using “I,” not “you” statements. “I’m upset that you bring the office home with you,” is less threatening than, “You don’t care about spending any time with me or the kids.” (2) Identify the situations that bring on your emotions and work on simple solutions. What makes you nervous? Long lines, traffic jams? Being late? Your kids’ messy rooms? Your partner is late for dinner most nights? Relatively simple solutions could be to restructure your day when possible: Shop at off-peak hours; take a different route to work; leave earlier for appointments; close the kids’ doors; schedule dinner later. (3) Exercise regularly. (4) Learn and practice relaxation methods through deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and meditation. (5) Remind yourself that is not essential for you to win all arguments. Life is not a zero-sum game. Learn to compromise, take timeouts, and treat others with respect and empathy.

Remember how you are defined. You are not defined as “someone who feels anxious whenever I am in an uncomfortable situation.” You are defined as “someone who avoids controversy and confrontation whenever I feel anxious.” You must, therefore, work on modifying your avoidance behaviors in situations where they are inappropriate.

In this age of unbridled self-preoccupation, it is easy to offend others. I once heard a politician say: “I’m offended by this, and I’m offended by my colleagues that are offended by what we’re doing.” That’s a whole lot of offended! When you cut through the convoluted nonsense and self-focused drivel in this statement, you’re left with a frightened, self-centered person who is unable to confront a stressful situation in a constructive way. How about you? Are you regularly offended? Do you use it as an avoidance strategy? Is that how you want to go through life – mired in a swamp of avoidance and denial, unable to be flexible so you can adjust and improve? Do you want to be a servant to your fears and anxieties – unguided by a system of values, with a loss of direction that creates ambivalence about your worth?

Cassie would answer those questions with a resounding “No!” A work colleague’s actions offended her but she did not avoid confronting the situation in a constructive way. Cassie heard via the office grapevine that Baker, a colleague, was spreading a rumor that Cassie had taken a shortcut and “doctored” some figures in preparing a progress report for an ongoing project. Cassie was infuriated. She told a friend, “I have never been so offended in my life. That SOB is calling me a crook!” Cassie could have used Baker’s upsetting and untrue affront against her integrity in an avoidance way. That is, to avoid dealing directly with the stress, she could have begun spreading derogatory rumors about Baker. Instead, in front of other colleagues, she confronted Baker and very forcefully issued an ultimatum: “Baker, I am offended by your comments that I took shortcuts in my latest interim report. You know it’s not true and I want you to give me and our colleagues standing here evidence supporting your accusation. Otherwise, I want an apology right now, and admit that you made up that accusation to put me in jeopardy with the bosses. I demand that apology.” Baker’s face showed he was stunned by Cassie’s attack. He proceeded to apologize, and stumbled through an excuse that he “misread some of the figures in your report.” No one present bought it. [Eight months later, when raises and promotions were announced, Cassie’s promotion made her Baker’s immediate supervisor!]

American society is in a time of massive self-preoccupation. People seem ill-prepared to accept the reality of variability in what is right and what is wrong. Bewildered and frustrated, they reject accountability and retreat into the comfort zone of their own needs. This retreat makes them more dependent on others, incapable of critical thinking, and vulnerable to false messages. Their sense of autonomy crumbles; their purposefulness and ability to see meaning in life fade away; and they fail to see how self-destructive their emotion-based actions have become. Frustrated and fearful of abandonment, their only recourse is to lash out – sometimes violently – at others.

The first step in coping with stress is accepting a simple fact: “I am not the primary ingredient in every recipe.”

August 2023 – The Department of Education in Florida announced that the AP Psychology course offered to high-school students is illegal because it includes material related to sexual orientation and gender-identification. The course has been offered since 1993, and about 27,000 students have signed up for it in 2023-24. The problem, however, goes back to a Bill pushed through the Florida legislature by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022 that prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades k-12.

What is an AP (Advanced Placement) course, and how do colleges use it? In a college curriculum, a course in Introductory Psychology (we will refer to this course as Psych 101) typically serves as a prerequisite for psychology majors to more advanced courses in psychology. Many non-psychology majors also take this course as an elective, or a requirement in a related major (e.g., Sociology, Criminal Justice, and others). If a student has taken an AP Psychology course in high school and received a passing grade, most colleges accept the AP course as the equivalent of taking Psych 101, and give the student three credits. Thus, taking AP Psychology in high school allows students to substitute the AP course for Psych 101 and earn three college credits.

