The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:15 pm

Alex,

I think you must know that I take issue with your assumption that you possess and can define 'spiritual truth'. You or anyone can offer opinions, if they are couched in a certain humility, but when one examines some of the almost outrageous statements made by some on this forum, one gathers the impression that there is not a great deal of humility.

I'm wary of the word "humility" because it usually has connotations of bowing down to other people's deluded values and abandoning one's own values in the process. It can quickly degenerate into an unhealthy expression of submission.

And besides, you do need a certain amount of arrogance to make a bid for truth. There is no question of that. You need to have enough self-belief in your own mind to go against the grain and abandon everything that humanity has ever said and taught, including the reputed wise teachers, and uncover directly what is ultimately true in life.

It is the height of arrogance, really. But it is also a form of humility towards truth. You are bowing down to the truth alone, and nothing and no one is ever going to come between you.

I agree that arrogance can become a problem if it involves close-mindedness, shoddy reasoning, the acceptance of half-baked ideas, emotionalism, concern for one's reputation, etc. But really, these are all forms of turning one's back on truth. In each of these instances, one is no longer bowing down to truth, but to something else.

So as long as one is genuinely humble towards truth, I don't see arrogance as being much of a problem.


The word 'spiritual' is in itself very problematic, in itself it is an allusion, but there is no solid thing that it refers to. In a conversation of this sort it is a troublesome term. Also, though for you the 'spiritual' may be the acme, the issues you are discussing are social, political, economic, sexual, and emotive. I don't think that you or anyone holds some sort of absolute ground from which to arbitrate these issues. The issues are at best very complex.

Well, if you look deeply into what you are saying here, you should be able to see that you yourself are judging matters from a core, simple view-point - namely, that everything is too complex and no one can really know anything. This underlying view-point is shaping your judgments and directing you to reach the sorts of conclusions that you are reaching.

I point this out simply to show how a fundamental understanding, which is always very simple in nature, can intimately relate to all the various complexities of society and human psychology. If another person has a different fundamental understanding, then his views, in all matters, will be shaped differently. He will have an entirely different take on things.

So I consider it to be the most important thing in life to encourage people to reason beyond the complexities of society and human psychology and arrive at a fundamental understanding which perfectly accords with reality. If people can manage to develop a clear understanding of reality and adopt it as their core mental framework, then it will have innumerable consequences for the rest of their lives and will impact on all aspects of society.

I've written about how to arrive at such an understanding in an ebook called Wisdom of the Infinite. So along with the Woman work that Dan recommended, I would urge you to read that. They are both short and to the point, and will give you a much better idea of where I am coming from.


Allow me to say this: I have a long-standing interest in and qualified respect for the Vaishnava religion, that is to say the worship of Vishnu. (In addition to my own tradition, which is basic). The 'spiritual' object of Vaishnavism is to liberate one from the 'pathological' attachment (addiction) to women, as a source of pleasure, as a source of carnal pleasure, and to refocus one's energies in service of the divine. We are engrossed in 'material consciouness' to such a degree that our language, our psychology, our mythology, our culture, our systems of education, our television, only mires us more and more in this 'material entanglement'. And the very core of this entanglement is sexual attraction. To begin to become free, we have to have another object of fixation, an entirely different (spiritual) movement within ourselves.

Though I can't be completely sure, I have a strong feeling this is what you want to communicate, in basic terms. You point out, insofar as I think I read you correctly, that men get mired in 'materialism' (matter, mater) in a similar way that we get mired in woman. You could extend that and make a bold reference to 'maya' in an almost strictly Hindu sense, am I right?

That's part of it. But it isn't enough to simply renounce women in the flesh and reject emotional or sexual relationships with them. More importantly, one also has to abandon dwelling in the feminine inside oneself. By "feminine", I mean the flowy, dimly conscious, emotional, childlike part of ourselves which loves nothing better than lose itself in immediacy, in forgetfulness, in the authority of another individual, in the "now".

Most men try to spend as much as time as possible in that dreamy world - indeed, it is one of the core reasons why they find women so attractive, it enables them to escape more easily into it. But even worse, they soon become very attached to it, become protective of it, and begin to change their values, beliefs and outlook to accommodate it - all of which undermines their prospects of one day piercing maya and living in reality.

What is it that you like about the Vaishnava religion?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:28 pm

David Quinn wrote:They are perfectly tailored for the right kind of individual.


okay.

David Quinn wrote:Again, no one is advocating that. We simply disagree (dramatically) on the nature of that cancer.


And in doing so, we also dramatically disagree on what part is the patient.

David Quinn wrote:
Elizabeth wrote:Our ideas clash, but so far I have not said that because you are a man, you are incapable of understanding the kinds of complex thoughts that women - with our greater connective tissue in our brains - think.


Why not? It would be close to the truth. It is very difficult for a man to fathom how a woman thinks, given that her values, perceptions and modes of thought are so very different from his. It takes great philosophic skill on his part to reach such an understanding.


Why not - because it is not close enough to the truth. Close doesn't cut it. It is also very difficult for a woman to understand how a man thinks, and takes great philosophic skill on her part to understand men's thinking. It is true that most women don't understand how women think either, just like most men don't understand how men think - but that does not mean that the men who don't understand are actually women, nor that the women who do understand are actually men. A man is a man and a woman is a woman, and sometimes due to different hormones being present in critical stages of development, a female brain can end up in a male body and a male brain can end up in a female body - but having good enough philosophic skill to understand the other gender's though patterns does not change whether it is a male brain or a female brain. Yes, different ways of thinking do alter the structure of the brain, but not necessarily to the extreme of changing brain gender. It is not necessary to have a male brain to understand males, and it is not necessary to have a female brain to understand females. It just takes skill.

