Impostures
-
Point # 1 - I have not read the book.
Point # 2 - I will admit to a certain prejudice against a book that publishes an endorsement by Jim Daly on its dust jacket. I would like to be big enough to look past that but that sort of endorsement suggests to me a certain lack of scientific rigor in favor of the accepted script that supports a hetero-normative nuclear Christian American family.That said, from what I was able to read in the preview, I see a few red flags right off the bat:
-
As far as I can tell, all of her surveys and interviews were conducted with American men, yet she extends her conclusions to "almost every man on the planet" (p.3). She then supports this belief by citing the "million copies in twenty-two different languages" as proof of how "important and... universal" the truths are (p.5). To me, this suggests the high likelihood of a cultural bias to her data. The sales numbers merely suggest that there are a million women in the world who want to know what makes men tick, not that they necessarily found the answers in this book.
-
"I'm focusing entirely on how women relate to men, not the other way around. (That is also why the personal-relationship surveys did not poll gay men.)" (p.11) - Not a great basis for determining what makes men tick per se. This seems to be leaning more and more towards an analysis of the male-female transaction specific to the parts that are often hidden to women in average American relationships.
-
"When I say that 'most men' appear to think a certain way, realize that 'most' means exactly that - most, not all. You or your mate may actually find that you are more like the opposite sees in some areas. The key is to sincerely look for what matters most in your man." (p.12) - And again, this is making me more and more wary of her scientific analysis of the data and more confident that she conducted a bunch of surveys, some of them utilizing proper controls and methodology, and then relied on her own Christian family-focused book-selling intuition to interpret the data in a way that rings true to the average frustrated middle-class wife and gets her to start a conversation with "her man". That seems to be the key. Once the barriers to actual conversation are broken, a couple is likely to discover new truths about each other and the typical unscientific mind will attribute that to the catalyst: this book.
-
She mentions in the introduction that the new edition cites research by "brain scientists" about how men think so I'd be curious to see what that is and what it has to say.
Again, I haven't read the entire book so I'm not ready to publish but I have a feeling that these initial reactions would likely hold up. Our author's Harvard Degree is in public policy and she's now a bestselling self-help author claiming scientific certitude of deep psychological truths of gender identity without a truly universal subject group. She also leans on her Christian community values and support structures and promotes her work mainly through those channels. She knows her audience and she know how to write to their insecurities.
This is not to say that there may not be some truths buried in her 8 points, but your own observations of men that fit her paradigm perfectly and men that perfectly contradict it fits more with my own experience and suggests that men, just like women, are wildly varied creatures. In this country (US) a vast majority have been domesticated into a very narrow definition of what it is to be a man. Those of us who live on the fringes get a much better view of the full spectrum
-
-
@Takamba said
"If you think I described "gender expectations," you read my post wrong. I was describe anti-gender expectations."
This is the post I was referencing:
@Takamba said
"The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior."
But, like I said:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"I'd like to retract my earlier references to other posters and just allow this to stand on my own reading of the OP."
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Takamba said
"If you think I described "gender expectations," you read my post wrong. I was describe anti-gender expectations."This is the post I was referencing:
@Takamba said
"The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior."
But, like I said:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"I'd like to retract my earlier references to other posters and just allow this to stand on my own reading of the OP."
""The main truth" I was discussing wash the OP's concept "The idea in the book was that men have a part of themselves, an aspect of how they relate I suppose, that in some way makes them feel like a fraud." The main truth is that both genders in some way feel like a fraud. I think you are wrapping your own issues into a discussion about authenticity of self - no need to read a specific book to be able to discuss that topic.
-
I've tried to retract my read of others' posts twice and just rely on my own read of the issues brought up in the OP but you don't want to seem to let that lie so...
@Takamba said
""The main truth" I was discussing wash the OP's concept "The idea in the book was that men have a part of themselves, an aspect of how they relate I suppose, that in some way makes them feel like a fraud." The main truth is that both genders in some way feel like a fraud."