Psych 101 is one of several psychology courses I taught many times over 41 years as a psychology college professor. The course is typically designed to give students an overview of the basic content of the discipline: Biology/Genetics; Sensation/Perception; Consciousness; Learning; Memory/Intelligence; Child/Adolescent Development; Motivation/Emotion; Stress/Coping/Health; Personality; Disorders; Therapy; Social Influences. Most importantly, however, the course is designed to show students how psychologists think about behavior, and how they go about studying it. Thus, students also learn how psychologists use critical thinking and science – data collection, measurement, and research methodology – in the discipline.

Would the course include material on sexual development? Of course. How could we discuss fully many of the topics listed above without alluding occasionally to research on sexuality? Still, this course hardly seems threatening. Why, then, is it perceived as such?          

As we have said many times in this blog, adopting extremist attitudes robs individuals of flexibility, a trait that is essential for effectively coping with stress. In this case, the extreme attitude views any consideration of gender orientation and identification as bad; including it in an AP Psychology course, therefore, makes the course indoctrination, not education. The extreme attitude says that presenting research on such things as homosexuality and transgenders may brainwash students into seeing these behaviors as good choices for themselves. This is inflexible thinking that produces absurd and irrational conclusions – such as, an AP course in Psychology corrupts the values, morality, and healthy development of students. Extremists believe the course advocates some perverse point of view, failing to see that it is simply a course that educates students about the full spectrum of human behavior. Forced to believe that AP Psychology is a form of indoctrination, extremists cannot see that it is they who indoctrinate students by dictating what students can and cannot learn. They fail to see that it is they – not AP Psychology – who rob students of the freedom to make choices based on intellectual curiosity and the desire to learn about psychology. Those with extreme, narrow-minded attitudes want to force students into their extremist thinking. The result is disrespecting students by depriving them of the opportunity to expand their maturing brains, to increase their knowledge and understanding of human dynamics, and to discover how to study behavior by collecting and evaluating data in objective, systematic, and unbiased ways.

You know them: pests, irritators, annoyances, nuisances, pains-in-the-neck (or lower in the anatomy) – troublemakers bask in their self-declared superiority and eagerly display it for all to see. They believe that rules exist for others; that accepted policies are no good because they know a better way; that your opinions are misguided. When there is a problem to be solved that requires team players who are willing to cooperate and communicate with others in an atmosphere of mutual respect, if you throw in the troublemaker, everything falls apart and the problem expands.

The troublemaker is no more than a bully. Unlike the 8^th grader who bullies victims with physical attacks, however, the adult troublemaker is more figurative in bullying actions, as noted above. But why? What needs and purposes are being served in those who seem to dedicate their lives to oppositional behavior? The answers to that question are many, and the reasons probably vary from person to person.

At its simplest level, the chronic troublemaker may be modeling a significant adult figure from earlier years. In that case, however, we might expect the behavior to weaken as it consistently leads to negative consequences. More likely, therefore, persistent and intense troublemaking services deeper needs; it is almost certainly an avoidance behavior driven by anxiety that threatens to flood the troublemaker with negative emotions. For instance, narcissistic troublemaking can occur because of shame, jealousy, and envy toward others; agitation toward others is an expression of superiority and dominance, allowing the troublemaker to maintain their narcissism by avoiding the jealous resentment they feel. Another dynamic might be insecurity from intense inner-feelings of incompetency and inadequacy, and being a pest helps them avoid facing those self-doubts. Closely related would be the troublemaker who has unresolved issues from childhood centering on fear of rejection, abandonment, and loneliness. This emotional starvation makes them unable to trust others, and this distrust is replaced by anger; to service their anger, others must be annoyed and dominated. Also, anger-based retribution and vengeance provide a safety valve allowing the troublemaker to avoid the fear of being emotionally deserted and lost.

Whatever the individual dynamics, bullying troublemakers all have in common unresolved emotional conflicts that rob them of feeling secure and wanted. Unable to face those conflicts, they take a fear-based approach to challenges in their life that makes them avoid social interactions expressing humility and empathy. They are so threatened by the possibility of having to face their fears, they are left only with the option of avoiding productive interactions, not only with others, but also with themselves.