David Quinn wrote:EI: Specifically, I was referring to Rich's statement in the podcast, but generally I also referred to Sue's statement, which seems to be a reflection of your ideas on the matter, that women are incapable of being spiritual (-probably not an exact quote, but close enough).

As I recall, Sue did stress that most men are currently incapable of spirituality as well, which is at odds with your formulation above.


No, it is not. Saying that no women and most men are incapable is not the same thing as saying that most men and most women are incapable.

David Quinn wrote:She also advocates helping women to develop a capacity for wisdom, which, she thinks, can only begin to be achieved when men stop loving women and thus stop imprisoning them within their currently stunted state. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.


It's a theory - and stated like that it is worthy of debate - but Sue's silly point is that in order for women to develop a capacity for wisdom, they must become men. She did not specify that in the podcast, nor did she announce her belief that she became a man - so she does sound a bit more reasonable than she could have. I am, however, addressing the entire philosophic presentation - not just the podcast.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:22 am

David,

Well, I did not mean 'humility' in that sense at all. I am completely opposed to any sort of submissive attitude and certainly admire chutzpah, even if it is misinformed, than sharing prefabricated, comfortable agreements.

That is why I oppose some of your formulations... ;^)

"Well, if you look deeply into what you are saying here, you should be able to see that you yourself are judging matters from a core, simple view-point - namely, that everything is too complex and no one can really know anything. This underlying view-point is shaping your judgments and directing you to reach the sorts of conclusions that you are reaching."

But the point I am making is more subtle than that. You assert an absolute truth, and also 'the spiritual', neither of which are things, they are ideas, abstractions. To say this does not mean that these abstractions are not real, insofar as they are formulations of the mind or 'intimations from the spirit', but I don't think they can be used in discourse in the way that you (et al) use them. The implication is often that, We are here, you are there. When you get her you will understand what we mean. This can be, and often is (in religions, in cults, in groupthink) a sort of coercive position.

So, what I am saying is not at all that I don't think that your absolutisms, or the absolutisms of many other thinking systems (ways of organizing and presenting perception) cannot or do not refer to elements of truth, or true things of a sort, or intimations of truth, it is that I don't think that any of us have Absolute Truth. But that doesn't at all mean that we can't make efforts, and indeed my own position is that we have no other choice but to do so, wherever we are stationed. If we are responsible agents in this world we have to rise to that responsibility, not run from responsibility, and that will always mean making tought decisions, and also running the risk of making mistakes. A responsible attitude in the world, and in the world of the mind, naturally becomes a leadership position, and like it or not the more one assumes responsibility, the more that one has an 'ownership interest' (in the world) the more one has to devote oneself to practical endeavors, in real time, making real decisions. And all of that is very, very problematic, and there is not a tremendous amount of agreement as to how that should be done.

The area of your interest---the definition of man and woman, male and female, masculine and feminine, is a mine-field. On this list, perhaps because of Weininger, you have attracted outright anti-semites (and for all I know you could have these views too), conspiracy theorists of a questionable order, and you will inevitably attract misogynists, that is, not people who have the desire and the maturity to truthfully and sanely work out the male-female conflicts of our age, but those who have a misogynist psychology, something very different from philosophical wisdom-seeking. For example Rich seemed to have outright contempt for everything 'feminist' but there is a great deal of variation between feminist theorists, and a great deal of conflict between them. He seemed to me principally interested in venting his animus against women, the women of his world, his evil ex-wife. The only people who are going to want to get on that band-wagon are those who are similarly structured internally.

Humility in the sense I mean is more about asking questions, probing issues, looking at things from different angles, interrogating problems.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:59 am

Your concern for how Rich comes across and the psychology from which he formulates his views doesn't seem to have any practical content, Alex. In what ways are his attitudes and statements bad or potentially harmful to anyone?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:00 am

Alex,

DQ: "Well, if you look deeply into what you are saying here, you should be able to see that you yourself are judging matters from a core, simple view-point - namely, that everything is too complex and no one can really know anything. This underlying view-point is shaping your judgments and directing you to reach the sorts of conclusions that you are reaching."

Alex: But the point I am making is more subtle than that. You assert an absolute truth, and also 'the spiritual', neither of which are things, they are ideas, abstractions. To say this does not mean that these abstractions are not real, insofar as they are formulations of the mind or 'intimations from the spirit', but I don't think they can be used in discourse in the way that you (et al) use them.

Your criticism here is misplaced because the Absolute Truth that I talk about doesn't rely on any particular concept or perspective or form. As such, it involves a very different kind of understanding to the normal way we understand things, such as what we experience in science or academic philosophy.

Concepts and lines of reasoning can only serve as pointers to this great understanding. They cannot capture or confine it. They are merely signposts pointing to what is beyond them. As soon as a person thinks that he has grasped the Truth with his conceptual mind, it is a sure sign that he continues to misunderstand it.

I would also like to point out that this great understanding in no way conflicts with the arguments you are making. It is perfectly compatible with the truths that everything is relative and subjective. Indeed, the approach towards this great understanding involves recognizing the realities of relativity and subjectivity and using them as platforms to discovering even more profound truths.


The implication is often that, We are here, you are there. When you get her you will understand what we mean. This can be, and often is (in religions, in cults, in groupthink) a sort of coercive position.

Sure, that is a potential problem. But to counter it, I keep stressing the importance of people using their own reasoning to work it all out for themselves.

