Monday, October 20, 2014

What Are We Supposed to do About Women's Destructive Envy of Men, Which Will Collapse Civilization?

Leftism is the Bad Feminine, which means feminism is the Bad Feminine, and destroying society means destroying men, i.e. the "patriarchy." If anything, it's based on the envy of men? Why?

Perhaps because men created everything, and maybe on some level women know this. And the envious want to destroy those they envy, even if they destroy themselves. So, leftist, feminist women will destroy men even if they destroy themselves, and civilization. Because they are completely, 100% dependent on men, who created everything.

They bite the hand that feeds them.

Or, as my poster, Days of Broken Arrows, put it:

"People resent those on whom they depend. That's why teens resent their parents. No one likes to feel they need to be 'taken care of.' It makes them feel helpless. We like to be independent.

"Women know, on some deep subconscious level, that they owe their survival to the world that was built and is maintained by men. You can give them all the power positions in the world and dress them up in pantsuits and heels, but it's the men who built what they'll be running.

"If all the men went on strike tomorrow, we'd have power outages, looting, etc. and society would cease to function. They write about 'the end of men,' but 'the end of civilization' is what would happen if there really was an 'end of men.'

"They don't teach this in school. And the media can't say this for fear of backlash or being called 'sexist.' Women know we can't tell them this truth out loud -- much like kids know when parents can't tell them certain things. Some women resent this. Those are the ones of whom you speak.

"It's not a matter of 'having fun.' By becoming the Junior Anti-Sex League, women wish to strip men of their humanity and a large part of their reason for existing. This is why the societies before ours limited their rights -- they knew women contributed little but created lots of drama.

"We have to learn that lesson again and we'll probably have to do it the hard way."


The French have a word for this: "ressentiment."

Wikipedia defines it thus: "...in philosophy and psychology, is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. It is the French word for 'resentment' (fr. Latin intensive prefix 're', and 'sentir' 'to feel'). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the 'cause' generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability."

In other words, "It's your fault, not mine, and I hate and resent you for the power I think you have over me, so I want to bring you down, even if I bring myself down, too."

"If I Can't Have Fun, Neither Can You"

I've said before I think women are more envious than men. It's been noticed for thousands of years. It's right there in the story of the Garden of Eden.

The thing about envy is that you want to drag the other person down, even if you drag yourself down. Think leftism, which is the Bad Feminine and based on envy and leveling in an attempt to eradicate envy. And of course, feminism is leftist- based on hate, envy and the attempt to destroy the Father, i.e. "patriarchy."

I think it's obvious unattractive women envy more attractive women. I'd had attractive women mention this to me about the attitude and behavior of less attractive women.

For that matter, envious people want to drag down anyone whom they envy.

I mentioned in my last post that many years ago I and some friends have had women claim we were sexually harassing them, when in fact we were doing nothing of the sort. Actually, they were sexually harassing us.

But why would they want to drag us down out of envy? Perhaps they thought we had a better life than they did? That we had more fun than they were? That they wanted to be part of it, and that we didn't want them to? Is that were the phrase, "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned" comes from?

I am reminded of Betty Broderick, who murdered her ex-husband and his new bride, even though she getting about $16,000 a month in alimony, and had a new house and boyfriend (and had kids by him). She just couldn't stand her envy, and brought him down even though she also brought herself down, too.

Envy, of course, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It's the only one that isn't any fun, either.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

"Sexual Harassment"? What's That?

I've only seen one case of sexual harassment in my life. Some black guy, who had a make-work job as a school administrator, was putting his hands on his white employees. The women, that is. (I take that back: I've seen black men harass white women and black women on the street, as long as no one was around. I've seen it from my car.)

The school administrator was told to leave.

Otherwise, I've never seen it. The Manosphere, in one of its many delusions, think those non-existent "Alphas" don't get claims of sexual harassment. They do.

One I only read about was the actor Ray Milland, who won an Oscar for portraying a drunk with the DTs. To rehearse for the role he staggered around in public unshaven and in ragged clothes.

A woman who he had rebuffed saw him and gave him a look of triumph.

What the vast majority of "sexual harassment" is, is this: "Hell has no fury like a woman scorned."

