To think in life being a nice, good person rarely counts for much?

Being at peace with yourself and having a clear conscience is priceless IMHO.

I am a decent person. I always have been, I've never used anyone or been nasty to anyone. I just mean I have very firm boundaries in place and a LOT less friends. It's quiet but least I don't have the users anymore.

Last friend (a friendship of 13 years) moved to another town, not that far away and I drive. Consistently made the effort to keep the friendship up and visited. Got blocked on everything apart from text with no word in July. I text asking wtf. Basically sent me a chat GPT reply saying priorities had changed since she moved, basically admitted didn't need me anymore. I was a soft landing mat until she established her ground there... absolutely fuck that. She cut me up bad.

My so called best friend had me dancing to her tune for nearly 2 years for a way that worked for her. Friends from being 14. I couldn't be her support as much and asked for some back. Went absolutely mental and flipped on me. Said some horrible words and she immediately regretted it and unfortunately I couldn't forget it. All because she apparently read my message wrong. So yeah I think I can be excused for feeling a little bitter. It's my own fault for people pleasing with my own friends. No one respects that.

I’m not getting into a debate about this, I’ve given a real life example based on the topic of the thread.

So you are saying that you would say good morning and smile at these parents and… what? They would completely ignore you? Repeatedly @NotMyDayJob ?

Thank you @DiscoElysia that’s what I meant, and more!

to give an example, older DD started school during the end of Covid, just before whichw we had moved to a completely new area. Due to this she had a very small nursery group and hadn’t met many other children. The timing of her birthday means any party could be at the end of the summer holidays. So I organised a party, contacted all the parents who had posted in the local community group that their children would be starting reception, invited their children (and them) to come along basically saying that it would be nice for the children to meet before school started as due to Covid there had been no settling in sessions, and it was a single form entry school so they’d definitely be in the same class. I also posted an invite in the Facebook group. We had a good take up, everyone thought it was a lovely idea, the children played and the parents chatted. I spoke to everyone. It was all lovely. Some of those parents never said hello to me again. I actually did a lot more drop offs and picks up in the next year or so as I was on maternity leave during reception. They had plenty of time to see me and they couldn’t even manage a nod and a smile.

Really? No one gets anything out of a party except for the person it is thrown for? What a bleak and cynical view. I'm bloody delighted when my DD gets invited to a party because she is so happy to be included and usually really enjoys it. She gets an opportunity to play and hang out with her friends and usually gets nice food and a slice of cake into the bargain. My DD is currently too young for drop and run type parties and as an attending parent, I also appreciate being included; I like the chance to chat to other parents and to be part of the fun.

Sure, it can be an inconvenience too, and some parties are undeniably less enjoyable than others from a child and a parental perspective... but getting invited to parties is generally a joyful thing to be grateful for, surely?

(I will add the caveat that sometimes party invites are such a pain in the arse that it does seem to take the piss... I'm thinking of hen dos abroad with ridiculous requirements and costs, and weddings in inconvenient locations and with ludicrous dress codes. I am yet to encounter a children's party that approaches this territory however.)

To throw a party that is well-planned and gives the kids attending a nice experience is a lovely thing to do and is, I would argue, kind. I also note that many parents of younger children are deliberately inclusive and invite kids who are not that popular. That is especially kind.

To attend a party that someone has organised, to enjoy their hospitality and then to fail to make any effort with them afterwards, even on the level of basic friendliness and politeness at the school gate, is frankly rubbish, and definitely unkind.

I also don't think throwing a bday party for your kid counts as a "good deed" it's something you do for your own kid, it doesn't benefit anyone else. In fact running your kids to other kids parties/buying presents etc is pretty annoying for parents.

I still throw my kids parties, but it's for my kid, not anyone else.

And that’s exactly my point you’re now shouting at me that I was throwing parties for my child and not doing childcare favours.

i know that, if I had been doing it for any other reason than throwing my child a party I would have given up a long time ago. I enjoy throwing my children parties and long my that continue. But I can also think it’s a bit of a shame that some of the parents who have brought their children to my house and dropped them off at a party and said hello and thank you, then completely ignore me the next time they see me

But how we treat others does have ripple effects far wider than our own lives and those with a habitually unpleasant way of treating others do sometimes reap some unpleasant consequences themselves. When we work out that we can't trust someone to treat us well, we don't like it.

Yes, sometimes people serve us our own back again. We can't show ourselves to be undeserving of trust and confidence, and then expect others to trust and confide in us.

Hard agree.

I'm not someone who follows a religion, and I don't believe in karma in a literal sense, but I do think it's a great metaphor for how life sometimes works.

The world isn't remotely fair. It's obvious that people don't get what they deserve (at least not in this life! I guess we have no way to know for sure about future lives if they exist). But how we treat others does have ripple effects far wider than our own lives and those with a habitually unpleasant way of treating others do sometimes reap some unpleasant consequences themselves. When we work out that we can't trust someone to treat us well, we don't like it.

There are short-term gains and sometimes long-term gains from behaving like an arsehole habitually (especially if the behaviour comes from a position of advantage and power, and others can't easily get out of the way of the piss stream). But there is also splashback, and a law of diminishing returns.