I don't have any interest in creating a religion or a cult, and I certainly don't derive any financial or materialistic rewards from my work. I see my role as being a prodder and a catalyst for people to exercise their own reasoning in the deepest and most passionate manner possible. People need to be inspired or shocked out of their complacency before they can reason with passion, thus a lot of what I do centers on that.


So, what I am saying is not at all that I don't think that your absolutisms, or the absolutisms of many other thinking systems (ways of organizing and presenting perception) cannot or do not refer to elements of truth, or true things of a sort, or intimations of truth, it is that I don't think that any of us have Absolute Truth.

On the contrary, it is very much an all-or-nothing thing. A person either understands the Absolute Truth completely and utterly, or he doesn't understand it at all. There is really no such thing as a partial understanding of it.

One have insights into the nature of cause and effect, or the illusory nature of all things, and these insights can certainly propel one closer to the threshold of Truth. But the actual breakthrough into Truth requires such a radical change in perspective that it doesn't really admit of degrees of graduation. It is more a case of one minute you don't really understand it, the next minute you understand it fully.


The area of your interest---the definition of man and woman, male and female, masculine and feminine, is a mine-field. On this list, perhaps because of Weininger, you have attracted outright anti-semites (and for all I know you could have these views too), conspiracy theorists of a questionable order, and you will inevitably attract misogynists, that is, not people who have the desire and the maturity to truthfully and sanely work out the male-female conflicts of our age, but those who have a misogynist psychology, something very different from philosophical wisdom-seeking.

I agree that can be a problem, but I'm not sure if it can be avoided. Again, all one can do is stress the importance of rigorous reasoning, honesty, intregity, passion for ultimate understanding, etc, and hope that at least a few of the people who come here take these qualities on board and run with them.

And for the record, I'm not an anti-semite. For me, the whole Jewish thing is a non-issue. I don't have any interest in it. I also don't think Weininger was anti-semite either, although he was very critical of his own Jewish culture. But I see that as being no different to an American being critical of his own American culture.


For example Rich seemed to have outright contempt for everything 'feminist' but there is a great deal of variation between feminist theorists, and a great deal of conflict between them. He seemed to me principally interested in venting his animus against women, the women of his world, his evil ex-wife. The only people who are going to want to get on that band-wagon are those who are similarly structured internally.

Agreed. It represents a key difference between Rich and the others on the show.


Humility in the sense I mean is more about asking questions, probing issues, looking at things from different angles, interrogating problems.

Yes, those things are absolutely critical. A person cannot approach Truth without utilizing those traits in the fullest possible manner. So if that's humility, then I'm all for it.

Having said that, it does have to be combined with a deep hunger for ultimate understanding. Otherwise, you are not going to get anywhere. You're only going to fade away into the nebulous ether of uber-open-mindedness.

Open-mindedness can be taken too far. It can lead a person to a stage where he no longer has faith in his own mind to actually understand anything, which has the effect of undermining the motivation needed to pursue lines of thought to the very end. So really, uber-open-mindedness is a form of close-mindedness. It causes one to become close-minded to the deeper truths of life.

In fact, this is easily the biggest intellectual disease of our age.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Laird » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:20 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Good luck finding an intelligent woman, there are probably only a handful in the world. And when I say intelligent, I mean it in an ultimate sense, as in rational. Many women are cunning and clever, or good at adapting to their environment, but this has nothing to do with intelligence in a more spiritual sense.


That's almost straight out of the QRS quote book. Damn, Ryan, you're more of a sympathiser than I realised. In fact this thread has highlighted several regulars who are more sympathetic to the QRS-Woman cause than I suspected.

In any case you are mixing up two concepts there. Intelligence is like horsepower, and rationality is the way in which that horsepower is directed. Rationality as applied to the way one chooses to live one's life is primarily based on values, and values are to some extent based on the application of rationality to the world, forming something of a feedback loop. So really what I'd look for in a woman in terms of intelligence and rationality would be someone who shares my values and who has used her intelligence to live her life in rational accordance with those values. My values are based around a belief in equal opportunity for everyone in a clean, safe and peaceful world. So the sorts of women that I find most attractive in this respect are those who are working creatively and intelligently to alleviate poverty and starvation in the third world; who are finding ways to overcome global warming; who are using their scientific knowledge to create clean, energy-efficient tools and appliances; who are developing and advocating models apart from the military-capitalist war framework of the first world; etc.

DQ: In one corner, you have the people who instantly grasp the nature and purpose of the "woman" philosophy, can perceive its larger significance of it, and affirm it completely.

L: In other words, the people who fully agree with David Quinn, making them "wise".

D: No, I'm talking about a quantum leap in understanding, one which requires a complete stepping out of the normal way of thinking about things and taking in the larger picture. A world-shattering shift in perspective, in other words.

As I say, those who have made this leap know exactly what I'm talking about here, while those who haven't can't make it out at all.


I can't prove that such a leap does not exist. What I can write is that, without having yet read through your Woman work (something that I may not have the patience to do, but we'll see), I have been thoroughly exposed to your ideas through this forum and through personal discussions with Kevin, and that "quantum leap" remains as far off as ever, although I intellectually grasp what you're trying to say. Frankly, I strongly believe that your assertion of such a leap is merely an attempt to evade criticism. "Oh you might have read and thought that you understood everything, but really it just hasn't 'clicked' yet, so your disagreement is invalid." This is a cunning tactic but one that I do not respect.

DQ: It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.

L: And that statement gives credence to the view that you will use any small and unreasonable thing that you can to bolster your misogyny. And by misogyny I mean not necessarily just a hatred of women, but more particularly a view that they are inferior.