It happened to me when a woman I didn't want to get involved with claimed I was sexually harassing her. A few years later a friend of mine, who was very popular with women, had a woman he dated once claim he was sexually harassing her. When I told him she had a crush on him - based on my experience - he said, "That's what my father told me!"

I've also seen obese, unattractive women who think men are after them. That one I don't understand.

What I had noticed in every case is that the women are not married, and without hope of being so, due to the Wall or unattractiveness.

Perhaps this is a way they use to convince themselves they're attractive to men...especially when they're not.

"How Personal Relationships Threaten The Power of the State"

Leftists are nuts and don't under human nature at all. They really thinks it's plastic and infinitely malleable. Who needs families? The State is Big Daddy and Big Mommy, and all of us will turn out just fine. Just a little more tweaking is necessary, that's all.

Leftism is always about the destruction of the Father. And that means the destruction of society and civilization. And the destruction of the Father is why you get what the Manosphere calls MGTOWS and PUAs.

Everyone needs meaning, importance and community. The family is the basis of those things. And the bigger the State gets the more it is threatened by families, so they have to be destroyed. Ultimately, that means the collapse of the State, because there is nothing left to support it. So we get these horrible cycles of from to Hell and back.

The is from the Federalist and was written by Stella Morabito.


"Marriage is the new bogeyman for our 'progressive' friends. It’s worth asking why that is the case.

"Consider this recent Slate article entitled: 'Just Say No: For White Working Class Women, it Makes Sense to Stay Single Mothers.' The co-authors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone both seem well connected to the school of feminist legal theory that claims marriage is generally an outmoded and 'patriarchal' institution. So perhaps it should come as no surprise they would be interested in discouraging it for yet another demographic: white, working-class mothers.

"Cahn and Carbone walk readers through their case study of Lily, employed but possibly pregnant by her boyfriend Carl, who’s unemployed and aimless. We’re told that Lily is not concerned about raising the child alone. She views Carl as more of a hindrance than a help, essentially just another mouth to feed.

"The Slate piece rounds up various statistics and trends – socio-economic, cultural, and so on – to make the case against marriage for Lily and all women of her class and color. The authors emphasize that men are less marketable these days, while working class women are increasingly more employable. They then argue that 'both men and women generally agree that a man who can’t hold a steady job shouldn’t marry.' Complicating matters further is that the men who do have better economic prospects, faced with a 'choice of committing to a woman who outearns them or keeping their independence… seem to prefer their freedom.' They conclude that the dearth of “marriageable” men should convince Lily she’s better off going it alone. (Amusingly, the authors here seem to borrow from an old timey explanation of the facts of life regarding male behavior, like mother-scolds saying, 'He’s just not marriage material, Honey.')

"There is a ream of statistics on the other side of this equation. Indeed, if single motherhood were such a boon, we wouldn’t see such a grossly disproportionate number of that demographic living in poverty. The Slate piece also adds to the confusion by essentially promoting the emasculation of working class men, ignoring the benefits of strong relationships, and accommodating the irresponsibility of both mother and father in cavalierly producing a child.

"But there are deeper aspects to that argument meriting closer examination.

Could the Real Target be Strong Relationships?

"In the end, all of the statistics quoted in this Slate are superfluous. For the real story we have to read between the lines. And the real story is this: society is not cultivating the habits and trust that build strong relationships among individuals.

"Let’s start by looking at Lily as a real person. She is in need of relationships, intimacy, and a life not overwhelmingly dominated by 9-to-5 drudgery. Let’s consider Carl a real human being also. Yes he needs a job, but he also needs the same things as Lily: to feel respected, connected, and useful to others. They both need to feel anchored to something worthwhile, not like displaced persons wandering about life. How does such anchoring happen? Through strong relationships with real people.

"Most telling in the Slate piece is this throwaway line about Lily: 'She has very few friends, married or unmarried, in strong relationships.' That is a statement worthy of deep exploration.

"Consider one major reason the authors urge Lily not to marry:

If a couple marries [sic—then divorces], a court will insist on a custody order and it will expect that both spouses continue their relationship with the child. Indeed, some states presume that the child should spend approximately equal amounts of time with both parents. These changes make marriage a better deal for elite men.

