Impostures
-
@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.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Please tell me that clears things up."
I think it clears things up. I read the post as "I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations", not that you corrected the sentence that mentions the names of the people who lead you to believe that the book has a reductionist point of view. In other words, I took that post at its word.
Let's look at your entire statement so you can see where I got your intent wrong:
"I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations, not yours"
This is in reference to your entire post, a post where you argue that gender role expectation is not limited to either gender and also I believe you mentioned it is not entirely universal among cultures. You and I will agree on that truth.
"but, even so, they weren't referencing the book's arguments."
At this point you believe that the "they" in your statement is "people" but you never in this post mention people, nor were "they" the main subject of the post being referenced. The "they" in this sentence in your mind represents "Legis and Avshalom," but Legis and Avshalom haven't been referenced in this post, so the unqualified pronoun "they" appears to the reader to be "Takamba's mention of gender expectations." That is "Takamba's mention of gender expectations...weren't even referencing the book's arguments" is the grammatical way I read your statement.
Try reading it without knowing that Legis and Avshalom where anywhere implied beforehand (because at this point, any mention of them as a reference (not as subjects) had long past):
"I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations, not yours but, even so, they weren't referencing the book's arguments."
Then you say:
"In light of that, I'd like to retract my earlier references to other posters and just allow this to stand on my own reading of the OP. I'm about to check out the Amazon link."
Now you reference the "other posters" (without specifics, thus Takamamba is again singled out for some reason). Are you seeing how this may have been misread because you carelessly waved a gun around a room?
As far as I'm concerned, I now see how the misunderstanding arose and I don't expect to hear about it again more than one more time.
-
@Takamba said
"As far as I'm concerned, I now see how the misunderstanding arose and I don't expect to hear about it again more than one more time."
Close enough for government work.
I will never again post from my phone in order to ensure that I have the full copyedit web-interface at my disposal so as to avoid, as much as possible, any potential mis-reads of what I write.
In return, might I ask you to not jump to the worst possible conclusion about the anonymous guy on the other end of the line? If it seriously all boils down to this little bit of nothing in a clumsily worded correction, "Wow. Please read what I wrote and don't ever reply to me again" seems like a major over-reaction. My syntax in that one sentence was clumsy, granted. But the main thrust of that post was:
- I screwed up in citing Avshalom when I actually meant Takamba.
- On closer examination Takamba's argument doesn't directly reference the book's arguments either **.
- Consequently, I would like to retract all of my references to prior posters' comments [Legis and Takamba and Avshalom are the only possible antecedents] so as not to inadvertently mis-use their conclusions in the development of my own argument based on "my own reading of the OP" [this mainly motivated by my awareness that I had just screwed up in mis-citing one person and my unwillingness to inadvertently do it again].
We're all human. We all make mistakes. Ask for clarification if something seems at odds with common sense because, generally, the answer will be simple and banal.
-
A life-cycle:
- Do your best.
- Fuck up.
- Fix it.
Everybody does number 2.
You usually only want to hang with people who do 1 and 2.
The best people do 1, 2, and 3.
-
@Angel of Death said
"I was a reading book the other day about men and relationships and an idea was brought out that I had not ever truly given much thought to, but one that is knocking about in my head so much now that I wanted to see if I could get a bit of a discussion going on. My reason for this is two fold, 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.
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, an imposter, like they are not all they show themselves to be but are feeling/thinking themselves much less. This part that drives this aspect appears to be a construct of the ego, And that men have a deep fear of being found out, exposed, humiliated and disrespected because of this aspect.
Please understand I am not male bashing at all, and do not mean to point fingers or be confrontational, I am trying to get feedback on this because I do believe for most of the men in the world, this would seem to be an accurate representation of their Ego and mental emotional states of being.
I would say though that from my understanding of the tenets of Thelema, of will, love and star that this aspect of being an imposture is effectively transmuted when a man embraces his authentic self, achieves KnC, and brings that energy/perspective out into the world through his actions and relationships.
In looking around at my personal representations of the male population I see men who I know are impostures, liars, untrue, dis eased, and I see men whom I highly suspect are but have no solid basis for my suspicions. I also see though men who are almost what I would say, brutal in there integrity to not deceive and be true no matter how uncomfortable it is for others.
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. To show them that they do t need to put on a fascade, to be an imposture. The root of imposture, is impost which means a tax or duty. 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.
For me, when I am doing something new I am unsure of myself and force a confidence to help me through the moment. But those moments are brief and fleeting, this book spoke like most men live in a state of unsurity, or at the least have a heavily fortified aspect of their personality (ego?) that is like a helpless infant needing mother.
Again, I think that the core teachings of Thelema, love, star and will liberate us from these issues of ego and gift us with an awakened state of embracing life to it's fullest."
I think what helped me most as a kid and same for my friends was practicing martial arts and "extreme" sports(skateboarding, bmx...). Those two kind of sports encompass many things and are a great alchemical tools. Also they often are considered very attractive by male kids so with proper guidance one can find a sport which he likes and by the time he enters teenage, if he's still involved in it it will help him greatly deal with the ordeals to have such a tool. What's great is they are very "teenage proof" as they are considered "alternative"(or crazy) by society, so at the same time it gives older role models for the kid and when teenage is reached it feels "cool", not a thing that "belongs" to "old bastards".
Music too is good but the lack of body work makes it less a "protection" from physical tentations. Whereas a good skateboarder or judo fighter will most often take care of his body(globaly) as it is used in his art. So i'd say first a sport then music if it is a will.
Sometimes just mentioning such sport or showing a video/picture/story at the right moment can make a kid "click" and say "hey wanna try this !"
-
Thanks for the great suggestion about sports. I actually have tried to get all the boys involved in not only team games, which foster cooperation, but individual disciples like running, and martial arts.
I'm glad I brought this issue up, all the responses were very enlightening. Even just observing the discussion and it's sub text, very helpful. Thanks.