D: But women are inferior in some areas, just as men are inferior in some areas. That is the nature of the two sexes having different biologies, physiologies and psychologies.

For example, as Zubaty mentioned on the show, men are generally inferior when it comes to picking out little details in dresses and reading body language, and so on. In turn, women are generally inferior when it comes to matters of genius and profound thought.


That's a misleading response, David, because you and I both know that you represent the defining and core characteristics of femininity as absolutely inferior to those of masculinity - even as contemptible. I wasn't talking about the minor concessions that you might make, I was talking about your primary claims.

Elizabeth: Name one thing that either Sue or Dan said in this podcast that they have not said before.

David: You have yet to understand a single thing they have said and you want me to provide more?

Laird: Nice dodge, David. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth understands, but there's a difference between understanding and agreeing.

David: I wouldn't mind her disagreeing if she showed that she actually knew what she was disagreeing with. But her responses on this thread reveal that she has no understanding of the woman issue at all.


You give her as an intelligent and introspective woman too little credit. Is it not possible that she has understandings that you as a man have failed to achieve?

Laird: I put to you the same challenge that Elizabeth does, because basically from Dan and Sue in that podcast was merely the same proselytisation that QRS+Hindmarsh+Jones+others practice on a regular basis. There was nothing new about it for someone already familiar with your perversions.

David: The basic thrust was the same, but there were different slants peppered all throughout the show.


Granted, there was the odd nugget of a new idea here and there, but for the most part I found myself simply groaning at Sue's words, thinking to myself something along the lines of "oh no, you surely can't *still* be promoting such a ridiculous and far-fetched philosophy, can you Sue?" Likewise of Dan, although I don't have as much hope of him recanting as I do of Sue.

David Quinn wrote:For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.


Probably because it's a load of twaddle. Naturally some people are more selfishly narcissistic than others, and it's debatable whether this applies more to men or to women, but for you to tar all women with this brush just goes too far. I mean, there are many, many women taking on positions of responsibility, ranging from child-raising to running a business to, in rare instances, leadership of countries. The assumption of responsibility requires a moderation of one's selfish urges. Really, David, this sort of stuff is just ludicrous and if it weren't for the potential damage that it does it would be a bit of a comedy show to see you guys promoting it so seriously.

David Quinn wrote:The idea that women are essentially born as a fully-developed "woman" and never evolve beyond that was also very interesting. This is profound stuff.


Profoundly ridiculous. Women go through no less of a cycle of development as men do. There is absolutely no question in my mind that a twenty-five year old woman has a strength, wisdom and maturity that just can't compare with that of a baby emerging into the world. I mean, come on, are you ACTUALLY serious with this stuff? It's got to be some kind of joke, right? I'm just waiting for the final administrator's post on GF: "Ha ha, thanks for coming along and enjoying the joke guys, we've had enough fun now and will now be returning you to your regular understandings of masculinity and femininity shortly."

Laird: Perhaps promoting a philosophy that deliberately espouses the inferiority of not merely women, but femininity itself, should be considered to be a form of hate crime.

Dan: Talk about wanting to crush free thought and expression. Way to go! Let's totally politicize philosophy - as many feminists would no doubt like us to do.


There are many people in this modern world who suffer from insecurity. Love is affirmative. What you promote is the opposite of affirmation. It deliberately and mistakenly promotes feelings of inferiority. You are telling women: the core of your gender is fundamentally flawed and beyond redemption. This, rather than affirming a woman, serves merely to enhance any feelings of insecurity that might already exist. It is a form of hatred, although I doubt that you recognise it as such. In this world of insecurity such forms of hatred might be viewed as crimes.
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:19 pm

Funny, I consider your philosophy to one of pure evil and the source of almost all violence, hatred and suffering through history. This is because your philosophy entails building egotistical security on a pack of lies. I'll explain this in more detail soon...
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby divine focus » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:50 pm

Women are not men. They're different. To compare men to women and then judge as to which is better or worse would obviously indicate some bias either way. How can you judge perceptions impartially through your own perception? There's no need to judge at all; but if you do, realize that your perception isn't absolute.

Women are less logical than men, in general. They're also more interpersonal- and group-conscious, in general. Men may be more willful and independent, in general, but women are more nurturing and understanding of psychology. There's value in each of these characteristics.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Shardrol » Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:28 pm

The last few posts & the form that the ensuing discussion will probably take are a perfect example of the kind of needless confusion caused by using the terms 'man', 'woman', 'masculine' & 'feminine' as QRS & others do.

When one finds oneself saying things like 'in order to become enlightened a woman must become a man' - not to mention that the term 'woman' in that sentence can refer to either biological males or females - one probably has close to a hundred percent likelihood of being misunderstood - except by those who already have been schooled in this usage & understand it. I know that people who use these terms in that way disagree with me & I understand why. But I think this kind of thing makes communication about these topics even more unlikely than it would ordinarily be.

Oh well. As you were.
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby sue hindmarsh » Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:36 pm

Shardrol,

I agree, it is "needless confusion". If people put in a little effort they could easily work this issue out for themselves.

The bottom line is that most people can't be bothered.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sun Sep 16, 2007 10:00 pm

In another sense, the confusion is needful. For if this confusion didn't exist, then it means that none of these fundamental issues are being discussed and the whole problem of women and femininity is being ignored. It means that the world is still being completely dominated by feminine unconsciousness.

In other words, I'd rather have the confusion, than complete silence.

If wasn't for people like Dan, Sue, Weininger, Kierkegaard, etc, engaging in this "hate crime", then no one would ever be talking about these issues, and idea of trying to develop a loftier, more masculine consciousness would disappear from the world entirely.