"How wacky is this? First, our friend 'Carl' is a schlub (that’s why Lily blows him off), certainly not an 'elite.' But the fundamental point here is that children and family, you see, are chopped liver in this deal. Marriage here is all about who gets what. Essentially, this means Lily is supposed to deprive her children of a relationship with their father because . . . ? Why? The deck is stacked against her? He doesn’t 'deserve' or presumably doesn’t even want a relationship with his kids? Lily should have an exclusive 'right' to custody?

"The upshot of all of this is to seal off the doors for Lily’s children in having a relationship with their father. It also serves to reinforce a jaded outlook in women like Lily so that the doors are sealed against any hopes they might harbor to cultivate strong – i.e., mutually respectful and loving — relationships with potential fathers for their children.

"Ultimately, the Cahn-Carbone argument is about separation and isolation. It serves primarily to separate people and separate families. And it’s another example of how children are the pawns and political footballs in just about every so-called 'progressive' agenda. Ironically, the argument also seems to cultivate a view of children born of casual sex as less deserving of intact families than children born to 'elites.' They are barely an afterthought in this picture, in which men are a hindrance to be avoided.

"So, raising a kid on your own is a snap? Well, possibly when you don’t really have to raise your kid—since in the case study, Lily’s parents are 'devout Christians who supported both her decision to have the child and her decision not to marry Carl, [and are] helping with child care.'

"The authors offer lip service to the idea that men like Carl should (someday) be employed – but only through government programs that don’t interfere with 'women’s autonomy.' For women like Lily this really means a fake Julia-style autonomy that likewise comes from heavy dependence upon government programs.

"Most troubling is that it seems the authors at Slate are happy to keep women like Lily separated from potential husbands. Why such eagerness to discourage the coming together of people by ties of family and kinship? Why tell single working mothers en masse that it’s best to 'just say no' to marriage?

"What have our progressive friends really discovered? They have discovered that strong families — i.e., strong relationships — are the primary source of well-being in society. But rather than seeing that as a good thing to be encouraged, many are instead making the case that families are the main source of 'inequality.'

"Literature expressing this line of thought is mushrooming today. We have, for random example, an author of a forthcoming book on family inequality, a University of Maryland sociologist, whose blog rhetorically asks: 'Is ‘the family’ a barbaric, pre-modern holdover institution, perpetuating irrational relations and inherited forms of inequality?'

"But this style of attack on the family has been bubbling up for a while. Consider this 1999 paper by a British professor of philosophy 'Is the Family to be Abolished Then?' She opens by proclaiming 'The family is one of the main causes of morally arbitrary inequality. . . . the effects of the family are so profound that its mere existence may severely impede the access of individuals to equal life chances.' She suggests that everyone could be better off if raised in a well run state orphanage.

"Then you have this 1998 trial balloon essay 'The Child Swap Society' published on the op-ed pages of several major newspapers. The author Sandra Feldman (d. 2005), president of the American Federation of Teachers, fantasizes in it about a society in which all parenting is done through state controlled lottery, solving the problems of inequality. Just 15 years ago the essay seemed very fringy. Not so much anymore.

"Another example is a project of the feminist legal theorist Martha Fineman, who heads up an initiative on 'Vulnerability and the Human Condition' at Emory University. Her work seems aimed at promoting government intervention as a means to remedy 'inequality.' Fineman openly advocates for the end of family autonomy and privacy in much of her work, including the 2004 book The Autonomy Myth in which she calls for abolishing all state-sanctioned marriage and replacing it with a scheme that requires all parties to draw up contracts regulated by the state.

"In all of their ponderings about inequality, our progressive friends never fully address the ultimate source of human misery: isolation brought about by broken and weak human relationships. Of course, cultivating strong human relationships would be counter-productive to an agenda that aims to grow impersonal bureaucracy and its attendant power cliques.

Isolation is the real source of inequality

"So the only element I see in the Slate piece when it comes to relationships is that it prescribes separation from a male figure in the household – for both the working mothers and their children – as the best choice across the board.

