tyler zambori

As said elsewhere I also like the 3 part model, based on the dynamics in the stories of Hamlet, Don Juan and Faust making a distinction between both 'types' of Faust,

 

http://www.amazon.com/He-Understanding-Masculine-Psychology-Perennial/dp/0060963964

That book looks interesting ,as well as several others by that author. if I may ask, did you find it helpful?

@Nungali, I was just joking with you......and of course you can post your thoughts here if you like.

@rex, basic spiritual sanity, yeah.....but I think few of us get to have a relationship that encompasses

all levels of our beings....

Thank you

I'd like to open one, thanks,

You know, I wanted to avoid defending myself over this, and I've got something to say,

but I'm not sure I feel safe saying it even here. If I re-open my own PPF, do I get more

control over a personal self-defense?

Ps: Which moderator do I need to ask? It's been a while since I did it before.......

-

I wrote about a system of male archetypes using natal astrology in the what can mascul ... ? inism ? do for women thread (or whatever its called)

 

Maybe we could explore that more somewhere?

I'd be interested in that.

*****

 

And speaking of men who kill ... I still want to know for what reason and who killed Yascra's account. She was vocal on here , she was a voice of feminism, she spoke up quiet strongly, I can find no other posts or argument from her nor warnings from the mods .... yet she is dead ... according to the message from admin on her Profile Page.

 

Lets all just look the other way shall we ?

I just want to say, I also don't know the whole story, but I think she spoke quite well on the "Are men generally more conscious than women" thread. The bits at the end, which got the thread locked, were rather squirm-worthy, but before that her contribution was insightful and valuable.

 

I think the thing is in our culture everyone (almost) ... men and women ... is materialistic and a lot of people obsess over trivia. Luckily TBs type people have something more in their lives (hopefully). Also we are conditioned in various ways to antagonise each other. Race, religion, gender, nationality ... governments and so on have invested in accentuating the differences. They like to see us tear each other apart ... this way they can send us to war with each other with ease. Gender wars I think, are the product of each one of us being conditioned to not feel whole. If we felt whole then we would understand that all beings are a balance of yin/yang and that if we were fully integrated, complete and at ease with ourselves then no-one could manipulate us into hate. In terms of gender conflict our sexual energy is being used to mess us up. If we cultivate then the more balanced we become the less this is possible because we feel at ease with ourselves and others.

Apech, this is wonderful. I think it would be wonderful if a modified version of this was pinned at the top of the general discussion area, maybe something like:

Gender wars I think, are the product of each one of us being conditioned to not feel whole. If we felt whole then we would understand that all beings are a balance of yin/yang and that if we were fully integrated, complete and at ease with ourselves then no-one could manipulate us into hate. In terms of gender conflict our sexual energy is being used to mess us up. If we cultivate then the more balanced we become the less this is possible because we feel at ease with ourselves and others.

And then maybe add somethig like UTI's statement that:

Considering that harmony within requires harmony without, and harmony within is a balanced femininity and masculinity (taiji), both in temper and in physique. I think it could be said that this is the venture point for all endeavours -physical, spiritual, governmental and intellectual -within taoism.

So in the end it could look like this:

Gender wars I think, are the product of each one of us being conditioned to not feel whole. If we felt whole then we would understand that all beings are a balance of yin/yang and that if we were fully integrated, complete and at ease with ourselves then no-one could manipulate us into hate. In terms of gender conflict our sexual energy is being used to mess us up. If we cultivate then the more balanced we become the less this is possible because we feel at ease with ourselves and others. Considering that harmony within requires harmony without, and harmony within is a balanced femininity and masculinity (taiji), both in temper and in physique. I think it could be said that this is the venture point for all endeavours -physical, spiritual, governmental and intellectual -within taoism.

Bravo, both Apech and UTI! I think pinning something like that at the top of the general

discussion forum would go a long way to make TAO BUMS more inviting. Brilliant.

Apech, at the very least, may I quote you on that whenever a sexist statement crosses

my path?

I would really much rather be growing mold on soybeans than going into total debate mode,

which does take a lot of my time. No, really I actually do grow mold on soybeans - it's

Indonesian food.