(Horrendous mixing of metaphors. Sorry! This thread has got me quite passionate.)

But you’ve thrown parties for the benefit of your child! You weren’t doing the other parents childcare favours! Having a birthday party for your child is a completely ordinary part of parenting, not a ‘good deed’!

I think this is often the case but occasionally karma comes back to bite you spectacularly if you are untrustworthy. Many people can sense when others are untrustworthy, even if they are charming and charismatic, and so will keep their distance and limit engagement.

I have found there seems to be little positive return for good deeds. For eg I always throw fun birthday parties for my children, kids always seem to have fun, nice party bags, very inclusive (generally all class to all the girls etc) and I don’t expect anything in return, but it’s also made absolutely no difference to getting a bit of pleasant chit chat at the school gates. I’m not expecting any of these parents to be my best friend, I don’t do all pick ups and drop offs as I work full time and share with DH but I really naively thought looking after other peoples kids for an afternoon or evening over the years might have smoothed the way a bit for surface level socialising but if I don’t strike up conversation no one else would say hello. And I don’t think I’m that weird, and even if I am they happily send their kids to my house!

It sounds awful that not only did your DM feel she had to live like that but also that you had to grow up seeing it and being made to be part of it. Sadly some version of that - perhaps not always to the same level as what you experienced - is something a lot of people can relate to. I completely agree that feeling forced into, or clinging to, or accepting, that sort of passive role is not the same as kindness (and it is especially not kindness to subordinate your child's needs to those of others).

People often like passive, pleasing characters (until they need them for something different, of course). It is all too convenient to have someone we can use like that. Ideally we notice when someone is saying yes without meaning it and always putting others first to a damaging extent, but I guess it can be all too convenient not to notice and to enjoy the benefits of this sort of unbalanced relationship.

I also think it can be very hard to change a pattern like this. When we are used to someone doing whatever we want without complaint, any attempt at self-assertion on their part can be met with confusion, disappointment, even anger. I wonder how many people like this end up getting labelled as 'mentally unwell' or 'having a breakdown' when they finally push back. Sometimes they might have genuinely become unwell as an understandable result of how they've lived their life and how they've been treated... but by then everyone around them thinks that to recover, they need to go back to being obliging again. They might not want to do or be able to do that.

@Shellityhorn

I grew up with a mother exactly like that too and, frankly, although I loved her, she wasn’t actually very “kind” to me.

Exactly as you describe, I spent my childhood being scolded for not people-pleasing enough. Things like, “You need to make more effort. Why didn’t you give them a hug?” (Because I didn’t want to.) Then: “What on earth will they think of us now? They must think we’re awful people.” etc etc

And then I’d get the anger afterwards, because obviously her friends’ and acquaintances’ opinions of her were far more important than how I felt. She would never be angry with them, though. Ever. They got all her sweetness, charm and niceness, while I got all the resentment and frustration she had bottled up.

It's not "kindness". People pleasing by parents can be extremely damaging to children.

I don't disagree with any of that, @DiscoElysia -- but too often people interpret your category 2 as 'kindness' because those people are running around after others, offering help, being shoulders to cry on, taking on extra work, facilitating, habitually putting their needs behind those of others. But it's not 'kind' at all. It's misinterpreted as kindness, but in fact it's a fear-based set of responses, as you've suggested.

And absolutely, while no one should be blaming themselves for this kind of 'freeze' or 'fawn' response (often learned very young as a survival mechanism, and only unlearned with effort), we should not confuse it with actual kindness, which comes from a place of security and free choice, and of balancing your own needs and those of others in a healthy way. Putting your needs behind those of others as a way of hiding and making yourself invisible and inoffensive, often while seething inwardly, isn't a good way to live.

I was brought up by a mother who could never say no to anyone, and who was frequently outrageously exploited personally and professionally, and who (because her children counted as part of her) expected us to collude in the people-pleasing.

I remember Christmas dinners and family events where she answered the phone and stood for an hour in the hall listening to a non-emergency monologue about corns from a slight acquaintance, while we sat there with our food going cold, being 'summoned' to sleep over, for no extra pay, at the house of the children for whom she childminded because the parents needed to travel early the next day. She was once so shocked when she overheard me on the phone turning down a last-minute babysitting request because I already had plans that when I got home, I discovered that she had actually phoned up the person after I'd left the house and invited her to bring the children to our house for free!

And yet people would describe my mother as 'kind'. She isn't kind, she's just terrified of the discomfort of saying 'no'.

(I will also add 'manipulative' behaviour into the aggressive / passive aggressive category too. Again, often equated with being a selfish arsehole. Again, a bit of a nasty label for what is an understandable response from people who are trying to get their wants and needs met but do not have enough confidence in their abilities and their power, or a sufficient sense of safety, or sufficient emotional regulation, to go for an assertive approach).

I'd like to suggest some modifications to this poster's suggestion, because I think it's too simplistic and because it is already forcing you into blaming yourself for times when you might not have stood up to people, even when there has probably been understandable context for why you didn't!