Fine. That's not really what you wrote in the first place, but it is a sensible and defensible position. As long as you acknowledge that it is a position. Just by calling it "the main truth" doesn't automatically make it so.
As I wrote in my original post:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"As Legis and Avshalom ** have suggested, the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least."
In other words, to suggest (as the book does) that men are genetically wired to feel like a fraud appears to be a bit reductive. Your explanation (which I could support) is that "both genders in some way feel like a fraud." My explanation is that nobody is hard-wired to feel like a fraud. Either way, the book's thesis is reductive.
@Takamba said
"I think you are wrapping your own issues into a discussion about authenticity of self - no need to read a specific book to be able to discuss that topic."
The OP was referencing a bit of research in a specific book that suggested that men are hardwired to feel like frauds. Her anecdotal experience made her question the veracity of that claim so she turned to the forum for a discussion of it's relative merits and possible extrapolations.
Your response addressed the second half - the universality and gender-specific nature of the idea. My response focused more on the first half - the scientific reliability of the research that made the claim in the first place. These seem to be complimentary positions.
What "issues" are you referring to that you think I'm wrapping this up in?
-
@Takamba said
"Wow. Please read what I wrote and don't ever reply to me again."
Your initial post suggests first that women as well as men can fall into "gender expectations of behavior"
It then takes a left turn into a discussion of "Fear...[as] a point of inauthentic behavior," and a description of your own experiences of stage-fright at a podium and your attempts at authenticity.
The only reason I mentioned you at all was your first statement that both men and women fall into "gender expectations of behavior" in support of my point that these behaviors are not sexually hard-wired. In the post where I mentioned you, I clarified that, on second look, your quote was not a direct reference to any specifics presented in the book and so I asked to retract that reference to your statement but you decided to keep it afloat.
What in my response deserves this amount of blunt rudeness from you? You've bluntly told me that I misread your post (even though I've quoted it back to you verbatim twice now) and you've bluntly insinuated that my "issues" are getting in the way of discussing your "main truth". I've done what I can to be clear and concise. I even see us as on the same basic side of the issue, just coming at it from two different directions.
Why this unjustified attack?
-
@Angel of Death said
"If what this book says is true and that men have a biological impulse to feel like an imposture in their core (which I would then speculate has a source in the regenerative, reproduction biological urges). Is there anything to be done about it? Is it some program running in the background that serves a higher purpose and should not be tampered with?"
Discussion/Opinion:
"biological impulse to feel like an imposter"? That not only doesn't make sense, it's unprovable. I don't care how many surveys the author passed out...
One could make a case from higher testosterone levels that men are more biologically driven to provide the benefits of aggression: home/family/asset defense. Which..., I don't care who you are or what your religion is, if you think that your home/family/assests are not constantly protected by threat of violence, then you're just naive. Doors are easier to kick in than you'd think.
Now, it's THIS harsh reality, rather than biological drive, that makes men (generally speaking) feel like they need to make a show of strength, even if it is ultimately not true - even if they don't know how to fight, or even if they don't think they could pull the trigger.
But like I said, it is the requirements of a harsh reality that have promoted the evolution of this biology, and not vice versa. Change the requirements of reality, and this particular biological trait (high testosterone) would evolve away, being deselected from the gene pool by women who generally find aggression distasteful - except that part of them feels they need it - "need a good, strong man to protect them." After all, the imposturing is also a function of mate selection and not just a defensive show.
As long as we're speaking in unpleasant, gender over-generalizations...
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Takamba said
"Wow. Please read what I wrote and don't ever reply to me again."Your initial post suggests first that women as well as men can fall into "gender expectations of behavior"
It then takes a left turn into a discussion of "Fear...[as] a point of inauthentic behavior," and a description of your own experiences of stage-fright at a podium and your attempts at authenticity.