My gut tells me these ad agencies are getting bored with men. Not only do men of today have only one source of income, but due to the almost idiotic legal systems in place all over Europe/USA/rest of the world, this source of income is often the subject of scrutiny by the courts (in the event of dispute), dissected, and parts have to be shared due to various reasons, some of which are actually not the men's doing. But it matters not. Judges don't want to hear anything in favour of the men, especially where there are kids involved. Is this an agreeable point? I would like to hear different views on this.

I guess you're talking about issues surrounding men providing financial support when a marriage is over?

I don't have kids, so I don't have any personal experience in this area. But yeah, the way the system favors women when it comes to custody may not be so fair. I think our society screws men over on both sides here, first by teaching them that the women are the ones for bringing up the children and therefore the women are the ones who get custody of the children too.

There is an example from my personal life I'll bring up. My s/o has a child out of wedlock with a previous girlfriend. He's grown up now. The pregnancy was not planned on his part. It is not known for sure if it was planned on her part, but his brother's wife told me that she had been trying to hold onto him. Great. So then there was a court battle over forcing financial support, and the mother won.

And then when he got to school age, the mother decided to home school him, but then she didn't really.

She got a teacher friend to be the one to "supervise," and the friend didn't "supervise." So the burden

of teaching fell to my s/o, who could only do what he could one evening a week. He's a smart kid, but he

doesn't even have a high school degree, won't even try to do it on his own, has never had a job.

He's supported by the family. So what is he going to do when his grandmother and mother are gone?

I tried to get my s/o to try to do something about it, when he was a teenager, but he was not willing to go

against the mother on this. So yeah, I think this is an area where men should be a little more equal,

because that situation did not help his son.

What I'm finding not very helpful in some areas of this thread, is the either or thinking. It's not like we can't both embrace feminism, as well as embrace empowering men. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Just because we are looking into what can help women be considered more equal, doesn't mean we can't also look at what we can do to have men be considered more equal. It isn't a competition. Bringing about more knowledge about some of the actions and thinking which make women inferior, shouldn't degrade men. Sort of like focusing on how being gay is OK (finally becoming acceptable in the USA), doesn't mean that we are trashing on heterosexual love.

BKA, are you speaking as a moderator?

And I think we men need to be conscious of, and keep in mind, how it IS of interest for us to work in favour of the gender-equality politics that goes under the name of feminism. We need to stop making silly excuses about how feminism is only for women, educate ourselves on the history of and need for gender enlightenment, and act for change.

 

It's a bit silly, really, to talk about on a forum about taoism. Considering that harmony within requires harmony without, and harmony within is a balanced femininity and masculinity (taiji), both in temper and in physique. I think it could be said that this is the venture point for all endeavours -physical, spiritual, governmental and intellectual -within taoism.

I wish the silly excuses about how feminism is only for women would stop too.

Yes, exactly, and the moderators should really put the emphasis on this idea:

Considering that harmony within requires harmony without, and harmony within is a balanced femininity and masculinity (taiji), both in temper and in physique.

Because all this yin v. yang stuff, the way it's being used, does not seem very Taoist to me either.

Thanks UTI, this is very interesting . We would all like to be free, indeed.

#5 is especially sad. I was thinking this myself - the young boys need more help than they get.

PS: When I say "these guys" I only mean the sub-pocket of men who have already shown

sexist attitudes.

When i read Aetherous's comment first time, it did not conjure up the idea in my head that he intended that remark as applicable to all women -- just pockets of them, which, btw, in modern times now, is the unfortunate truth.

 

Any intelligent person reading that same remark should probably see the same thing too, that is, that there are women (as well as men) who could do with living more consciously by not succumbing to materialistic distractions.

 

Aetherous made a clear statement - that generalized observations do not hold much water because there will always be exceptions to the rule.

 

It was a fair comment, and should be taken in context. Not advising anyone how to think or how to view things here, nor calling anyone out for being overly adamant without genuine grounds to be so.

 

Sometimes we need to reevaluate our views, and make necessary corrections when the time is appropriate, even if that means having to put one's pride aside.

I'm going to really break it down then.

1. Steve said that men are less conscious than women. He also said that women are more in tune with reality.

2. Aetherous then said that: If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes.

(meaning that in that case, then yes women are more in tune with reality if reality involves shopping for handbags).