My own view is that the world is a stressful place. Everyone experiences strong emotions in response to that. Everyone finds themselves competing for scarce resources at times (a promotion at work; a place on a football team) and has situations where their needs or wants can clash with the needs and wants of others.

This all occurs in a wider context of social hierarchies, power structures and yes, sometimes inherent differences in levels of natural talent / intelligence / attractiveness. In short, we aren't coming into these situations of stress and competition and conflict with the same power and resources.

We are all capable of responding to these situations in different ways (so I don't think we should be dividing up people into categories here but dividing up their possible responses):

1. An aggressive response. I include passive aggression in this category too as it isn't always just a case of shouting and stomping about and shoving people around; it can be avoiding turning up or undermining others indirectly too. Basically whether direct or passive in your approach, in this space we are prioritising our own wants and needs over those of others. I also think of it as similar to the 'fight' part in the old 'fight / flight / freeze' response to danger and stress. I don't think it is always the same as being an 'arsehole', although it can sure look and feel that way. After all there are some situations in life where we do need to fight, literally or metaphorically, for survival (and indeed situations where aggression is actually coming from a desire to be kind - if perhaps in a misguided way.)

2. A passive response where you let other people's wants and needs dominate, and where you don't speak up for yourself or for others. This equates most closely to the 'cowardly, enabling' category in terms of how it might come across but again the label is not fair. It is the 'flight or freeze' response to danger or stress. It reminds me of the old 'she can't see you if you don't move' thing from the Jurassic Park films. It is an understandable response, especially for people who genuinely do not have much power in the situation or who have been conditioned through abuse and trauma or just through the values shared as part of their upbringing to see themselves as unimportant, vulnerable or small. Calling a passive response cowardly is the sort of shit that leads to women getting blamed for getting trapped in horrendous DV situations for example. Sometimes this, like aggression, is needed to survive in the moment and is the kindest thing we can do for ourselves or others, at least in the short-term. At least just to get through for now.

3. An assertive response where you strive to help yourself and / or others without trampling over people in the process. This fits a bit with kindness potentially as it comes from a position of basic care and respect for others and for yourself. It is the type of response most of us would like to have and that would help us to stand up for what is right and to get our needs met without being a dick. Few of us can pull it off all of the time though, and once again, it isn't easy when there is a power imbalance tipped against you. You have to be safe enough to do it - otherwise you just get swatted aside or punished for it. It is also very hard to achieve the emotional regulation needed to be assertive without tipping into passivity or aggression when you do not feel confident and safe.

So yeah, we can all do all of these things (or can all be arseholes, cowards or kind people, if you insist on sticking with that admittedly catchier terminology!). Most of us probably have a habitual type of response but we can also differ a lot depending on the context of the situation and how we are feeling.

And does the aggressive / arsehole response get rewarded most? Well maybe. In some contexts sure - some power structures encourage it. I like to think that it isn't a long-term strategy for sustained success or for a truly fulfilled life though. The sort of friends who hang around and suck up to you because you're glamorous and powerful and scary aren't the sort of friends likely to be at your side at times in life when shit gets hard and you become more vulnerable. The sort of people who agree to make exceptions for you or to do stuff for you out of fear are also going to act with wariness and resentment. And a footballer who behaves aggressively to others, or who is passively aggressively lazy / work-avoidant, might get so far on talent, but will they ever become a valued and successful member of a high-level club? I doubt it. Self-discipline, respect for coaches and getting on well with your fellow players are pretty crucial aspects of success too.

I think a lot of behaviours nowadays are interpreted as bullying, when in fact, they are not 😣🙂

Karma. The people who are mean, bullies etc. tend not to end up with close fulfilling relationships. Also, consistent hard work does get rewarded eventually, usually in the right environment, but you just have to stick the course, get known for being really good in your field.

Completely agree.

People like the OP come across as incredibly self-righteous, passive-aggressive and martyry when they centre their entire identity around being a "nice, good" person who always puts others first. And they also come across like they're totting up how much they get back from it, and seem almost pleased when they don't get back the same energy - because that bolsters their self-righteousness.

I try to treat others well. I think I have decent morals and principles. But I'm also under no illusions that I've always succeeded in being "good" and I certainly don't think I've always been "nice" - I'm human and therefore I've been selfish, lazy or just thoughtless at times. I would never describe myself as "a nice, good person". To me those are adjectives you should leave to those around you - not to be applied to yourself.

My dad, for one. Only rings when he wants something from me. I had surgery recently; he didn't even ring to see how I was. I've come to realise he's a selfish narcissist. Also a former friend, when I realised I was messaging her and she'd reply, but never initiated contact. When I stepped back and let her take the lead, nothing happened. When I saw her she was most put out that I hadn't been checking up on her and fussing over her. I was neutral and non committal, and have continued with minimal contact. I was brought up by old fashioned parents who expected me to be their carer as they got older, and suppressed any confidence and self esteem I had. It was normal for me to worry about offending people, and I was used to being treated as a doormat. Thanks to the menopause ( and Mumsnet!) I realised this wasn't normal.

So I don't let anyone take advantage of me now.