The word “grooming” pops up a lot these days, especially when politicians talk about their opponents. In that context, the word is usually associated with pedophiles, and it has almost become synonymous with sexual abuse of children (see our post for July 21, 2023). As we noted in our last week’s post, however, grooming can take place in a variety of contexts, such as romance, finance, education, terrorism, and criminal enterprises. No matter what the context, though, and whether the target is a child or an adult, common to all grooming actions is a perpetrator who lies continuously to manipulate a victim by building trust, and steadily bring the victim under control. The essence of grooming is when the victim becomes willingly submissive to the power of the perpetrator.

In this post, we want to take a more detailed look at the grooming process, and place it in the context of emotions. A groomer not only instills extremist, narrow-minded attitudes and actions in their victim, but also extremist emotions, and that aspect of grooming is what we want to discuss here. The shrewd, devious, and surreptitious ploys used by groomers result in gaining control of victims by convincing them that the groomer is right and everyone else is wrong; that only the books, movies, magazines, and TV shows acceptable to the groomer are legitimate – all else is fake. The groomer creates a world that is simple, black/white, either/or, right/wrong, with no in-between. The victim’s emotional world is groomed to fit only one model – the groomer’s; all others are invalid. The victim becomes an emotional extremist, a casualty of rigid indoctrination.

To illustrate what we mean by grooming emotional extremism, let’s analyze grooming in the context of gender roles. The emotionally-groomed girl is taught to believe that to maintain her femininity she must be subservient, emotional, quiet, and proper; the emotionally-groomed boy is taught to believe that to maintain his masculinity he must be dominant, aggressive, loud, profane, and unemotional (except to the groomer, of course). The problem here is that this narrow grooming robs victims of a trait that is important in the coping process: Flexibility. What is the groomed woman to do if she finds herself in a situation that requires her to be assertive, strong, and forceful? What is the groomed man to do if he finds himself in a situation that requires him to be tender, caring, and sympathetic? Each will be lost and uncertain because they have been groomed to express a limited, inflexible range of emotions. That uncertainty will result in frustration, self-anger, socially-inappropriate behavior, lowered self-esteem, and, most tragically, increased dependency on the groomer.

Trevor lives with his girlfriend and they have an infant daughter. One day, alone with his daughter, the baby was crying incessantly, and everything Trevor tried to quiet her failed. “Finally,” he said, “I lost it and smacked it on the head. I guess it was too hard because she went unconscious. I panicked, I called 911. They came and took her to the hospital. The police also came and arrested me for hitting her.” The daughter recovered, but Trevor was indicted for child abuse. During the trial his wife began divorce proceedings. Trevor was found guilty and sentenced to jail time. After serving his time, he was paroled, ordered to live in a half-way house, attend regular counseling sessions, and forbidden to have any contact with his ex-wife or daughter.

In counseling Trevor achieved some insights into his behavior. He says, “Social signals like smiles and crying from other people have always been hard for me. My dad always said that trying to feel how someone else was feeling was a sign of weakness in a man. My dad was a drunk and hit me a lot. No matter what I did, he might hit me. I remember as a kid wondering what do I have to do to get some support and affection from this guy? Mom tried to show me she cared, but if she hugged me dad would explode, yelling at her for making me a sissy, and then clobbering me to show me how to be a man. My childhood was really confusing.”

Trevor’s childhood experiences deprived him of emotional flexibility, and made it difficult for him to learn how to give and receive love. As he grew older, whenever someone reached out to him, he didn’t know how to react. Expressions of love and caring from others became aversive for Trevor, threats that reminded him of his childhood inadequacies. Note Trevor’s comment earlier, referring to his daughter: “I lost it and smacked it on the head.” For a moment, the daughter was an “it,” not someone Trevor could relate to positively with love and affection. “No wonder I never really got close to a girl for too long in high school,” Trevor said. “Commitment was a scary thing for me. I took a chance when Sally asked me to move in with her. I figured, what the hell. If things got out of hand I could always just walk. Then she got pregnant.” Trevor’s interactions with his infant daughter awakened many of his childhood issues. “She would smile at me and I got scared – What do I do? What does she want? When she cried, I thought she was mad at me because I was a lousy father. My dad was right; I was worthless. I wasn’t a man. That really got to me.”