3. Aetherous wanted to make a disclaimer that anything he says in this thread is all about disproving the statement that "men are less conscious than women".

4. He then said: The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things.

5. Brian said that reality does include expensive handbags, and all the ten thousand things (basically).

6. Aetherous said that “These girls” spend $450 for a handbag, and that he doesn't think that is an indicator of living a conscious life.

7. Apech included his statement that "If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes." in a list of offensive things said in that thread.

8. Aetherous claimed his statement was taken out of context, and that he was not insulting women. He said that his purpose was to give some proof that women are not more conscious of reality than men. He then said that he doesn't think it applies to all women, so there fore it could not be an insult to the women on this forum, because they are probably not that type.

Now on to post #407 in this thread:

9. The pertinent thing Aetherous said was: “ I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men".

So how does saying that only some women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags, disprove the statement that men are less conscious than women? I'm asking you, logically, how does that work out? It doesn't.

No, this only works as an argument if you want to make the claim that ALL women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags. And that is exactly what he did, in #2. He did not mention any sub-pockets of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. True he did not type the word “women,” because he was responding to Steven who did use the word “women,” meaning all women. So he didn't have to say “women” meaning all women, because Steve already had said “women.”

Now, #3 doesn't really jibe with #6, because #5 was not about proving the statement that "men are less conscious than women". It was about saying that shopping bags are indeed a part of reality.

#4 is nice and pretty.

#6 also does not mention any sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. It further reference “these girls.” Who are “these girls”? Women? Yeah.

The sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality, were not even mentioned at all, until his statement showed up on Apech's list. (Uh oh!)

But when Aetherous started getting mad at me, he went on to say that he stated a truth, which he used to disprove the idea that “men are less conscious than women, and that that women are more in tune with reality.”

So now is he saying that he does think all women are all about shopping for expensive handbags? Because if he's not, then it doesn't work as an argument. And he only mentioned the supposed sub-pocket of the population when faced with a higher-ranking male. Hmmm....

Nope, I think my conclusion was absolutely correct. Thank you for your input though.

Eh, it's probably always a mistake to really confront any of these guys with their sexism, because they are just not going to become conscious of it. And that's why I don't really agree with the idea that debate will help anything. What's really needed is a bathroom wall. I really wish there was one.

When a person just says "women," what does he or she mean? He or she means "all women."

Just to be clear, "these girls" also means "all women." You thought you found yourself a cute device that would let you say something sexist and get away with it, and now you're mad because it didn't work.

I thought you said you were done with me?

That's what you want to think...I don't weasel my way out of situations, or "walk it back" as you say. I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men". (which you agree with by the way. Why not focus on the fact that we agree?)

 

You accuse me of being "hateful", when actually I think it's the reverse. You are the one spreading hatred here, Tyler. I actually said something kind to you in particular, and said nothing bad about WOMEN...but that's not what you want to focus on, is it, Tyler?

 

I'm done here. If you address me again in an attempt to stir up shit (which is entirely what this was), you'll be met with silence.

Which truth? The truth that all women care about is shopping? Do you really think that is a nice thing to say? It isn't a nice thing to say. So yes you did say something bad about women. You said that all women about care is shopping and buying expensive things.

It's all fine as long as we don't get too real, I guess. And actually, you are the one who tried to engage me. So if you have nothing more to say, well, good.

And on that note, I hope here is something more positive:

http://thebaffler.com/past/feminism_for_men

(It's an old article from 1914)

Feminism for Men
Floyd Dell
[from The Baffler No. 24, 2014]


Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free.

At present the ordinary man has the choice between being a slave and a scoundrel. That’s about the way it stands.

For the ordinary man is prone to fall in love and marry and have children. Also the ordinary man frequently has a mother. He wants to see them all taken care of, since they are unable to take care of themselves. Only if he has them to think about, he is not free.

A free man is a man who is ready to throw up his job whenever he feels like it. Whether he is a bricklayer who wants to go out on a sympathetic strike, or a poet who wants to quit writing drivel for the magazines, if he doesn’t do what he wants to do, he is not free. . . .

