Why Seeing Your Ex Moving On Always Hurts So Much

Phoebe Kirke's analysis of her own feelings below is probably correct. But I also think it illustrates a great divergence between male and female attitudes towards breakups. Like Phoebe, most women see a breakup as a occasion to spend time "working" on themselves, presumably to become more independent of men. Their interest in men during that time is minimal. The period concerned can last for years.

Men, by contrast are much more likely to go by the motto that the best cure for a broken heart is a new love. And they move on to another partner rapidly if they can -- as Phoebe reports.

The surprising thing is that women seem to see their slow recovery from a disappointment as a virtue, not a loss. And the quick recovery by men is seen to indicate a weakness of some kind. Perhaps because I am a male I see it the other way around: I see it as rather sad that women are so emotionally weak as to be unable to move on promptly. They waste valuable years of their life wallowing in negativity, when they could possibly have the joy of a new love

But I am no doubt biased. I have very clearly followed the typical male pattern in my life. When my second marriage ended, for instance, I met my third wife just two weeks later -- leading to a ten-year marriage that produced a child. What is there to criticize in that? I can see nothing but it is probably contemptible to many women

So how can women avoid the pain that they undoubtedly suffer in a breakup? I also suffer emotionally from breakups but I have a way of minimizng that pain. I go to considerable lengths to remain friendly with an "ex", including being very forgiving. Resentment is for fools. Remaining friends is not as good as remaining lovers but it goes half way and helps greatly with adjusting to the new circumstances.

Just to illustrate that: The third wife I mentioned above and I separated a quarter of a century ago but I had a very pleasant dinner with her last night, even though -- true to male form -- I do have another partner

Truly forgiving another person can be difficult but it is a great Christian virtue and well worthwhile in adjusting to breakups


Phoebe Kirke

Shortly after I broke it off with my ex, he started a new relationship. I was devastated. Not because I wanted him back, but because I wanted him to hurt just as much as I did. And I wasn’t ready for a new relationship, so why was he? I found that being at peace with the relationship ending doesn’t automatically translate into no longer feeling anything when finding out that our ex has moved on. Why is that?

You’re not in love or loss — it’s a normal reaction.
It’s weird to feel hurt after seeing your ex with someone new, especially if you’ve moved on and are currently dating someone new. However, it’s a normal reaction. And it certainly doesn’t mean that there are still feelings involved or that breaking up was a mistake.

See, after my last breakup, I was devastated. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and how I would continue without him — note, I was the one finally leaving after the relationship had inevitably broken down. Slowly but solemnly, I started to build my life in a new city, job, and apartment.

Yet, despite my efforts and trying to become my true self again, I was hurt to hear he had a new girlfriend only weeks after I left him. They were parading around; he’d take her to mutual friend’s parties while I was left alone in another city, trying to focus on myself. Did I doubt my decision to leave him during that time? No, I didn’t.

However, the thought that I could not be important to him and, therefore, he quickly found someone else was very difficult. I then asked myself how it could be that he just put away our relationship so quickly. Were the wonderful experiences and moments together for nothing? After a while, I understood that it was less about him dating and more about him obviously not mourning that he had lost me.

Seeing your ex move on has more to do with your ego getting bruised than wanting your ex back.

Let’s be honest, ego is a factor in dating and relationships. We can’t get hurt and not take it personally. If we’re in it, we’re in it. And when we lose, we need time to find our way back to ourselves. An exciting journey, I found.

Here’s how long it takes until we don’t care anymore.
In my opinion, being completely over someone is the moment they move on, and it doesn’t provoke any reaction. However, it takes time to get to that place. But how much time must have passed until we’re at a place where we literally couldn’t care less about the ex?

It takes half of the time the relationship lasted.

Why exactly half? We concluded that it’s because, as humans, our memory is very forgiving in many ways. We forget quickly, paint the dark truths a bit brighter, and have a selective recollection of past events. I don’t think we could overcome heartache if it weren’t for these little tricks.

Everybody who has ever suffered from a broken heart knows it will heal. But, obviously, like any other injury, it will leave scars. And yes, mending a broken heart changes us in both positive and negative ways. Sure, we become more careful with our hearts and don’t give them away so easily anymore. But a failed relationship also allows us to find out what we want in life and what we want our next relationship to look like.

If we take our time and admit that it is quite normal not to be completely unaffected by the ex’s actions, then I believe that time will work for us all by itself. With each new day, each new acquaintance, and each great evening with friends, thoughts of my ex visibly disappeared.