The only reason I mentioned you at all was your first statement that both men and women fall into "gender expectations of behavior" in support of my point that these behaviors are not sexually hard-wired. In the post where I mentioned you, I clarified that, on second look, your quote was not a direct reference to any specifics presented in the book and so I asked to retract that reference to your statement but you decided to keep it afloat.
What in my response deserves this amount of blunt rudeness from you? You've bluntly told me that I misread your post (even though I've quoted it back to you verbatim twice now) and you've bluntly insinuated that my "issues" are getting in the way of discussing your "main truth". I've done what I can to be clear and concise. I even see us as on the same basic side of the issue, just coming at it from two different directions.
Why this unjustified attack?"
I won't question your reading comprehension skills, so in lieu of that, I question your relationship to the topic (issues). The OP is not wanting a discussion about a book, the OP is wanting a discussion that a book she read gave her a train of thought about. She wrote specific QUOTE "Because I work closely with young boys I am interested in finding ways to keep them authentic, to bring out (keep out?) this clean clear honest way of relating to the world. " Then she wrote about how she wanted to have this as a discussion within a Thelemic framework. So I gave her my point of the discussion, which is ABOUT AUTHENTICITY and not the book, and I pointed out that both male and female individuals can get locked into false ideas of themselves due to gender role expectations. Then you wrote a post about how gender role expectations are wrong, or not something you agree with and so forth. I saw no harm in it, it matched my belief. Then someone said something to you and you said, and I paraphrase, "Oh, no, actually I was replying to Takamba." Well, you disagreed with me? That didn't make sense because your post, although not really seeming totally to fit the discussion that was evolving, but sounded like just a point of coming in late and saying "yeah, troof!" but your response when I said "You must have read me wrong" was to quote the post I made as if you couldn't have possibly read me wrong... then your language evolved to "fine" (ie "if you say so") and you said, when I described what i wrote "thats not what you wrote in the first place." Yes, yes it is. My original input was "both genders sometimes feel like they are frauds" and this is due to "gender expectations."
Now getting back to the topic of the thread, the idea that not only males, but also females, can feel like frauds because of gender expectations (males expected to be masculine, unafraid, etc; females to be empathetic, nurturing, etc) when such things could go against their "authentic selves" (which is situational and not set in any stone) is the only thing I felt I had to say in offer to this topic.
You did misread my original message, you seem to have admitted as much, there is no reason you should create an argument with me about it.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
From what I've noticed--and this may be purely cultural--women invest time talking about their experiences with other women in an accepting environment. This is important, as it gives them a chance to feel normal and accepted, flaws and all. Men tend to do this less often, and male company is often more about competition than acceptance. (Obviously individual experience is more relevant than gender here).It's important that we have good friends, mentors, and role-models. There are a lot of really unfortunate ones out there, and if we're in the situation of being desperate for attention, or lacking good options, we're liable to pick poor ones."
I did want to clarify that the book did not say men owned the market on this issue. The book was written to help women understand the minds of men, andnyes I would highly suspect that it is more likely a WASP mind or at least white American successful and product of the educational system (updated Wasp
).This point that AV brings out, about the social nature of women and our instinctual nature to nurture and support each other and communicate, communicate, communicate I think is a very important distinction to be made between what goes on in the psyche of a being who is immersed in this culture that wraps layers and layers of masks on us, restricting us from simply showing our own true self all the time.
As you all who know me, I have no problem stripping myself, right down to the buff and exposing myself for scrutiny. This imposture issue, being a fraud, seems like people contorting themselves into apparrel that doenst fit. If you ever see some fat person sporting skinny jeans and a halter, with the clothes literally scarring into the skin, that's what I think of these masks we have to wear.
I would say that The Great Work, is in a very real way a sort of personal fashion designer. Every body is special and unique, and not all look best in skinny jeans. Your HGA guides you to know that with your unique features, to not restrict and co tort and scar yourself in this world the mask that you choose to show is tailor made for you and not cookie cuttered.