As Sue mentioned, the understanding of masculine and feminine consciousness is very simple and straightforward. Intellectually speaking, it isn't a hard subject to master. So the confusion doesn't reside there. Instead, the confusion is generated by uncomprehending people working themselves into a lather because they perceive their deepest values and attachments being threatened.

We can't really call it confusion, though. That would imply intellectual effort is being applied. A better description would simply be steam rising from hot collars.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby No Genius » Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:15 am

Zubaty knows his subject well and discourses objectively about it.

My perception is that we're basically under invasion by parasitic extraterrestrials who warmly embrace us as they suck our blood. But enough praise of femininity.

I look forward to Ms. Hindmarsh's book and future shows by Mr. Rowden.
No Genius
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:59 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:56 am

Dan Rowden wrote:

"Your concern for how Rich comes across and the psychology from which he formulates his views doesn't seem to have any practical content, Alex. In what ways are his attitudes and statements bad or potentially harmful to anyone?"

This is what my thinking is on the matter. I have noted that at least a fair portion of the philosophical material you-plural refer to on this site, for example Nietzsche, Weininger, comes from a critical and axial period in the modern era---the 1880s to about the 1920s. I see this period as the theshold to what we know as modernity, and there were all sorts of ideas floating around as people were assembling their vision of what the world was asnd what it could be, should be. Very very intense time. So many of the important thinkers who have had and continue to have a profound effect on our modernity were working intensly, and out of that period came the psychological, physiological, social, scientific foundations that define our world. Interwoven in all of that are also some dark trends, not the least of which is an articulation of fascistic and totalitarian ideals, and we are still so very much in the midst of dealing with all of that. We stand on the threshold of that, and will likely go very much more strongly toward that (globally).

The Nazi theorists were very much involved in articulating a 'science', a group of ideas, an ordering of perception, with which to mold the world, define it, structure it, dominate it and control it. With their formulations you can see how important and relevant are ideas---and these modern ideas---are in constructing ideological systems through which their power could be expressed, and these ideas are pushed, foisted, highlighted, privelaged, so to bring as many people under the control of a mass movement operating with those ideas as a conceptual base. They were very big on articulating definitions of geneder and race, as everyone knows, and I think it is pretty evident that there is still a very strong attraction on the part of many to 'fall into' and come under the influence of groups of ideas that do little more than articulate an essentially regressive position. Here on this list we note certain persons whose idea structures are...well...neo-fascistic for want of a better word. They have fallen into the use of reductive ideas and (as I see things) backward ideas, but they are couched as being 'paradigm shifting ideas', 'true' ideas, the ideas of real men, ideas that appear in focus when different sorts of mind control have been defeated, and it is very obvious that 'feminism' is a chief bogey, but feminism mystified, a mystical, metaphysical feminism, and so it is railed against. It is not only a 'rational' position but a deeply emotional one, and you fool yourselves if you think it isn't emotiional and deeply psychological (IMO). If you cannot see what a dangerous position you-all are working, in this very dangerous territory, with generally inadequate preparation, and if you are not truly responsible and honest with yourselves, you could very easily do a great deal of harm.

So you ask me what practical content my criticisms have, but to me this is self-evident. I will draw a small analogy to give some indicator of the danger. Neil, bless his heart, just read Nietzsche, and it comes into his little head that maybe this cat Hitler was just not so bad, maybe he is a Great Man in fact, and what does it matter in the grand scheme if a million or 2 million or many million die. It is just 'will-to-power' and Nietzsche has blessed it, so we really don't have to judge Hitler at all harshly, and sieg heil. This opens a road to entertaining some fairly dangeorous ideas that in or world can have, have had, are having profound destructive impact. In some of the forumlations about women and femininity, you are clearly engaging in profound generalizations, but more than that they are fantastic prejudices, harsh judgments, and you conflate all that is lowly and destructive with the feminine. You actually write these things out and you are not even cognizant of the danger inherant in these sorts of formulations? It is kind of incredible that you aren't aware of the danger in reductive, racist, anti-feminine thinking (thinking that follows this tempting paradigm).

I shouldn't even have to write this out (it is only a skeleton of what could be expressed), you-all should know all this.

In the most contentious and dangerous areas one has to be very, very careful, that is not sloppy, not impetuous, not driven by hidden psychological factors, misogynist anger, etc.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby autism » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:45 am

I'm new and a partisan of Zubaty's. No, I'm not a misogynist and neither are any of the men I have met in the men's movement. We aren't racists either. Zubaty and I have very similar backgrounds. I was a conscientious objector during Vietnam and by the mid Seventies was sitting in Attica on a zip-five year sentence for possession of marijuana...well, 20 lbs of the stuff <smile>.

I became an anti-feminist earlier than Zubaty. It was in 1980 when like him I went to the library to research it. I also was coming off a divorce then to a beautiful professor of Art History AND a feminist. She now calls herself a "Feminist Art Historian". Nope, no hard feelings. What inspired me to go to the library to research feminism was working with a feminist fresh out of the academy, ten years my junior, and arguing feminism with her and being unable to get words out of my mouth. So I went to improve my "rap". What I discovered answered many long held questions. I had no idea the enormous power they had and how the academy, especially the social sciences, was steadily being taken over by them from early in the 20th century. So I came to it for strictly political reasons at first, then I started to see how it was effecting our children and families. I wouldn't start a family of my own until the mid Eighties. I had two kids and was divorced in 1990. Then I went through the whole nine yards with the custody battle and signed on with the father's rights movement. I contacted them in the early Eighties but they weren't interested in taking on feminism. I told them they would get nowhere unless they did. They agreed with me by the late Nineties and all are on board now.

