Impostures
-
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.
-
To me, it sounds as if the book you're reading presents a gender-biased understanding of what Jung termed the "persona," or social mask.
Here's a link to some basic info. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_(psychology) (Be sure to read the "Later Developments" section.)
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.
-
That's a mighty big subject, one that obviously required an entire book to cover. The main truth is not just about men, though - even women (some women) can fall into gender expectations of behavior. Fear, for example, is a point of inauthentic behavior. Even though in Thelema it is said "Where there is fear, I am not" and "Fear is failure and the forerunner of failure," it is a mistake to believe that being afraid of something is a weakness - but letting fear be the "guide" can be a mistake. Instead, fear should suggest to us the need to learn something new. Courage, for instance, is not the absence of fear - it is applied action in the face of fear. I'm surprised at how many I meet that don't get that. Of course I get slightly frightened when I get to a podium and deliver a public address. What if something goes wrong? What if someone in the crowd gets disruptive and dangerous? What if they laugh at me? (No, they won't laugh at me, but I imagine it's possible.) Well, in spite of this fear I have prepared my message - so I'm confident in that I hope. And I get up to mic and start my spiel. When it's all over, mission accomplished. As far as being authentic, sometimes I open with "wow, this crowd makes me nervous" or if I'm asked later if I get stage fright I'd say, "who doesn't?"
I mean, all that is just one sample. I hope it's close to the discussion you're looking for.
-
I'm sure that what methods work best at this are going to depend on the individual child/person.
Some children are more empathetic, and will need more help practicing trusting themselves. Others are more self-assured/driven and need help practicing empathy. Etc.
Your son is fortunate to have a mother that is not intimidated by masculine energy.
The qualities that you express admiration for in men are probably going to be ones that he internalizes as being worthy things to aspire to. (D.H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers" is a great example of what it looks like when this effect goes wrong).
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.
-
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, and this pressure affects boys no matter what is taught in a specific home. They bring it home with them. This is precisely the pressure that serves to create the persona with its hidden insecurity and guilt about any lack of independence.
I don't think anyone can prevent the creation of the social persona. The focus of development at the teenage level deals specifically with where and how we fit or do not fit into accepted roles in society, and every teenager goes through a process of choosing which group with which to identify, dress like, think like, listen to music like, play sports (or not) like, be smart (or not) like, etc.. That's just a normal, healthy stage of development where we learn how navigate social expectations.
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.
-
Nature doesn't have opinions. Some people are more independent than others, and that's ok.
Trying to force everyone to measure themselves against a single masculine or feminine ideal is part of the problem, as Legis points out.
I don't think he's arguing against independence.
-
@kasper81 said
"
Nature and the Universe want males (and females| to be independent."Soo... nature becomes this entirely interdependent ecosystem where if even the bees all die off everyone is at risk? And this is meant to "want" independence?
-
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.
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.
As for the star that chose to be your son (and, by extension, the other young boys that you work with), I'd say your best bet is to interact with him as the individual star that he his, learn as much about his true will as you can, and aid him to find the path towards it's accomplishment all the while remembering that it is he who has to actually do the work. The simple fact that he has a mother who is aware that her society turns most individuals into robotic automatons with emotional problems will almost naturally guarantee that, as he transitions into adulthood, he will not easily fall into the automatic life.
And, if he starts heading that way... smack him upside the head and set that boy straight.
-
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 wasn't saying anything about the book's arguments (having not read it).
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I wasn't saying anything about the book's arguments (having not read it)."
Sorry. I was on my phone and misread the earlier parts of the thread. I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations, not yours but, even so, they weren't referencing the book's arguments. 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. I'll post a follow-up if it sparks anything.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I wasn't saying anything about the book's arguments (having not read it)."Sorry. I was on my phone and misread the earlier parts of the thread. I was actually reacting to Takamba's mention of gender expectations, not yours but, even so, they weren't referencing the book's arguments. 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. I'll post a follow-up if it sparks anything."
If you think I described "gender expectations," you read my post wrong. I was describe anti-gender expectations.
-
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.