But back to the issue Av brought out that I wanted to elaborate on, which is how humans go about drawing a social circle about themselves that is not one formed out of desperation, and will truly support and enhance a persons unique authentic self. Women have many more options for these sorts of cutover, but from my limited experiences, mens circles seem to perpetuate the gorilla mentality....the sports events, the golf course, bars, ect.
The popular social circles that are now in place seem to be ones that reinforce negative behaviors and choice making. I know there are great clubs and organizations that men can socialize at like Masons, and local community clubs like Rotary, Lion, Moose....yet even they seem lacking in the ability to let men relax and let there guard down and take off the facades.
-
@Legis said
"AoD, if we're talking specifically about the masculine persona, then strongly impressing the need for a male to present himself as independent can be a part of the...
I don't think the goal is to try to prevent this. I think the goal is to try to give a child the tools to ultimately transcend this stage (instead of getting stuck in it permanently) so that they may eventually become conscious of the difference between the expectations of society and their own individual way of being in the world - ultimately individuating toward their own Will, yet still having the tools for successfully navigating society's demands when necessary. I think the best you can do is try to create a home where acceptance and love are always communicated regardless of the pressures of society to conform to its expectations."
excellent point.
One of the most important things for to teach children is the interconnectedness of all life. Environmental Geoscience should IMO be a cornerstone of early childhood development. In this I mean that, as you all know I'm sure, demonstrating to our little ones how each species on our planet in unique and serves a very distinct purpose and how the whole balance of life will get upset if something happens to this one species.
Showing children the benefits of a misquote, and fleas open the door to acceptance and love. If the world was only filled with butterflies, what a boring place it would be.....
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Legis said
"AoD, if we're talking specifically about the masculine persona, then strongly impressing the need for a male to present himself as independent can be a part of the problem.Society says males should be independent,."
Nature and the Universe want males (and females| to be independent."
I strongly disagree with this statement.
I personally view every single aspect of Nuit to be interdependent.
-
@kasper81 said
"
@Angel of Death said
", I live in a world with men so I should try to understand them, and I am the mother of a 12.5 year old who will someday be a man and I wish to empower his as best I can.
."
To elaborate on my earlier point. You have said elsewhere that you are a self-confident woman. This is all you will need to empower your boy. Women who are lacking confidence will obsess and smother their son and the consequences are not pretty."
I wanted to reply to this point right now, because I do appreciate your willingness to engage.....
In relation to my original query about the concept that deep down men feel they are inauthentic, an imposture and that in order to empower a mutally satisfying relationship a woman needs to understand a man's deep desire to be be true to himself, to accept his insecurities and be as supportive as possible....
I completely trust that my son has the courage and strength to endure, love and accept his life, and his relationships with others. I have this trust because he has me in his life and blood, and I am not simply slf confident. I am, in your face, real, raw, unbridled and blissful. I am so true to my nature that I make people uncomfortable, and I don't care.
This issue of feeling like an imposture, to me goes hand in hand with Thelema, which is right action. I am interested in practical ways to bring to life Thelema, to my Sisters and Brothers in this world. Even though this book had brief moments of religiousness, it was a fantastic read, filled with truth that I think many women should know about.
This book was a relationship guide, for lovers yet I easily see who the ideas relate to Brothers and fathers and sons as well, and for me, To understand a man POV, helps me enjoy my own life even more.
-
Takamba, I have no interest in hijacking the thread to carry on an intellectual p***ing contest with you. However, there are some clear misunderstandings/misreadings in what you have just written which I'd like to clarify.
@Takamba said
"I won't question your reading comprehension skills, so in lieu of that, I question your relationship to the topic (issues). The OP is not wanting a discussion about a book, the OP is wanting a discussion that a book she read gave her a train of thought about. She wrote specific QUOTE "Because I work closely with young boys I am interested in finding ways to keep them authentic, to bring out (keep out?) this clean clear honest way of relating to the world. " Then she wrote about how she wanted to have this as a discussion within a Thelemic framework. So I gave her my point of the discussion, which is ABOUT AUTHENTICITY and not the book, and I pointed out that both male and female individuals can get locked into false ideas of themselves due to gender role expectations. Then you wrote a post about how gender role expectations are wrong, or not something you agree with and so forth. I saw no harm in it, it matched my belief."