Trevor’s early abusive environment and grooming encouraged him to distrust the world and be insecure in social situations. He had a hard time learning how to interpret social signals, and he was confused about how to give and receive love. Frustrated and angry, Trevor lashed out at the source of his confusion, just as his own dad had done. Dad was the only male adult in Trevor’s early life, and he emotionally groomed Trevor to avoid situations that required him to make flexible emotional choices, like ones involving commitment and affection. The only thing that mattered was to be a man.

Sally and the daughter moved to another state, and Trevor – in spite of some insights in counseling – never fully resolved his issues. He stayed in counseling but the sessions slowly became centered on managing his anger. His interactions with women were mostly brief and limited to the bar scene; he remained unable to commit himself to a long-term romantic relationship.

I have seen social media posts and news reports that quote folks who seem to equate pedophilia and grooming. This linkage is unfortunate because it implies that anyone who uses grooming techniques on another person must be a pedophile.  The fact is, however, that grooming can take place in a variety of contexts – romantic, terrorist propaganda, childrearing, and criminal enterprises. Con artists interested in cheating vulnerable people out of money often target grieving widows or widowers for grooming; drug dealers target impressionable adolescents to groom. The essence of grooming is when a perpetrator manipulates a victim by building trust, and steadily brings the victim under control. Successful grooming is when the victim becomes willingly submissive to the perpetrator. Most, if not all, pedophiles use grooming strategies on children; that does not mean, however, that all people who use grooming are pedophiles.

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that is characterized by an adult or older adolescent being sexually attracted to children who have not reached puberty, typically kids younger than 12. In the psychiatric and psychological professions, pedophilia is distinguished from child sexual abuse. The adult teacher who seduces a post-pubescent 15-year-old student is committing child sex abuse, but is not considered a pedophile unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Similarly, indecent exposure, grooming, and producing child pornography can be examples of child sexual abuse.  The exact age for what is considered child sexual abuse would depend on the age of consent established in a state.

Another example of sexual abuse would be pederasty, which refers to a sexual relationship between an adult man and a boy. The boy is typically a passive recipient of sexual actions by the adult. Again, who is a “boy” would be determined by the local age of consent, which would define when the boy is considered competent to consent to sexual acts. Pederasty was once associated with The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This organization advocated abolishing both age-of-consent laws, and laws that make sexual behavior between an adult man and a boy a crime. Law enforcement organizations generally find that NAMBLA has all but disappeared as members drifted into other pedophilia groups.

            When you hear someone accuse another of being a pedophile, critically evaluate their accusation by keeping in mind some important distinctions: Are they talking about prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent minors? Are they talking about child sexual abusers or pedophiles? Some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, some are not, and some pedophiles do not molest children. Be wary and critical of those who interchangeably use terms like sexualization (see our post on June 30, 2023), grooming, and pedophilia. They usually do so to score points in the political or sociocultural arena by accusing an opponent as being perverted. Pedophilia is a serious social and psychological disorder with no reliable cure; using it to make thoughtless, uninformed accusations against an adversary just to impugn their character is completely dishonorable.

            Coping with stress does not have to be that difficult. Unfortunately, many folks make it hard by violating some basic principles. Consider Maribeth. She had a tough childhood filled with emotional deprivation. Both mom and dad were alcoholics; dad also liked to beat-up mom when he got mad, which was often, and he generally terrorized Maribeth who learned to hide from him by retreating to a neighbor’s house by the time she was 3. An aunt eventually “rescued” Maribeth when she was 9, and took her to live in another town. By this time, Maribeth was full of hatred toward her parents, and distrustful of all adults – including her aunt even though she did her best to provide a stable, emotionally-supportive environment for Maribeth.

            By her late teens, Maribeth had learned to wear her poor upbringing as a badge of sympathy: “Treat me gently because I have been rejected and beaten by my parents, who never gave me the love I needed when growing up. I deserve better, and am now totally screwed up, filled with anxiety and out-of-control emotions. I want to have a good life, but I can’t; my rotten parents destroyed me and made it impossible for me to live a normal life.”

            Maribeth believed she was owed something, and she decided that she deserved to be indulged and enabled by everyone because of the way her parents raised her. Many young people  carry around this attitude, and say things like: “My parents were killed in a car accident when I was 12. No one understands my grief. Life stinks and people are mean. It’s not fair.” “I’ll admit I have a lot of issues, and I owe it all to my parents.” “How can I be expected to be normal when I was raised by the worst people on the planet?” “My so-called friends just don’t seem to understand how I’ve suffered. I don’t get it. I’ve already had more than I can take.”