"If I were a single working mother, here’s how this Slate chorus would sound to me: 'There are no good men out there, so don’t even look! . . . All the statistics are against you and resistance is futile. But we have this nice isolation chamber for you. We’ll put food and drink out for you. We’ll assign you work and school and ‘communitarian’ opportunities as long as you don’t get married. We’ve got pre-K programs for your babies and toddlers. (Contrary to popular belief, we are just itching to be the hand that rocks the cradle.) And we’ll provide you with plenty of free contraceptives to further encourage you to have lots of loveless sex. That way you’ll continue to enable those ne’er-do-wells you like to hang out with. We know you want intimacy. But our policies are aimed at modifying your behavior so that you’ll never catch on and cultivate the habits that encourage real intimacy. Honey, you’re a great poster child for us at the moment. But we progressive elites really see you as a useful idiot. The main thing is that you give up on seeking any permanent male figure around you or your kids. No need to think deeply or independently about this, because we elitist progressive white women have it all figured out for you working class female drudges.'

"Perhaps you find this interpretation far-fetched? After considering the arguments of feminist gender theory listed above – how families are the main source of 'morally arbitrary inequality' – it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that strong relationships would get in their way. After all, strong relationships built on habits of mutual and loving self-sacrifice are ultimately where 'inequality' comes from – why some people are ultimately happier and more prosperous than others. Could this be the real basis for the slam on marriage of the Slate piece?

Dangerous Liaisons: Personal Relationships and Power

"Ultimately, personal relationships are the source of all real power. Connection with others is the font of knowledge and wealth for human beings. Whoever controls personal relationships pretty much controls everything.

"If you look around, you can see this sort of impulse to control relationships everywhere. The 12-year-old 'queen bees' in middle school culture as well as dictators on the world stage – from Stalin to Kim Il-Sung – can turn it into an art form. For seemingly harmless little girls the impulse exhibits itself in nasty lunch room or cyberspace snubs that dictate who can be friends with whom. For world dictators it manifests itself in show trials that condemn and socially isolate political enemies as 'non-persons.'

"Unfortunately, it’s always been the little dictators of the world who understand the ultimate power of personal relationships better than the rest of us who wish only to live and let live.

"Some of the 12 year olds in Lily’s world are in the business of telling all of us what to do and how to live, and ensuring that the only enduring relationships we have are with our government keepers. Others among them — in politics, academia, the media, Hollywood — will keep in place conditions that that suppress strong personal relationships. Why? Because only weakened human relationships and alienation can serve to build a culture of distrust, envy, and divisions in class, gender, race, etc. that empowers an elite 'vanguard'—among whom, politicians, academics and media moguls are prominent.

"By enabling a culture of excess in which self-absorption and self-indulgence reign supreme, power elites seem invested in guaranteeing our problems will be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. Their bait — sloth, sex, and nonstop mind-numbing entertainment – is a feel-good trap. Nothing substantial can be built on what they offer, least of all solid relationships.

A Modest Agenda for the Future

"So there you have it. Lily thought Carl was good enough to screw, but not worth a commitment. According to the authors at Slate, that seems to be a good thing. It seems ironic, doesn’t it, that good habits and good relationships are really the bugaboo of progressive agendas? Our culture of self-indulgence, self-absorption, and sexual excess – which has been pushed very hard by so-called progressives – also cultivates ignorance about this reality.

"It seems funny, doesn’t it, how progressive agendas always seem to begin as 'solutions' in search of problems? Collectivist agendas breed alienation, isolation, distrust, and dependency, which produce poverty, social chaos, and epidemic anxiety, which soften the ground for collectivist agendas. The myth of 'inequality' is perpetuated with the prescription that further isolates people from one another.

"But here’s an idea: How about cultivating a climate for strong relationships? Strong relationships naturally have their roots in marriage and family life. They are then re-broadcast into society by the partners in and children of such relationships.

"Strong relationships are about teamwork: real communication, real cooperation, real trust, and real fellowship. How might individuals seek to cultivate these things? They can, you know, if government gets out of the way. And teamwork is about self-sacrifice, which is a dirty word these days. Yes, strong relationships may be difficult to produce. But that’s what makes them strong. The blacksmith analogy is apt: the tempering of the iron in the fire – as with a relationship through trials — will give it shape and strength.

"But the really dirty little secret statists would rather you not know is this: strong relationships of mutual self-sacrifice yield the greatest prosperity of every kind – spiritual, emotional, and material – for everyone.

"The hunger for strong family relationships will persist. Social engineers can only offer weak 'communitarian' relationships as cheap imitations for the real thing, which, in the end, is real, human love."

Saturday, October 18, 2014

I'm Descended from Slaves, and That's Just Fine with Me

I used to know this Jewish guy who told me that reason that Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years with his tribe of nitwits is so the slaves would die off. He didn't explain since I knew what he meant.