Misread number one. The actual core of my first post was:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"That humans naturally create personas seems like solid ground. That all 3.5 billion male personas on the planet share an identical root basis, regardless of cultural differences and individuality seems like a stretch. "Every man and every woman is a star" applies to all points of consciousness, not just those that have accepted Thelema. While one can assume that the vast majority of the unenlightened fall into standard societal roles and thus would follow similar cultural programming (your "accurate representation of their Ego and mental emotional states of being"), that isn't the same as proving that there is a y-chromosome cause for that programming."
Nothing in there about "how gender role expectations are wrong." Just that I find the belief that those gender roles are fundamental rather than the effect of societal programming highly suspect.
Furthermore, your characterization of the questions asked in the OP miss half of AoD's actual question. Again, to quote directly:
@Angel of Death said
"If what this book says is true and that men have a biological impulse to feel like an imposture in their core (which I would then speculate has a source in the regenerative, reproduction biological urges). Is there anything to be done about it? Is it some program running in the background that serves a higher purpose and should not be tampered with? Is this aspect of man, this aspect of his self image something that has brought our global cultures to this point where most men are not capable of living authentic lives."
As I said previously, you chose to engage with the second half of this, the "Is there anything to be done about it? Is it some program running in the background that serves a higher purpose and should not be tampered with? Is this aspect of man, this aspect of his self image something that has brought our global cultures to this point where most men are not capable of living authentic lives." I chose to engage with the first half, the "If what this book says is true and that men have a biological impulse to feel like an imposture in their core..."
I have been a Scientific Illuminist for going on 20 years now so I find it very difficult to engage in comparisons of opinion on matters when the proper scientific basis for those opinions is not firmly established. This "If" seemed to be a pretty big factor in AoD's question. She herself acknowledges that she has anecdotal evidence of men who she knows to be impostures, med she strongly suspects to be, and men who are "brutal in their integrity." My anectodal evidence matched hers so it seemed to me that the best way forward was to examine the scientific data (from the book) which supposedly contradicted our shared understanding of a widely varied male psyche. In the interim, I quoted the one tenet of Thelema that seemed to apply: "Every man and every woman is a star." It seemed at the time, acknowledging my dearth of data to work with, that the theory in the book was suggesting that every male star is a certain shade of brown and that just didn't sit right.
@Takamba said
"Then someone said something to you and you said, and I paraphrase, "Oh, no, actually I was replying to Takamba." Well, you disagreed with me? That didn't make sense because your post, although not really seeming totally to fit the discussion that was evolving, but sounded like just a point of coming in late and saying "yeah, troof!""
You might be better served by quoting directly rather than paraphrasing as your paraphrase is diametrically opposed to what I wrote.
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"AoD would you mind posting the title of the book you're referencing? As Legis and Avshalom ** have suggested, the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least. I'd be curious as to how the author came to hir thesis and whether or not it has statistical/experimental data to back it up. I suspect it's just a gendered generalization based on a specific (western) societal outlook. "
Up to that point in the discussion, Legis had suggested that the book's thesis "presents a gender-biased understanding of what Jung termed the 'persona,' or social mask," and you had suggested that "The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior." I referenced these two prior points to support my hypothesis that the book's thesis "appears to be a bit reductive to say the least [and is] just a gendered generalization..."
I was not "replying" to you. Nor did I disagree with you. I was using your and Legis' conclusions as evidence that there might be something wrong with the initial "If" and so I was requesting access to the book to see how solidly that "If" was actually laid out.