            The problem with people who choose to use their torment to get sympathy from others is that the badge they wear makes it impossible to take three steps that are essential to successfully coping with a rough past, and with current psychological pain. The first coping step is Accountability. If you’re busy blaming others for your problems, you cannot take responsibility for your decisions. The second step is Humility. Here again, the reason you’re blaming others for your problems is because you have this sense of entitlement; it’s not fair that you’re suffering; you don’t deserve it because you’re special.

            Maribeth began to gain some insight into her problems in her early 20s when she ran into trouble with the law. She lived with a man and their relationship was very turbulent; there were numerous calls for domestic abuse and disturbing the peace. On one of those calls Maribeth pushed a cop aside and that move sent her to jail and court. After a night in jail, at her hearing the judge levied a hefty fine against her. He also ordered her to professional counseling with a psychologist. “I’ll give you six months to get your life in order, or you’re going to face some serious consequences,” the judge warned her.

            After about 10 productive counseling sessions, the psychologist invited Maribeth to join her group therapy sessions with abused women. Their issues concerned recovering from abusive relationships with a spouse or boyfriend, not so much childhood abuse from parents, but the therapist felt Maribeth could profit from seeing a few realities that went beyond her self-absorbed approach to her anger. The therapist was correct. Maribeth was amazed to hear women talk about their near-death experiences from beatings – and in one case, being shot – inflicted by sadistic men. She began to realize that her anger toward her parents focused her on feelings of entitlement and indulgence that she felt she deserved because life cheated her. After only a few group sessions, Maribeth took the first uncertain toward step three of the coping process. One day she said to a group member who had an emotional breakdown while describing one of her horrific experiences, “What can I do to help?” Maribeth had discovered Empathy. Hearing others’ horror stories made her realize that she had no right to expect the corners of the world to be padded for her. Others were worse off.

            Maribeth stayed in counseling and she continued to attend the group sessions with abused women. She discarded her Badge of Sympathy, and slowly became more and more involved in volunteering with social service agencies devoted to helping abused women. She still harbored anger toward her parents, but she no longer allowed that anger to be used to blame them for her travails; she used it instead to guide her to personal humility, and empathetic service to others. That’s what coping is all about; not avoiding or denying a troubled past, or the negative emotions that go with it, but using those memories and emotions to motivate you to choose not to make yourself the center, but to make others in need the focus of your road to self-understanding.

More than 30 years ago, researchers Berkowitz and LePage demonstrated that the sight of a weapon can increase aggressive thoughts and actions. The standard explanation of this weapons effect involves the gun as an activator of the brain; that is, seeing a gun can automatically increase aggression-related thoughts. Of course, in the past 30 years the increased prevalence of visible guns in American society has probably resulted in the habituation of brain activation in many observers. This possibility means that the sight of a gun today will probably have different effects on different observers. For instance, if you walked into a mall, a restaurant, or a retail store, and you saw another customer wearing a gun, how would you feel? Would seeing that gun make you feel safer? Would it make you angry and more likely to entertain aggressive thoughts? Would you feel some stress and anxiety? The answer would probably depend on the person and the particular present circumstances.

Is it not interesting that at a time when Americans are becoming more and more vocal about the need for gun safety laws, many states are loosening gun restrictions? About thirty states allow open carry of guns without a permit. Open carry, of course, makes the weapon visible to others. Many argue that such visibility will inhibit violence by others. Psychologists point out, however, that if the presence of a gun can increase aggressive tendencies in some people, its presence could increase the likelihood that conflicts will be resolved by deadly force. They point to recent instances: five family members shot by a man angry about being asked by a neighbor to stop target shooting in his own yard; a young man shot when he rang the doorbell at the wrong house; teen girls shot when they mistakenly got in the wrong car in a parking lot; a woman shot when her car turned into the wrong driveway.

There is no doubt that psychological dynamics play a role in gun violence. That’s why many people say, “Gun violence is a mental health problem.” Is it not troubling to realize that conditions we all might see in our families – anxiety and panic attacks; depression; narcissism; sociopathic tendencies; self-harm; drug and alcohol abuse – can qualify as disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? Psychologists can only wonder, if we make it easier for everyone to obtain guns without any mental health evaluation, are we running the risk of putting guns in the hands of a disturbed individual?