The one country that has suffered the most in the history of the world is Ireland. I am part-Irish, specifically Scots-Irish, or Ulster Scot. And I am descended from slaves ("Wallace" at one time meant "slave.") It means nothing to me.

Here is a long and very educating article.

The Irish Slave Trade.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

"The Incredibly Seductive Pull of a Very Skilled Narcissist"

"Butters falls in love with one of the waitresses (named Lexus), and obsesses over her throughout the episode, failing to see the insincerity of her interest in him." - The South Park episode "Raisins."

One of the amusing things about "Game" and self-proclaimed "Alphas" is that they think the applications of their beliefs actually works almost all the time. As if women are automatons who can't help with the "tingles" and their attraction to "Alphas." These guys apparently have little clue there are narcissistic "Dark Triad" women who can make fools of these men. How? Because men are the real romantics. And when they fall, they fall hard, and they never know what hit them. Think of the movie, Body Heat. Or the Elvin Bishop song, "Fooled Around and Fell in Love."

Mythologically these women are Seductresses, and many men are fools before them, no matter how deluded they think they are "Alphas" immune to them. It's sad but inevitable that such arrogance leads to a fall.

There are a few men immune to what is done to them. They're psychopaths. Of course, there are psychopathic women!

This is from the site Dr. Sam.

"If an extreme narcissist were religious, he would worship himself. He would apply to himself the phrase that says, “You shall have no other gods besides ME!” Narcissist are full to the maximum… with themselves.

"In my years of studying human nature and counseling many individuals, I have come across an amazing type of narcissist. This kind of narcissist is the one who is so seductive he makes you like or believe in him or her with your whole heart. In my personal opinion, this type is the most dangerous of all narcissists. The following are some characteristics of this impressive little “god.”

Charming

"Charm creates a feeling of being delightfully attracted to something. You can be fascinated with something or someone because of beauty. Though the looks of a person can be stunning to the point of you saying, “Wow!”, nevertheless, a captivating narcissist does not necessarily have to have good looks to draw you in. Good looks, definitely, can increase the magnetic pull towards the narcissist, but that is not the core. You can also be charmed by the pulling power of someone reflecting you so as to create a deep rapport. This intense connection is created when a person gives you the feeling like you’ve known them a long time or you feel initially safe with them. They have unlocked the door to your insides. A skilled extreme narcissist knows just how to reflect your music back to you so that you feel like he has your playlist of favorite songs.

More astute than you

"An astute person is one who creatively figures out some unique and impressive angle quickly, an angle few think about. Skilled narcissists can typically outsmart most folks. They are three steps ahead of you. They are also fast in coming out with these unique approaches. That is why you are constantly intrigued by them. When your relationship sours with one of these narcissists, you better watch out. They generally have already thought through how you might react and are ready to discredit you or destroy you. They have their ducks in order. When they get a lawyer you can bet that they are determined to humiliate and obliterate you.

Great storyteller

"A skillful narcissist can be some of the greatest storytellers. They can weave a complex story and mesmerize you with amazing statistics, trivia, quotes, history of events, to the point that you could feel overwhelmed. Naturally, they would be the center of those stories, often re-writing history. These skillful narcissists are hardly boring. They incessantly can talk to you with interesting information. Those I have known, I have often gleaned amazing information from. They too are students of human nature, but with a goal in mind. Their goal is to further their power by enhancing their stature and influence among those around them. Sometimes they exaggerate their claims and position. The media abounds with examples, ranging from politicians and business people to actors who are given to hype.

Believable

"Skillful narcissists work hard at being believable about their myths of themselves. They arm themselves with information that enhances their position and even can change the numbers to suit their arguments. The end goal is to snag you into his/her lair. One trick they use is to play the game of appearing magnanimous. In other words, they appear to take the high road of being nobler than you by forgiving your mistakes. Many times this is a set up to later trash or destroy you. I remember one who came into my office with their former lover. The narcissist said something like, “God knows how dysfunctional I am… and of course, I have my own therapist that I speak to about this… but… Could you please help my former partner here who is so vindictive… and mean… as a matter of fact, I think this person should have an MRI because they have behavior that is similar to that of a person having a brain tumor.” I could not believe how creative this attack was. I had to read between the lines to see the fake tears of this narcissist trying to take the position of Mother Teresa.