And this will be true so long as women as a sex are dependent on men for support. It is too much to ask of a man to be brave, when his bravery means taking the food out of the mouth of a woman who cannot get food except from him. The bravest things will not be done in the world until women do not have to look to men for support.

Capitalism will not like that. Capitalism does not want free men.

The change is already under way. Irresistible economic forces are taking more and more women every year out of the economic shelter of the home into the great world, making them workers and earners along with men. And every conquest of theirs, from an education which will make them fit for the world of earning, to “equal pay for equal work,” is a setting free of men. The last achievement will be a social insurance for motherhood, which will enable them to have children without taking away a man’s freedom from him. Then a man will be able to tell his employer that “he and his job can go bark at one another,” without being a hero and a scoundrel at the same time.

Capitalism will not like that. Capitalism does not want free men. It wants men with wives and children who are dependent on them for support. Mothers’ pensions will be hard fought for before they are ever gained. And that is not the worst.

Men don’t want the freedom that women are thrusting upon them. They don’t want a chance to be brave. They want a chance to be generous. They want to give food and clothes and a little home with lace curtains to some woman.

Men want the sense of power more than they want the sense of freedom. They want the feeling that comes to them as providers for women more than they want the feeling that comes to them as free men. They want some one dependent on them more than they want a comrade. As long as they can be lords in a thirty-dollar flat, they are willing to be slaves in the great world outside. . . .

In short, they are afraid that they will cease to be sultans in little monogamic harems. But the world doesn’t want sultans. It wants men who can call their souls their own. And that is what feminism is going to do for men—give them back their souls, so that they can risk them fearlessly in the adventure of life. . . .

When you have got a woman in a box, and you pay rent on the box, her relationship to you insensibly changes character. It loses the fine excitement of democracy. It ceases to be companionship, for companionship is only possible in a democracy. It is no longer a sharing of life together—it is a breaking of life apart. Half a life—cooking, clothes, and children; half a life—business, politics, and baseball. It doesn’t make much difference which is the poorer half. Any half, when it comes to life, is very near to none at all.

First published in The Masses (July 1914).

Society (in its aberrant from) is designed to screw over the individual ... just like the church and state is.

 

Any group seeking liberation or fairness is going to be seen as a threat to those that sit on top of others... anything from women to Falun Gong.

 

Just curious here .... if the people (men and women) are straw dogs .... how does Taoism address sexual inequality, especially ifconsidering Taoist concepts of sex difference and straw dogs together ?

 

Now, in the art of screwing people over, one must focus on those specific differences and apply the screws in the most effect manner ( "but in different ways"), this applies to children as well ... also the elderly and sick.

I'm not sure I understand your question about sex difference and straw dogs? Could you explain more?

Aetherous said:

You misunderstood my post and took only one sentence out of the context of the post. Later on in that thread, I explained that sentence more to make it totally clear that it was not an insult to women. If you continue to assert that it was insulting, I'll be willing to copy and paste the links to those 2 posts here.

I did not insult you, Tyler, nor did I intend to at any time.

Of course you didn't insult me personally. Please go back and watch that video Zanshin posted, then read my further comments about it.

And yes, I still do think what you said was sexist ,and that you did intend it to be a hateful, sexist comment. So I'm going to call you on it.

Here's what you said:

Aetherous

 

Gender:Male

 

Posted 11 June 2014 - 06:30 PM

 

 

steve, on 11 Jun 2014 - 19:15, said:

 

I would say that, in general, men are less conscious than women - more prone to violence, more concerned with worldly success, less loving and nurturing, less intuitive. Certainly these are all ridiculous generalizations, just like the OP, but I find women to be more in tune with reality, as a rule of thumb. This is why we tend to see more men in spiritual pursuits - they need a lot more work, women come to it much more naturally.

 

If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes.

 

 

Also, my main point in making any post in this thread is to point out how ridiculous it is that it can be said without any issue, "men are less conscious than women"...but if you say the opposite, you're perceived as threatening or something. It's just that our society is ridiculous and made most people behave this way.

 

The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things.

You made a sexist comment, then you tried to walk it back. That is what is going on here - you are just trying to walk it back.

(Here's a disclaimer: I would also not say that men are less conscious than women).