What Dave said above is the most important to acknowledge:

"In other words, I'd rather have the confusion, than complete silence."

The reason no one talks about what I call "the elephant in the room" is twofold. First, like Zubaty said, it's biological. Our brains and existence and structured by sex. Our very behavior and perception of the world genetically revolves around sex. The reason why most men can't argue about feminism, like when I couldn't get the words out of my mouth with that yong feminist, has a genetic component to it. What that is, how strong it is and what it means I'll leave to you brighter and more knowledgeable people to discover. That it is an essential dynamic in the "silence" is more like common sense to me at this point. The other reason, and this ties in with the first, is that men don't have any sex exclusive power or advocacy while women have it in spades and it's under the direction of rich men who it serves. So combine the biologic interactive problem with women with what also may be biologic behaviorally of poorer men themselves being predisposed to serve powerful men and you have COMPLETE silence on the subject of feminism or outrage when it is raised by feminists or those men who know which side their bread is buttered on. That guys like Rich and I would emerge is almost miraculous. That we made it to Sixty years old IS a miracle under these circumstances. My draft and drug resistance was a cake walk compared to what has happened to me as a public anti-feminist. I lost jobs, friends and even was ostracized by family. I'm a polite and rational anti-feminist BTW.

I can say more but I will save it until I get some responses. What I want to do now is tell Dan and Dave...THANKS! Not so much for having Zubaty on and doing such a great job, but for this whole thing. I listened to Blackmore, who I had some contact with over my autism work, and loved that show! Randi was another one who was involved with my autism work in an unpleasant way and I hooted all through that interview. You guys are hilarious. I started thinking, "Well maybe these guys are just comedians?" So I came online today and started reading your stuff. I think you're for real! I will be listening to all the interviews in the coming days and will post here regularly probably.

Thanks guys. Keep the ideas and jokes coming!

Tom Smith
American Union of Men (AUM)
autism
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:34 am

Laird wrote:

. So the sorts of women that I find most attractive in this respect are those who are working creatively and intelligently to alleviate poverty and starvation in the third world; who are finding ways to overcome global warming; who are using their scientific knowledge to create clean, energy-efficient tools and appliances; who are developing and advocating models apart from the military-capitalist war framework of the first world; etc.


If someone has dedicated their life to some cause early on, then this is a sign that they probably have an incredibly poorly developed mind. It takes years of solitude and mental study to develop strong reasoning skills, and most women aren’t able to do it, as most men aren’t either. What I’m suggesting is that someone can work towards a noble cause without having sane mind at all. The key point is that one is stronger spiritually if they are able to live without being attached to women. Men use women to create a sense of self-esteem, identity, an object of comfort, pleasure and so on. So ‘She’ prevents him from achieving full-blown enlightenment.

It really depends on if you want to go all the way with your conscious individuality or not. The spiritual life is so demanding that is only reserved for the insanely courageous, as so long as you are bound to ‘woman’ you are still of the world.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby sue hindmarsh » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:56 am

autism wrote:

That guys like Rich and I would emerge is almost miraculous.


Yes, in by-gone ages you’d had been stoned for speaking against the gods. Oh but I see that you have been stoned – albeit twenty-first century style:

I lost jobs, friends and even was ostracized by family.

-----

I'm a polite and rational anti-feminist BTW.


Yes, unraveling the feminine is a highly rational occupation. If one doesn't approach it as such, one cannot legitimately be an “anti-feminist”.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:05 am

No Genius wrote:Zubaty knows his subject well and discourses objectively about it.


Hi Mitch. I can only partially agree with this. I think socio-politically Rich knows his stuff quite well, but on a deeper psychological, spiritual and philosophical level he still has a lot to discover and clarify.

My perception is that we're basically under invasion by parasitic extraterrestrials who warmly embrace us as they suck our blood. But enough praise of femininity.


Well, let's be fair here: feminism is/was a relatively good idea badly instrumented. Do you think, for example, that women (and men for that matter) should have the practical and emotional ability to step outside their traditional and limiting social roles?

I look forward to Ms. Hindmarsh's book and future shows by Mr. Rowden.


Well, we'll be doing an editorial-style follow up show in the next 2 or 3 weeks; we'll also be speaking to a feminist in the very near future and hopefully we'll be doing another show with Rich to go deeper into his ideas about tribalism and what a society should actually look like and how it should function. There will be some considerable difference of opinion between us on that score I believe.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:42 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:I agree, it is "needless confusion". If people put in a little effort they could easily work this issue out for themselves.

The bottom line is that most people can't be bothered.


I bothered, and I refuse to abuse terminology that way - which is probably why David said that "in this thread" I have not shown any understanding of what I am disagreeing with (even though I have proven in other threads that I do understand, and that to some extent I agree with some of the generalizations). In refusing to respond to the cult tactic brainwashing to get me to agree to adopt that terminology, I get the standard cult tactic punishment in the form of:

David Quinn wrote:How many weeks did you spend with Kevin? How long have you been on this forum? It's as though you have understood nothing.

It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.


link to description of cult tactics

The bottom line, Sue, actually is that the longer you spend debating through intentionally created confusion, the less time you have to debate the finer points of what was really meant.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:45 am

Tom Smith wrote:I'm new and a partisan of Zubaty's. No, I'm not a misogynist and neither are any of the men I have met in the men's movement.


I don't think it's possible for the average man, men's movement member or not, to be a misogynist; men simply love women too much for that. What is true is that men are conflicted, sometimes deeply so, with respect to that love. Part of the reason they remain in such a state is that they do not stop to examine their own minds, their own ideations regarding Woman. Feminism is only one part of the problem of that state of conflict.