And then, exactly halfway through the time our relationship had lasted, it became clear to me: I didn’t care anymore. It was exhilarating.

https://medium.com/the-secret-society/why-seeing-your-ex-moving-on-always-hurts-so-much-88c46ddb6310

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

When Leftist fantasy completely bypasses reality

Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who directed the CIA and the NSA during his career but has since become a partisan clown, CNN talking head, and member of the advisory board for establishment media watchdog NewsGuard, recently agreed that even compared to other movements around the world, Republicans are the most “nihilistic, dangerous, and contemptible.”

This allegation means that in Hayden’s worldview, Republicans outrank Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Chinese Communist Party among others in terms of their danger to the world.

Hayden made his comment in response to Financial Times associate editor Michael Luce, who said “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”

“I agree,” responded Hayden. “And I was the CIA director.”

Hayden’s comments reinforce the picture of a national security deep state that has become overwhelmingly partisan, viewing half of the country as a threat.

It will also add to evidence that NewsGuard, the establishment media watchdog that purports to fairly rate the trustworthiness of news sources but consistently trashes conservative media, is also a partisan outfit intended to quash and delegitimize dissent.

Hayden, who is a member of NewsGuard’s advisory board, is a spreader of false news narratives himself, having failed to retract his claim that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop story is “Russian disinformation.”

In a comment to Breitbart News, NewsGuard general manager Matt Skibinski emphasized that Hayden plays no rule in determining its ranking of news sources.

“As we disclose on our website, we have advisors across the political spectrum,” said Skibinski. “NewsGuard’s advisors, which include a former Secretary General of NATO and the first Direct of Homeland Security, under President George W. Bush, “provide advice and subject-matter expertise to NewsGuard. They play no role in the determinations of ratings or the Nutrition Label write ups of websites unless otherwise noted and have no role in the governance or management of the organization.”

Hayden is also a principal for strategic advisory services at the Chertoff Group, a consulting firm headed by another stalwart of the national security state, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

Chertoff was the man the Biden administration tapped to “review and assess” the future of the DHS “disinformation governance board,” a project of Biden’s DHS that quickly became farcical after its appointed head, Nina Jankowicz, was exposed as a far-left loon who made pro-censorship sing-song TikTok videos.

In a comment to Breitbart News, a spokeswoman for the Chertoff Group distanced the company from Hayden’s remarks.

“General Hayden’s tweets are his own and do not reflect the firm,” said the Chertoff Group.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2022/08/18/michael-hayden-advisor-to-misinformation-watchdog-newsguard-says-gop-more-dangerous-than-al-qaeda-isis/

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

Study: What Americans really think

"Self-silencing" — people saying what they think others want to hear rather than what they truly feel — is skewing our understanding of how Americans really feel about abortion, COVID-19 precautions, what children are taught in school and other hot-button issues, a new study finds.

Why it matters: The best predictor of private behavior is private opinion. People's actual views are far more likely than their stated views to drive consumer and social behavior — and voting.

"When we're misreading what we all think, it actually causes false polarization," said Todd Rose, co-founder and president of Populace, the Massachusetts-based firm that undertook the study. "It actually destroys social trust. And it tends to historically make social progress all but impossible."
The big picture: People are often more moderate than they'll readily admit when "being pulled toward a vocal fringe," whether left or right, Rose said.

But in some cases, he said, people reshape their privately held views to conform to what they think their group believes, even if that assessment is inaccurate.

The gap between real and stated views can have a generational impact, he said, because media amplifies perceptions that then cue young adults: "This generation's illusions tend to become next generation's private opinion."

How it works: Respondents were provided a mix of traditional polling questions and other questions using a list experiment method, or item-count technique, that provides them with a greater sense of anonymity. This process allows researchers to find the gap between what people say versus how they privately feel.

By the numbers: On abortion, the study found men are much less likely to privately agree with the idea that the choice to have an abortion should be left solely to a woman and her doctor (45%) than would say so publicly (60%).

Republicans, meanwhile, were less likely to privately say Roe v. Wade should be overturned (51%) than publicly (64%).
On COVID-19, only 44% of women privately feel wearing masks was effective at stopping COVID-19 spread, though 63% felt they should say they did.

An astonishing four times as many Democrats say CEOs should take a public stand on social issues (44%) than actually care (11%).

On education, Americans overall are privately more supportive of parents having more influence over curriculum (60%) than proclaim this publicly (52%).

That may help explain why GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin's messaging on schools appealed to swing voters in Virginia last year, and why GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) championed "parents' rights" in signing prohibitions on classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity.

One in three Democrats think parents should have more influence over public school curriculum — even though only one in four say so publicly. Among independents, 71% agree privately agree, though only 55% say so when asked in a more direct polling format; 85% of Republicans privately feel that way.