Then you said:

Posted 12 June 2014 - 02:24 PM

 

 

Brian, on 12 Jun 2014 - 04:09, said: (in post #83)

 

Ummm...

 

But it does.

 

(meaning reality does include expensive handbags)

You know what handbags cost these girls, right? It's like $450 for one. If someone thinks such things are indicators of living a conscious life...well, I can't ever agree.

Huh. You just forgot to walk it back on that one. So what you are saying here is that women are all about shopping, and buying expensive shit, and therefore could not possibly be more conscious than men.

You would not say this if you didn't believe it. You do believe it, and you want to say it to us, and then walk it back to avoid the reaction.

Then you said:

 

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:56 PM

 

Apech said: Women interested in reality …"If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes."

 

 

This comment is taken out of context of the post. I was not insulting all women with that comment...the only purpose was to counter the claim that "women are more conscious of reality than men" made by Steve. It's like, "well here's some proof otherwise"...

 

It obviously does not apply to all women...but it undeniably applies to a portion. So basically, no, women are not more conscious of reality than men. On the other hand...we have quite a few women here who are interested in the more meaningful aspects of life. Who I would say are more conscious of reality than others.

 

So basically...not an insult. And please no one take it as one. Unless you primarily care about handbags being on sale this weekend. But then I'm sure you aren't even reading this.

So sometimes you want to apply it to all women, but when called on it, you only want to apply it to the "less conscious" women.

Tell you what, men can and do buy all kinds of expensive shit. They can go into a men's store and buy $200 ties, $500 alligator shoes and etc. There are men in my neighborhood who buy $25,000 trucks they don't need with $25,000 speaker ssytems, all the while living in cheap apartments.

If you really wanted to counter the claim that men are less conscious than women , you could have easily done it a lot better than that.

Face it, you made a hateful, sexist comment. You tried to backtrack and the others didn't, but you still did it.

Women do not want to have to put with a hateful, sexist environment on this forum. That is why there are so few. That is why so many leave, and YOU are a part of the problem.

-

I personally think it's just a common reaction of most people (men and women) to feel like women are being insulted in a discussion that involves women...when in fact, everyone here has been generally courteous. But if myself and others missed a woman being insulted here at this forum, please point it out so that we can end that kind of thing. No one should feel insulted by others here.

Aetherous, you yourself are one of the people who said something insulting to women. I just posted what it was.

That's why I posted the facepalm picture when you asked who did such a thing, and where.

Once there are more than say.... I don't know... 3 reports... maybe 5 reports.... but once it is up to 20 reports, then it has become where staff, who may not be on for a day or two to discuss it, spend more time on seeing the reported posts.

 

No. We don't take a look at EVERY Report Title... every thread... every post... every day.

 

If someone truly believes that, then they need to become staff and see what we we have to spend most of our time dealing with. 20 reports doesn't help though. That's the moral of the story.

 

It did not belong in General anyways... it was bound for somewhere else at some point... posting history is a good indication of where threads will go and end up.

 

I think what you did was the best option; start you own thread.

Yes, I agree, but I wasn't talking about reading report titles. I was talking about just reading the titles of new

threads.

Surely the thread title "are men generally more conscious than women" gives a clue that it's going to be

offensive to women in the forum. The question itself is offensive.

I know the mods have a lot of shit to deal with; I sure wouldn't want to do it.

I think the women on the forum would just like the mods to be a little more cognizant

of discrimination.

But what I'd really prefer is a "bathroom wall" where the offending posts can go, and leave

the original discussion intact.

Two people submitted 20 reports... That is unprecedented... If one looks at it from a staffing/resource level, it may seem an agenda to get something to the pit too.

No, it was an agenda to get the moderators to do something about it. Why didn't the moderators do something about it right away? The excuse seems to be that nobody reported anything during that whole week that thread was allowed to stay in the general discussion area, but hey you know what, don't the moderators at least take a look at the thread titles every day?

I'm pretty darn sure you all do.

The title of the thread gave its potential for trouble away immediately.

I don't wants thread to go to the pit, unless they are obvious trouble like that one.

But that wasn't even what I asked for. What I asked for was for the thread to be

locked immediately, and for an announcement to be made.

An announcement was made, but the thread locking happened eventually.