@Takamba said
"but your response when I said "You must have read me wrong" was to quote the post I made as if you couldn't have possibly read me wrong... "
You have yet to explain how "The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior," jives with "I was describe anti-gender expectations." (emphasis mine)
@Takamba said
"then your language evolved to "fine" (ie "if you say so") and you said, when I described what i wrote "thats not what you wrote in the first place." Yes, yes it is. My original input was "both genders sometimes feel like they are frauds" and this is due to "gender expectations." "
So, which is it? Gender expectations or anti-gender expectation?
Also, when you say "both genders sometimes feel like they are frauds", is that feeling a function of gender? Is that a function of consciousness? Is that a function of genetics? Is that a function of social programming? Does your "sometimes" mean that all individuals sometimes feel like frauds regardless of gender or does it mean that some individuals (regardless of gender) feel like frauds while others do not?
I'm aiming at bedrock here and you're creating a venn diagram that sometimes applies to some/all people but doesn't do anything to determine the actual underlying cause of that feeling of fraud.
@Takamba said
"Now getting back to the topic of the thread, the idea that not only males, but also females, can feel like frauds because of gender expectations (males expected to be masculine, unafraid, etc; females to be empathetic, nurturing, etc) when such things could go against their "authentic selves" (which is situational and not set in any stone) is the only thing I felt I had to say in offer to this topic."
I never suggested otherwise. I had more to say in offer to the topic based on my questioning of the author's use of her data, but that in no way involved you.
@Takamba said
"You did misread my original message, you seem to have admitted as much, there is no reason you should create an argument with me about it."
Right back at'cha.
@Takamba said
"Wow. Please read what I wrote and don't ever reply to me again."
Your method of interaction across this forum has pretty much insured that I will have no interest in investing my time engaging in any topics you happen to introduce in future. However, this is a forum run under the auspices of the T.O.T. and the guidelines of Thelema and, as such, "The word of Sin is Restriction." You are free to do your own will and I am free to do mine. If you ever attempt to restrict my freedom to post on any thread on any subject in response to anyone in this forum again, I will not hesitate to report that behavior to a moderator.
-
@Angel of Death said
"I'll be back later, just popped in share this.
www.amazon.com/For-Women-Only-Christian-Softcover/dp/1594151121/ref=tmm_pap_title_0
The book had very solid research, in in courage you to read the reviews as well. It was a fine book in many many ways."
I missed my chance to thank you for posting this (sidetracked by Takamba, apologies for the amount of screen space that took up).
I followed your advice and read a smattering of the reviews. One stood out to me so I thought I might post it here. I do this because the reviewer has the advantage over me of having the data in front of her and she reads it with the skepticism of a scientist.
@Penny Thoughtful said
"I'm being generous and giving this two stars because it's well written and does contain SOME facts.
What do you do when you read a book about "this is how men are wired" only to discover that your man, for instance, would rather stay home and cut the crusts off cheese sandwiches while you bring home the paycheck...or snuggle and talk with you than rip your clothes off...or stop and ask for directions if he doesn't know where he's going? Not because he's any less of a man, but because men, like women, are individual human beings with individual personality traits that may or may not overlap with those belonging to other members of the same gender.
Even Feldhahn herself says, for example, that 78% of men intensely desire to be providers. If that statistic is correct, then 22% of men do NOT particularly desire to be providers, and 22% is a fairly large chunk of male humanity. If you find yourself married to a 22%er on this or any of the other personality traits Feldhahn claims are manly, you'll do more harm than good to your marriage by expecting him to act like someone he isn't.
The author would have you believe you have to read this book to find out things you don't know about your own partner that you could just ask him, or work out by observing his behavior. She even contradicts herself, saying one of the most common things men say about their wives is, "I can tell her anything." I don't think there's much of value in this book compared with figuring out what your partner's individual tastes are and acting accordingly.
www.amazon.com/review/RBTA0AL2R49XC/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1601424442&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
"As per your original questions, this rings most true to me. If we use your son as an example, he might be in the 78% feel-like-a-fraud category or the 22% doesn't-feel-like-a-fraud category. (I know those numbers are specific to "provider" but... for the sake of argument). He might find himself in whichever category he's in by virtue of genetics (whether gendered or not) or by virtue of social programming. The data does not offer an answer to this question (the reason I showed some interest in what the "brain scientists" have to say in the revised edition). If your son is a 22%er and you attempt to engage with him as a 78%er because of an incorrect belief that "all men are hard-wired that way", that would be less than ideal.
Thelema offers us the way through this. "Every man and every woman is a star." Genetically we are all individual and the book's statistics tell us nothing about how your individual son is individually wired. If the 78/22 split is a factor of social programming that has already affected him one way or the other, then the work of Thelema offers him a clear path towards breaking those social patterns (the inauthentic self).
As I mentioned to Takamba (you are forgiven if you chose not to wade through that morass
), the conclusions of the book that caused your initial thought experiment seem to hinge on a pretty big "If" and I wonder how solid that "If" really is. -
Every man and every woman is a star. There is no individual underlying cause of "feeling like a fraud," that would be individual to each star that has the issue. But as a general rule, it appeared given that AoD described a book that said that Gender Role Expectations, had root in the problem. I was saying that I don't think it is limited to male gender alone. You wrote "While one can assume that the vast majority of the unenlightened fall into standard societal roles and thus would follow similar cultural programming (your "accurate representation of their Ego and mental emotional states of being"), that isn't the same as proving that there is a y-chromosome cause for that programming." That's the same as saying (without having to show how big your intellectual dictionary is) "that isn't the same as proving that it is a maleness only problem."
So we don't disagree. I knew that the minute I read it. When I later read that it was aimed at me, I became very confused as why so. With such a sharp sword as you do seem to possess, my good sir (using that word in the common vernacular, not in the deserved title sense), why is that something you want to challenge? You are still claiming it doesn't say what it says? Do you still insist on evoking my name and saying "I challenge you, sir!" when you've said nothing that contradicts me? Is it because I don't make obvious with flapping my dictum in public that I have an intelligence quotient of 168? Is this why my existence creates a disturbance in your force and you find it necessary to point a finger at me whilst you speak so Victorianly?
Nay good sir! I say we are not at odds with each other! I say sooth, instead, and pardon my tongue for being too simple atimes. But we do not disagree.
And alas to answer the question of "pro or anti-gender role expectation" what I meant was that my original statement was a statement that would be used to support not involving gender role expectation in a child's life if that can be possible. To encourage the "softer" or "weaker" and typically discouraged emotions in a boy, to accept, allow, maybe even encourage in the girls that they don't have to be required to feel "the way little girls ought to feel."
Currently you speak with forked tongue, my strange friend. First you tell me I misread you were clearly above I have shown you this is not true. We both agree, from what I see, that the issue discribed in this alleged book (which itself, the book, specifically was not intended to be the topic unless I misread AoD) should not be allowed to lead one to believe that it was only a maleness issue. It is irrelevant if the book actually states that that author believes it is a maleness issue, it is irrelevant if it provided scientific evidence and peer reviewed data that it was witness to a male issue, I was asked my opinion about the conclusion the reader drew based on a single premise of the book as far as how that conclusion can be viewed in a Thelemic light (of Scientific Illuminism if you prefer) and possibly applied. I even suspected that AoD was asking for as much input from men as possible to "illuminate" her knowledge of "men-think." I was not asked if the reader drew the correct conclusion that the book intended the reader to draw, I was asked how I felt about the correctness of holding that conclusion and what useful ways it could be brought to fruition in child rearing concerns.
After telling me that I misread you, you say "Just that I find the belief that those gender roles are fundamental rather than the effect of societal programming highly suspect. " So, to use the language of Los, what does this word salad mean? If their effect is suspect (ie. one questions their value) how are they "fundamental" (ie necessary)? Or does fundamental (bedrockish) mean something else to you?
I didn't answer the philosophical aspect of her question about our "global culture" because what I said in my post disclaimed the original premise that it was biological. Also, I don't have to answer all of her questions, I answered what I felt my ability and relevance would serve and nothing more. I am not here to pull out my Wang (computer) to try to prove how much more informed I am about computer history because that has no relevance. Also, my personal philosophy on whether a trait is good or bad is irrelevant because "~
SCIENTIFICFICFICISM" has taught me that that answer could only be a relative one good for some, not good for all. I did approach her first part, contrary to your claim "you chose to engage with the second half of this" & "I chose to engage with the first half."ILLUMININISMISMBut you win, perhaps, because I've decided that size and length do matter. And I tire of this verbosity and will concede defeat to your superior wordiness.
Meanwhile, the facts above speak volumes on their own.
-
@Takamba said
"When I later read that it was aimed at me, I became very confused as why so."
Please show me where this happened. To my knowledge, I never aimed anything at you. I aimed at the thesis of the book ("the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least.") and used your argument as ammunition ("As Legis and Avshalom ** have suggested...").
-
I have insecurities, and pretty much every person I've ever talked about insecurities says they have them. Do you not have any insecurities, kasper?
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Takamba said
"When I later read that it was aimed at me, I became very confused as why so."Please show me where this happened. To my knowledge, I never aimed anything at you. I aimed at the thesis of the book ("the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least.") and used your argument as ammunition ("As Legis and Avshalom ** have suggested...")."
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations, not yours.."
-
@Takamba said
"
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Takamba said
"When I later read that it was aimed at me, I became very confused as why so."Please show me where this happened. To my knowledge, I never aimed anything at you. I aimed at the thesis of the book ("the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least.") and used your argument as ammunition ("As Legis and Avshalom ** have suggested...")."
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations, not yours.."
"And again, I ask, where did you read that something was aimed at you? The post that you quote above is my correction of my original post in which I wrote:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"AoD would you mind posting the title of the book you're referencing? As Legis and Avshalom have suggested, the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least. I'd be curious as to how the author came to hir thesis and whether or not it has statistical/experimental data to back it up. I suspect it's just a gendered generalization based on a specific (western) societal outlook."
I mistakenly wrote Avshalom's name instead of yours. If we substitute in your name for Avshalom's, we get:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"AoD would you mind posting the title of the book you're referencing? As Legis and Takamba have suggested, the thesis that it seems to be suggesting appears to be a bit reductive to say the least. I'd be curious as to how the author came to hir thesis and whether or not it has statistical/experimental data to back it up. I suspect it's just a gendered generalization based on a specific (western) societal outlook. "
I did not anywhere aim anything at you. I was not reacting against you. I was not calling you out for a bad argument. I was replacing my incorrect attribution of Avshalom with the correct attribution to your post. I clarified which of your posts I meant by shorthanding it's main thesis ("The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior" (emphasis mine)) in order to distinguish it from your later reply to kasper81 regarding nature and universe wanting males to be independent.
For clarity sake, the fully developed idea of what I was saying in that paragraph, using an overflowing bowl of word salad, would be:
AoD would you mind posting the title of the book you're referencing? As Legis suggested, "it sounds as if the book you're reading presents a gender-biased understanding of what Jung termed the "persona," or social mask... I would say it's true, but it's not just true of men. Of course, it depends on the presentation. If the book is talking specifically about a masculine kind of persona that most men create, it may have some things of value to say. But any idea that the development of a persona is specific to men alone is absurd." Furthermore, Takemba mentioned that "The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior." I would tend to agree with both of these suggestions that the thesis of the book appears to be a bit reductive but I am less willing to trust my own opinions on the matter and would prefer to build up my argument from empirical data. I'd be curious to see how the author came to hir thesis and whether or not it has statistical/experimental data to back it up. I suspect it's just a gendered generalization based on a specific (western) societal outlook.
Please tell me that clears things up.
-
@kasper81 said
"This book seems to be saying that men in general are insecure. They're not"
That's on par with saying that cats in general aren't black.