Able to cover tracks

"I am always amazed at how a skillful narcissist can cover their tracks. They will play two women at the same time and cover it up with some important business emergency out-of-town meeting. I’ve even seen them have false online identifications. Some may even exaggerate accomplishments, and though they work at a prestigious firm, they might be a junior member or a hated boss who steals credit from others. They can frame the theft as them first having the original ideas. One story sticks out in my mind with a skilled male narcissist who married a woman that he slowly destroyed over the years. It got so bad that one night he got right in her face and spit at her. She had to push him away from her and call the police. When they showed up, she was asked, “Did you touch him?” She said, “Yes, I pushed him.” They hauled her away for being the supposed perpetrator of domestic violence. On the way out and with a concerned face, the narcissist said to the police, “Please be careful. She needs her medication because she is a bipolar person!” Judge for yourself.

Among the greatest actors in the world

"One of the main characteristics of narcissism is that there is a wounded and/or insecure child inside the adult. To survive and compensate, the child has to divert attention and give appearances that are not necessarily true. The skilled narcissist has had many years of theatric practice often changing roles to suit the situation. Because they perceive that their very life is at stake they are zealous to protect and perfect their disguises. These theatric roles cover a wide range. Some are comedic. Others are highly “respectable.” There are also those who use intimidation to create distance and admiration or respect. They might use leather, tattoos, piercings, chains, motorcycles, cars, brash loudness, etc. They can also choose to be the lovable and huggable teddy bear persona. With the skillful narcissist, it is not so easy. The reason for this is that they actually believe they are the persona. I have had narcissists, in a moment of rare transparency and “weakness”, admit to me that they don’t even know who they are.

Be wise

"As you can see, the skillful narcissist is a person with some pretty amazing traits. In my opinion, they can be formidable. They can be impressive in power, strength, intelligence, size, and difficulty. If you find one opposing you, they can be astounding enemies. They are not omnipotent, though they might think so. They do have limitations. Their ego is their own undoing. Many times, when they discover that you are on to them, they disappear. They do this if they perceive that you can blow their cover and expose them as a sham. For an extreme narcissist, being fully exposed to the world is the greatest pain in their lives. It is also the best medicine to their disease because it will force them to look inside and deal with their pain and wounds. If and when that happens, they will become like the rest of us, realizing that we do need others to help and love us. They will see how they need to love from a genuine heart that does not seek to use people. A former and healed narcissist can turn all his powerful assets, which he used to advance himself, to making a powerful contribution in the lives of others and being realistically liked. In the meantime, be careful and avoid being duped and drawn by the amazing magnetism of this kind of person."


Wikipedia: "A femme fatale is a stock character of a mysterious and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers, often leading them into compromising, dangerous, and deadly situations. She is an archetype of literature and art. Her ability to entrance and hypnotise her victim with a spell was in the earliest stories seen as being literally supernatural; hence, the femme fatale today is still often described as having a power akin to an enchantress, seductress, vampire, witch, or demon, having power over men."

"Is Envy the Engine that Drives Fairy Tales?"

I believe, as I've stated before, you should know and understand the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues, and if you do you'll understand most everything about human nature.

Since it's better to show than tell, we need stories. This is why I own the collected works of both the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen.

Of course, the worst sin of all is Pride/Hubris, because it is the basis of all the rest.

This is from the site Diamond and Toads.


"Ah, envy. Without that, where would the stories of "Snow White" and"The Goose Girl" be? True, envy isn't the sin behind the action in every fairy tale, but it shows up in many of them as a secondary source of action. In "Cinderella," the sisters envy Cinderella's goodness and beauty. Same scenario in "Beauty and the Beast."

"Envy, like most of the other sins, has its root in pride -- the deadliest sin. It doesn't have to involve an extreme desire for a big house or fancy wardrobe, as greed does. Envy is an over-the-top lust for anything another person has -- like musical ability or a child or the romantic love of another person. When we are wrapped up in prideful notions of competition and showing off, we get envious.

"Think about it. If the Sea Witch didn't envy The Little Mermaid her lovely voice, then the terrible sacrifice the mermaid makes might not have taken place. And obviously, if Snow White's stepmother wasn't envious of her, there would have been no schemes, no tricks, no attempted murder."