Yes, but: Americans are actually less concerned about teachers talking about gender identity or how much public schools focus on racism than they say publicly.

Only about half of Americans actually think it is inappropriate for schools to discuss gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade, compared to the 63% who say so publicly.

This misconception is particularly stark among independents. Just 42% privately have an issue with discussions about gender identity in K-3rd, despite 67% saying they take an issue with it publicly.

Even though 63% of Republicans privately said they believed racism was too much of a focus in public schools — far more than Democrats or independents— the number is a lot lower than the 80% who felt compelled to say so publicly.

The intrigue: The study found the biggest disparities among Hispanic respondents and political independents. On 14 out of 25 topics, these groups had double-digit gaps between what they say and believe.

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-belief-poll-abortion-education-covid-19

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

Racism in the Royal Air Force

Racism and sexism in hiring practices is bad in any industry, but it is especially dangerous when the job relates to the defence of the nation.

Adding to this pile of racist ideology (that is better suited to long-gone centuries), the Royal Air Force (RAF) in the UK has put a hiring freeze on ‘white’ staff – particularly men – saying that it wishes to focus on hiring women and ethnic minorities.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston was immediately accused of being willing to ‘compromise UK security at a time of growing threats from Russia and China’.

Which is correct. The West is not living in a post-war Utopia of eternal global peace – it is teetering on the edge of foreign and domestic disaster where rising communist superpowers in Asia and Europe are looking to team up with theocratic regimes in the Arab world to flip the balance of power in favour of authoritarianism. At the same time, Western governments are behaving like collectivist Bowerbirds, nicking the worst parts of Marxism and trying to weave them into the nest of democracy.

‘I think he [Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston] needs to be hauled up by the Ministry of Defence and told: This is the defence agenda, get on it,’ said one defence source.

If the object is ‘defence of the country’ the only criteria that matters is ability. That’s it. I am a woman, and I would rather see a 100 per cent male military if it meant that they were the strongest and fittest RAF members. Why? Because if we hire based on ‘inclusivity’ and ‘diversity’ above ability – there won’t be a country left after the first firefight.

A senior female officer serving as the head of recruiting, with more courage and morality than the upper echelons of the RAF, handed in her resignation in protest asserting that such ludicrous hiring practices threw into question the fighting strength of the RAF. She added that the RAF were attempting to hire using ‘impossible’ diversity targets under its policy.

Instead of hiring pilots by making them stand next to a paint chart to gauge their colour, the RAF could focus on paying its existing pilots more money to stop them being poached by the private industry.

It was previously reported that there had been a shocking 65 per cent drop in trainee demand for the Typhoon fast jets because of ‘operational tempo’ which is now being blamed on the war in Ukraine, despite the crisis being talked about for two years. A more believable cause is the slash to defence funding which saw its frontline fighter squadrons drop fro 30 in 1990 down to 7.

This is insanity.

When asked about attempting to attract desperately needed pilots, a RAF spokesperson said: ‘Our people are our greatest asset, and we’re committed to ensuring we attract and retain the best and brightest talent to meet current and future threats.’

Surely they mean, ‘the most diverse and inclusive quotas’?

A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak released a statement scorning the RAF: ‘The only thing that should matter in recruitment is the content of your character, not your sex or the colour of your skin. The Minister of Defence would allow Britain’s security to potentially be put at risk by a drive for so-called “diversity” is not only disgraceful, it is dangerous.’

According to the RAF, they are not an ‘Air Force’ they are ‘A Force for Inclusion’.

The front page of their site is not dedicated to technical prowess, defending the UK, or even the sheer thrill of buzzing around the sky in multi-million dollar aircraft – it is a long ramble about how virtuous they are.

Diversity and Inclusion:

The nature of the RAF means that we live and operate in close-knit communities where we rely on each other for support. The Royal Air Force family is rich in diversity and culture, and it is important that we value and respect everyone, regardless of their background.

To make sure everyone feels safe and included, we provide a range of services and support for those that may need them. This includes staff networks which play a crucial role in promoting change, role modelling, mentoring circles and coaching. We also provide specific support to those that would benefit – Women, LGBTQ+, Disability, Religion and Belief and Ethnicity.

It includes phrases such as: ‘We understand people’s history is important and we continue to review and adjust our uniform rules so that individuals can more easily express their cultural heritage within the forces.’

You wouldn’t know, reading the recruitment page, that people are signing up to wage war and very likely die were a conflict to break out. Worse, this type of Woke nonsense lessens discipline and directly endangers all members of the RAF should they come into a genuine hot conflict.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/raf-the-virtue-of-racism

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

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