Zubaty and I have very similar backgrounds. I was a conscientious objector during Vietnam and by the mid Seventies was sitting in Attica on a zip-five year sentence for possession of marijuana...well, 20 lbs of the stuff <smile>.


So, one might say that part of your life went to pot......?

The reason no one talks about what I call "the elephant in the room" is twofold. First, like Zubaty said, it's biological. Our brains and existence and structured by sex. Our very behavior and perception of the world genetically revolves around sex. The reason why most men can't argue about feminism, like when I couldn't get the words out of my mouth with that yong feminist, has a genetic component to it. What that is, how strong it is and what it means I'll leave to you brighter and more knowledgeable people to discover. That it is an essential dynamic in the "silence" is more like common sense to me at this point. The other reason, and this ties in with the first, is that men don't have any sex exclusive power or advocacy while women have it in spades and it's under the direction of rich men who it serves. So combine the biologic interactive problem with women with what also may be biologic behaviorally of poorer men themselves being predisposed to serve powerful men and you have COMPLETE silence on the subject of feminism or outrage when it is raised by feminists or those men who know which side their bread is buttered on.


I think this only speaks to part of the story. One area where I disagree with Rich to some extent in in his notion of the significance biology plays. It's very important, no doubt, but it's a bit of a cop-out to emphasise it too much. The reason hardly any man speaks critically about and against feminism is because it's hard to criticise Mom and it's hard to be critical of one of the most idealised concepts that exists in your own mind and which informs almost all your actions, goals and beliefs. Woman is ubiquitous; to speak out about it in a critical fashion is to take a stand against society itself. That's not an easy thing to do. It means questioning everything. One cannot meaningfully question and critically analyse feminism without looking into the nature of humanity in every sense. It is a quintessentially philosophical venture. Sure, people can tinker around the edges with regard to specific socio-political issues, legal, social justice and economic matters etc, but it's just tinkering in the end; it doesn't produce any deeper understanding.

That guys like Rich and I would emerge is almost miraculous. That we made it to Sixty years old IS a miracle under these circumstances. My draft and drug resistance was a cake walk compared to what has happened to me as a public anti-feminist. I lost jobs, friends and even was ostracized by family. I'm a polite and rational anti-feminist BTW.


That ought to tell you how deeply these psychological forces run. Like I said, it's not just feminism and its aspects you're questioning - its the basic fabric of society itself. People tend to be kind of attached to that. Of course, one might say they simply disagree with you on how society should be and feel it inappropriate to associate with you. You'll have to suck that up I'm afraid. It's one of the natural consequences of taking a principled stand - especially one that goes against the social grain.

I can say more but I will save it until I get some responses. What I want to do now is tell Dan and Dave...THANKS! Not so much for having Zubaty on and doing such a great job, but for this whole thing.


Well, don't be too thankful yet - there are areas where we significantly disagree with Rich's perspective, we just haven't gotten to them yet. But I would agree with your implication that we provide a vehicle through which these matters can actually be freely discussed.

I listened to Blackmore, who I had some contact with over my autism work, and loved that show!


Susan is a very interesting person with enough intellectual courage to hold "against the grain" opinions about matters. That sets her apart from the norm right there.

Randi was another one who was involved with my autism work in an unpleasant way and I hooted all through that interview.


Unpleasant in what sense?

You guys are hilarious. I started thinking, "Well maybe these guys are just comedians?"


Why did you have that reaction to us?

So I came online today and started reading your stuff. I think you're for real! I will be listening to all the interviews in the coming days and will post here regularly probably.


Ok, look forward to seeing what you have to offer.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:26 am

Where are all these newcomers coming from?
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Cory Duchesne » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:31 am

When a site is voted favorably, stumble upon increases the influx of visitors. So it could be because of that. I gave Quinn's site, the absolute and this forum a vote each. Rowden, Ryan and god knows who else probably have done the same. So, it could be because of that.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:35 am

It's partly because Rich has alerted people to the show. Good to see a guest doing that!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:05 pm

"The reason hardly any man speaks critically about and against feminism is because it's hard to criticise Mom and it's hard to be critical of one of the most idealised concepts that exists in your own mind and which informs almost all your actions, goals and beliefs."

I rather think it is because to criticize feminist ideals, wedded as they are to ideals of human liberation, one seems to go agains the progressive grain.

I assume there is a 'clinical' definition of misogyny, and I am certain that feminist theorists have amplified the term. Surely it is a word, an idea, that would require an effort to come to grips with. Like so many key ideas it is contentious and complex. Intuitively though, I think that misogyny is a psychological condition, and misogynist anger is no doubt a 'real thing'. You can 'love' a woman and also murder her, if you take Tolstoy at his word in The Kreutzer Sonata, and there are some peculiar innards to classical misogyny, brothers. I take a risk in saying (from what I have gathered so far) that few who write here have much familiarity (or interest) in the literature of the last 100-200 years and the ubiquity and complexity of the 'woman issue'.

Here is the Wiki definition, and at the very least it contains some interesting ideas, germane to this conversation, and wouldn't you know it? Look who shows up there, Weininger and Nietzsche:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

One of the things that will happen in contentious, difficult conversations (among emotional types) is the predictable polarizing of conversations, where one camp sets up in defense of certain ideas and the other attacks. It is nice that people here talk things through. There is a much greater chance of getting to something of real value.