But that question is only part of the mental health equation when it comes to guns. The emphasis on mental health disturbances as a cause of the misuse of guns overlooks the terrible effects gun violence has on victims. Not only can being injured by a gunshot cause a host of psychological problems – PTSD, anxiety/panic disorders¸ drug/alcohol abuse, depression – but those same problems can result indirectly in those who only witnessed an act of violence, even if it involves  a stranger. When someone is a direct victim of gun violence, the indirect collateral damage to family members, friends, and even unacquainted witnesses, is enormous.

Gun violence is a mental health problem? You bet it is, both as cause and effect. And it is compromising the psychological stability of American society.

Psychology has a lot to tell us about raising children. Consider Sandra Bem’s work in the ‘70s on teaching children to embrace a variety of emotions and characteristics. Bem said parents should certainly teach sons that they will find themselves in situations when they should be forceful, competitive, and dominant. But Bem also said parents must teach boys that sometimes sensitivity, emotionality, caring, and empathy are appropriate, and showing such traits does not destroy their masculinity. When a parent tells boys they must always show tough-guy masculinity, they will be unable to participate in a broad range of productive interactions with others. Bem also argued that parents should teach girls to be nurturant, supportive, sensitive, and understanding. But parents must also teach them that sometimes they need to be assertive, competitive, forceful, and decisive, or they will find themselves dominated by those around them. Plus, girls should be taught that firmly standing up for themselves in no way sacrifices their femininity.

Bem’s position boils down to the value of teaching kids two things: (1) your emotions are not an enemy to be feared; (2) flexibility is important in expressing emotions. When faced with challenges, if we want our kids to be effective in handling stress, they must be able to call on a variety of responses when conflict arises. Raising kids to show only one pattern of responses – my boy must always be firm, decisive, and tough no matter what the circumstance, and my girl must always be sensitive, caring, and submissive in all situations – is a form of indoctrination and personality grooming that is psychologically harmful to the child. If we teach our kids to be emotionally limited, they will cope poorly with stress.

Bem’s work deals with how we teach gender roles to kids, that is, what sorts of behavior are appropriate for males and females. I have heard politicians confuse this topic with “sexualization.” According to the American Psychological Association (APA), sexualization means regarding people as sex objects, and evaluating them in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness. Women, for instance – and far more often than men – are frequently portrayed in the media in a sexual manner, such as wearing revealing clothing, and displaying suggestive poses. The APA maintains that this focus on physical attributes is not only psychologically damaging to young girls, but also contributes to sexist attitudes and sexual violence in society.

In 2006, the APA formed a task force to examine sexualization. The task force highlighted numerous studies that provide evidence of the sexualization of women and girls in the media, and found negative consequences of repeated attention to physical appearance: it interfered with other mental and physical activities; it led to increased feelings of shame and anxiety about one’s body; and, it increased the incidence of anorexia nervosa among 10-to 19-year-old girls. Boys were also affected. Their inability to attract girls who fit impossibly narrow ideals of female attractiveness lowered boys’ self-esteem and masculine identity. Healthy friendships and romantic interactions with girls were difficult for many boys who believed they had to find a girl who fit the media ideal.

Bem’s work on appropriate roles and personality traits described earlier has clear lessons for how to help young people be better prepared to cope with stressors in their lives. Sexualization provides an equally clear lesson on how young people, especially girls, become vulnerable to those stressors. Young girls see and read the false sexualization message from a variety of media platforms, and they suffer a host of negative emotional reactions like shame, anxiety, sadness, confusion, frustration, ambivalence, and fear. Then, they wrongly conclude that they are mentally ill – not normal. This belief can trigger deeper despair, depression, and thoughts of suicide, especially in those who already feel rejected, abandoned, confused, and alone. The irony is, the experience of those emotions is quite normal and a part of living. The key to coping with them is to acquire flexible actions that help to deal with them in rational and confident ways. When it comes to our adolescents and young adults, however, many have been indulged and overly protected from adversity by parents and other adults, with the unfortunate consequence that they never learn how to deal with negative and confusing experiences like sexualization, or with negative emotions like shame and anxiety. Too many parents today are more concerned with how to help their kids avoid sources of anxiety than with helping kids navigate their way through, and cope with, what is a complicated and frustrating path to adulthood. Next time you read about the increase in psychological problems in young people, ask yourself if we are doing enough to enhance parental guidance about Bem’s work, and enough to minimize the perverse role of stressors like sexualization.

I once met a gentleman at a social event who was President of a major corporation. We hadn’t been chatting long before it became clear to me that this was one impressive guy, and it was easy to understand how he ended up at the top of the “business ladder.” He wanted to talk about psychology, which was fine with me. At one point he volunteered that he had ADHD, and I asked him what sort of concessions he had to make to succeed in his world. In so many words, of course, I was asking him how he coped. To paraphrase his reply:

            “I really became aware of my condition when I was in college. Up to that time I had a lot of trouble focusing on things, carrying through with my plans, and keeping myself occupied with the task at hand. In high school I could coast along, but college was another matter. I took a basic psychology course in my freshman year and one day I made an appointment with the professor. I told him my symptoms and he suggested ADHD. That changed my whole life.” He went on to tell me how he learned all he could about his condition and what steps he could take to compensate for it and be a successful student. As we continued to chat, I began to see the specific characteristics that explained why I was impressed with him: His level of achievement motivation was off the charts at the high end; his work ethic was unmatched by anyone I had ever known; his energy level was unbounded; he was articulate and a clear thinker.

            He went on to tell me he continued the coping strategies he developed in college. He gets up an hour earlier than necessary to be at work at the time he wants to arrive. “During that hour I map out my day, writing down meetings I have, memos to write, tasks I need to assign to others, and so on. To do all that, of course, I refer to a complete list of what I had done the previous day and what was still on the list. I also refer to my appointment book for the upcoming day.”

            As soon as he gets to work (about an hour before anyone else on his office floor) he puts in a call to his Executive Associate. “She knows the daily routine and she knows the call is coming, so I’m not disrupting her own early morning schedule. We go over everything on the list I have prepared for the day. We spend about 15 minutes adding some things, deleting some things, and editing others. As soon as she gets to her office, which is next to mine, we go over things again, and I’m now ready to face the day.”

             Not surprisingly the assistant was present while we were talking, only a few feet away. During our brief conversation she intercepted others coming to chat with him, saying something like, “Give him a minute and he’ll be right with you. So, how have you been?” Had she not done so, she knew his attention would have been diverted to the newcomer and my conversation with him would have ended, hanging in the air. He told me his executive associate is indispensable as he goes through the day. “She keeps me on schedule, keeps me on track during meetings, and knows that when something unexpected comes up, she must keep it under wraps until we get together at the end of the office work-day. Then, together, we discuss where the matter belongs for my evening and the next day.”

            It is no exaggeration to say that by the time our conversation had reached this point I was literally exhausted. The energy level he expended telling me his story was fast-paced and intense, and required some mental effort just to follow him! Still, his words and fast presentation style showed considerable sophistication. I have had interactions with people who, in my estimation, would clearly be diagnosed with ADHD. Unlike this gentleman, however, many had little underlying structure or logical organization to their words, and trying to follow them was like trying to converse with a fly. Their deficit also dominated their actions, and they lived haphazard, nonproductive lives. On the other hand, our CEO’s approach to each day is a model of effective coping: He does not allow his ADHD to define who he is; he attacks the day as a challenge to be met within the realities of his condition, not something to be avoided because of his condition; he develops a strategic plan not only to take on the things he knows are ahead, but a plan that also allows him to deal with unexpected contingencies; he enlists the help of someone else in carrying out his plan, admitting that he can’t do it all alone, and that there is no shame in reaching out to another person.

            Kristin Woodling, owner of Pamper Your Mind, a private counseling practice, describes the characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, noting that their characteristics are typical of ADHD diagnoses: high energy, vision, creativity, insight, impulsiveness, and risk-taking. She says that the trick for them is to channel these traits so they can lead to productive results. My CEO friend used his executive associate to help him channel his traits that, unchecked, could produce haphazard decisions, projects hanging undone, and general disorganization that would frustrate all involved. These are lessons for all of us. Coping with everyday life often requires us to meet challenges by engaging in creative strategies to deal with problems; organizing our thinking and our efforts; maintaining our energy level to persevere with purpose; and, enlisting the assistance of someone trustworthy.