To clarify my own position before things move too much further ahead, I am not at all certain that 'second wave feminism' is, taken on the whole, ipso facto such a good thing. One of the reasons for this is that this manifestation of feminism is intimately ties to 60s radicalism, to revolutionary movements and the idea of revolution, to anti-imperialist movements, and to class struggle. Second Wave feminism, as I see it, has to be understood in the context that gave birth to it. Feminist philosophy is intimately tied to civil rights formulations, and feminism (generally speaking) had to isolate an enemy (men, the white man, patriarchal society, etc). All of these issues are very, very complex. In no sense have we gotten through them, and it is most likely that any gains (or 'so-called gains' depending on what side of the fence you're on), will be reversed. (They are now being reversed).

I am deeply suspicious of many of the formulations and the formulators of the Sixties, but at the same time I am deeply troubled by our own forms of neo-totalitarianism. It puts one in a peculiar bind. I am frankly appalled by consumer culture, and I am willing to see this culture as 'infantile' not because it is 'feminine' of 'female-driven', but because that seems to be an outcome of 100 years of psychological manipulation by 'public relations' interests. One subverts the very structure of freedom, and what it means to be free.

Any of you heard of or read Edward Bernays and those who were formulating on propaganda and public relations? (All this stuff deeply connected to modern psychological ideas, the social sciences, and a direct product of the 1880-1920 period).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
____________________________________________

In my relationships I am the one who calls the shots, and this has pretty much always been the case. I have protected all my own wealth so no one can get to it (highly recommended). I never married and have more or less devoted myself to myself. So, I don't have any of these bitter tales to tell. Now, if I enter a relationship with a women, and I do (I have a girl-friend where I live in South America), I do so because I want to, not because I desperately need, and if the relationship goes to a point where it doesn't serve me, I guess I will change the circumstances. Years ago I concluded it just didn't seem like a possibility that I would get involved with an American or North American woman, and so I didn't. I knew many women from my college days in the 80s and 90s who were products of second wave feminism, and I have both a certain admiration as well as distaste. I think women did a tremendous amount of 'work' on themselves and also between themselves to attain many of the gains they did. But in the end, I have to say, I don't like what it has all turned into. Believe it or not I do have a critical position of some aspects of feminism, but more than that I am very interested in the definition of masculinity.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby skipair » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:48 pm

Cool podcast. Spread the word.

I think the format and style of this discussion works well for those already familiar with the material, and for introducing the ideas to the world. Elizabeth is right though, that for the majority of people who are likely to disagree (almost everyone), this is a sucky way to actually drive the point home. I come from a seducer background and have talked to many male friends and collegues at length about letting go of their Disney Land conceptions about love and sex. What universally happens is resistance to the idea, until problems in their current relationship arrise. That is to say, it takes a real woman in front of a man to facilitate the reasoning required to break the love spell. Its just too abstract and wild of a thought to actually bring to life without seeing it happen before your own eyes.

And this is where I put a challenge out to the guys who question the Woman philosophy: 1) Get yourself a girlfriend. 2) Don't take her orders, and don't supplicate, EVER, and 3) watch what happens. The fabric of the universe will start to peal before your eyes, and you will begin to understand. [Warning: extreme courage necessary, relationship will get dramatic, sex will get very good, breakup is inevitable, world will change forever.]

Dear Elizabeth, love the energy... deeply transcendent.


David,

DQ wrote:Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the woman is being humiliated. She is behaving in the manner of a slave, serving her master, providing pleasure and getting soiled in the process. I've sometimes heard it said that a man knows that his girlfriend loves him when she is prepared to swallow his cum. There is probably a good deal of truth in this. To willingly participate in what would normally be thought of as an incredibly disgusting act - i.e. swallowing another person's body fluids - is probably a sign that the woman is no longer disgusted with the boyfriend himself, that she in fact likes him, all of him. She has come over to his side, as it were. She has joined his team. She is now devoted to him.

We all know how women crave to be constantly reminded of how much their boyfriends love them - through verbal I love you's, compliments, flowers, dinners, etc.


But also remember that unless the girl is sexually promiscuous, she is unlikely to agree to swallowing a man's semen unless she is sure that they are bonded together in an emotional relationship.

I agree with the cum swallowing/love comparison, but would also like to point out that the men who enjoy this are not the boyfriends who constantly validate their women with the list above. Women deeply hate these guys (boring!), though these boyfriends are a place holder for her need to feel safety. As far as verbal I love you's, she actually likes the emotional high from the mystery of not knowing more. Activating her imagination in similar ways allows her to project her perfect guy image onto the man in front of her, and can even feel like the luckiest girl in the world to suck the dick of a such a powerful and mysterious man. This is the mindset where her orgasms, cum sucking, and true love and passion is ignited...by the guy who is here one minute and gone the next. It is her emotionally bonding to him, but not also he to her that makes the cum drinking a pleasure. Interesting female psychology, imo.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby skipair » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:30 pm

Alex,

Alex Jacob wrote:In my relationships I am the one who calls the shots


You probably have some solid boundaries that will keep you safe from sever emotional/material damage. This is a good and necessary foundation. I'd also be willing to bet that upon further inspection, you might be surprised to find how few shots you actually call within the relationship. Men and women communicate on completely different levels, and given how much power women have over men, it is likely she is using her "secret" communication to guide you without you even being aware. She will never speak of this as its mostly unconscious anyway, but believe me, and woman knows the difference between the rare man who can speak her language and the majority of men who can't.

My suggestion to you is to watch how she possitively and negatively reinforces you, however subtle. Though it will be in her words, body language, and voice tone, the effects happen 100% in your own head, which you have control over. Notice how "she" alternates possitive and negative vibes in you, and notice how this affects your behavior...to put you where she wants you to be: jealous and supplicant, however subtle.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest