cross-cultural relationships

[Pietro]

I wish I had the time to make a more prominent contribution to this thread. But I (predictibly for those that know me) stand next to Vortex in everything he has written so far.

 

In particular,

Well, yea by THAT definition...a girl who gets hit on by some geek in high school got unwanted sexual attention...and thus was "sexually assaulted."

is so precise!

 

I also want to thank arnquist for this:

"I'm offended" therefore I'm right and you're wrong.

 

It truly made me realise how sick is this way of dealing with discussion. Who gives a fuck if you or I am offended. If what I claim about you is true, than you have offended yourself with your behaviour, and if what you say about me is true, than I have offended myself.

 

I'm still not sure how we went from cross-cultural issues to sexual abuse.

energy goes where the blockage is. We went there because we have work to do there to bring on a smoothness in our pov. Once that is done, cross cultural issues become much easier. Until then you will have a split position also in cross cultural issues

Edited October 12, 2007 by Pietro

[VeeCee]

I wish I had the time to make a more prominent contribution to this thread. But I (predictibly for those that know me) stand next to Vortex in everything he has written so far.

 

Pietro, I am not surprised that you stand by Vortex. However, I stand by my question of what does any of this have to do with cross-cultural issues?

 

V.

[Pietro]

Pietro, I am not surprised that you stand by Vortex. However, I stand by my question of what does any of this have to do with cross-cultural issues?

 

V.

Hi, sorry, I though I answered that. You can't really discuss cross cultural issues unless you have solved this problem first. Our opinions on this are too polarised. Or you could have the girls and cameron giving one answer, and the boys giving another. Which I suppose is fine. But then we can as well have two different threads.

[gendao]

Xenolith - WOW. Mommy Dearest, eh?

Vortex - I did not say your stats were concocted. You said that most stats used by "feminists" are concocted!

 

So how 'bout we drop the sexual abuse issue and start talking about cross-cultural issues.

YES, THEY ARE.

 

Again, read here for more examples:

Gloria Steinem informed her readers that "in this country alone...about 150,000 females die of anorexia each year."

 

"According to [the] last March of Dimes report, domestic violence (vs. pregnant women) is now responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined."

 

In January 1993 newspaper and television networks reported an alarming statistic. They stated that the incidence of domestic violence tended to rise by 40 percent on Super Bowl Sunday.

ALL FALSE - yet widely-reported by major media outlets as FACTS!

 

Or, Hillary's recent feminist claim that women "earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn."

 

This outdated claim has already been disproven so many times because it generally compared apples to oranges.

Some studies, for example, have suggested that secretaries and truck drivers are "comparable" jobs. Both involve long periods of sitting, similar amounts of training, and repetitive tasks. Therefore, it is argued, the pay of secretaries (a female-dominated occupation) should be equal to the pay of truck drivers (a male-dominated occupation).

And according to former NOW member, Warren Farrell, nowadays:

In 39 of the occupations Farrell found, women's median earnings exceeded men's earnings by at least 5 percent and in some cases by as much as 43 percent.

So, while it's nearly impossible to make a wholly-accurate comparison...the latest data suggests that women get paid anywhere from 12% less to 43% more than men for "comparable work." A pretty wide range that actually averages out more on the "paid more" side now.

 

But you see the overall pattern here? When you really start examining all the feminist stats, you DO find out that they were generally all trumped-up and padded in a very disingenuous manner. It's basically just a cheap & dirty smear campaign against men. I think in another 50 years, this will become clear to most. But, when people are in the forest, they can't see it. Or do and are simply afraid to tell the Emperor he's butt-naked. It's the same as under any other mass ideology like Nazism, Communism, Stalinism, etc etc. and why people so willingly went along with them at the time.

"At the kunlun seminar, women were naturals since it's a Yin art. "

 

??? say that again please is kick-boxing a yang art then? what is this? if i am a woman i should not work with my yang?, or do you mean since we ascend shen and ground it's yin art?.

I believe Max said it was a "Yin art" because the energy was primarily coming down like water (instead of up like fire). And also, it relies a lot upon feeling (vs just thinking)...which women tend to be better at. Although, you're better off asking Chris on the specifics here... Or taking it up with Max directly if you so disagree.

 

But end result is, more of the women were able to tune in faster at the workshop than men. And this is typical. Maybe you feel this is a bad thing since it does show that men and women tend to have different natural aptitudes...but I don't. If I were a woman, I'd simply be happy if I had such a natural advantage!

 

This is not to say only women can do it - just that they generally have a natural advantage in it. Same with men in kickboxing. But, it's only a broad generalization. Look at who may have had the strongest reaction of all - Cameron!

Edited October 12, 2007 by vortex

[rain]

 

Cam you'r the man, definitely. (i'll be there when he offers satsang).

Edited October 12, 2007 by rain

[nightwatchdog]

I am a male survivor of childhood molestation. I have to chime in here; the issue of sexual abuse is NOT a male vs. female, yin/yang nature discussion. It is a discussion about predators, people, male or female, who prey upon individuals they percieve as weak or helpless in order to gratify themselves. That's all.

 

This is not an issue that will ever be resolved by continuing the gender bias paradigm. It is true in our society that men are encouraged to behave in predatory ways more often than women, but that is changing. Rates of violent crimes are on the rise among women in the U.S., while they have remained relatively stable among the male populace. The root of this evil is involved more in the way people think, not the bits they were born with.

[Cameron]

Max says the energy is not just like water but a downward swimming water snake.

 

Kunlun energy is a cool energy and magnetic. It is different than Kundalini. The way Chris described the snake head as being the tailbone and the tail up the body was very helpful. And also I think will help me chill a little.

 

 

 

Also..my initial strong reaction was due atleast partily to opening up strongly to Red Phonix without opening up as strongly to Kunlin. I would say you want the Kunlun practice well devleoped before opening up to Red Phoenix.

 

I cant' say I regret learning it at this point. Because as Mas has told me it is the combintation of both Kunlun Level 1 and Red Phoenix that is very good.

 

In any case..I am happy to be the Kunlun ginny pig and hope people in SF get whatever they are looking for.

[Cameron]

I am a male survivor of childhood molestation. I have to chime in here; the issue of sexual abuse is NOT a male vs. female, yin/yang nature discussion. It is a discussion about predators, people, male or female, who prey upon individuals they percieve as weak or helpless in order to gratify themselves. That's all.

 

This is not an issue that will ever be resolved by continuing the gender bias paradigm. It is true in our society that men are encouraged to behave in predatory ways more often than women, but that is changing. Rates of violent crimes are on the rise among women in the U.S., while they have remained relatively stable among the male populace. The root of this evil is involved more in the way people think, not the bits they were born with.

 

 

Yes. This is another example of people getting stuck in male/felmale paradigm. There was a great movie out few years ago of a young black boy who wa smolested by his family but grew up and overcame it. Ahhh..what was that called?

[VeeCee]

I am a male survivor of childhood molestation. I have to chime in here; the issue of sexual abuse is NOT a male vs. female, yin/yang nature discussion. It is a discussion about predators, people, male or female, who prey upon individuals they percieve as weak or helpless in order to gratify themselves. That's all.

 

This is not an issue that will ever be resolved by continuing the gender bias paradigm. It is true in our society that men are encouraged to behave in predatory ways more often than women, but that is changing. Rates of violent crimes are on the rise among women in the U.S., while they have remained relatively stable among the male populace. The root of this evil is involved more in the way people think, not the bits they were born with.

 

Agreed.

[LDiR]

In response to vortex:

 

While those statistics are incorrect, your tone suggests that you think instances of abuse/rape are extremely low in the population. Hopefully I'm misinterpreting, because even at 10% of women, taking a 250 million population, dividing it in half to 125 million, and taking 10%, that's still 12.5 million women, 12.5 million individuals who, and this I think is the key for me, FEEL abused, feel victimized, feel like they've been treated like an object.

 

Now my understanding of Taoism has always been that it's 'individual focused' meaning every individual is important. If this is so then I think vortex is forgetting about 12.5 million individuals (low-ball numbers too) who are being made to feel as if they are the least important people on the planet.

 

If it wasn't your intent to come across that way, then I advise you try to work on warmth next time and focus less on something that makes you angry. The biggest lesson I've learned in the last three years is to focus on the individuals rather than the politics of a given situation.

 

-LDiR

[gendao]

^ Of course, I feel bad for any woman (or man) who has truly been victimized. And whether it's 1% or 50% of the population - such problems need to be fixed.

 

But what I am angry at is the gross hyperinflation of these numbers by unscrupulous feminists waging a smear campaign against men. I mean, if they had used some real numbers, I'd have no problem with it. Let's put blame where blame is due. But they consistently use ridiculously broad definitions and pad their stats in order to create a mass hysteria and baseline contempt against men. And secure more funding. Simply put - the bigger the threat - the more money they get. So, man-bashing has become highly-profitable.

I was determined to try to break the chain of violence. But as the local newspaper picked up the story of our house, I grew worried about a very different threat.

 

I knew that the radical feminist movement was running out of national support because more sensible women had shunned their anti-male, anti-family agenda. Not only were they looking for a cause, they also wanted money.

 

In 1974, the women living in my refuge organised a meeting in our local church hall to encourage other groups to open refuges across the country.

 

We were astonished and frightened that many of the radical lesbian and feminist activists that I had seen in the collectives attended. They began to vote themselves into a national movement across the country.

 

After a stormy argument, I left the hall with my abused mothers - and what I had most feared happened.

 

In a matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence movement, not just in Britain, but internationally.

 

Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence," they declared.

 

They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees.

 

With the first donation we received in 1972, we employed a male playgroup leader because we felt our children needed the experience of good, gentle men. We devised a treatment programme for women who recognised that they, too, were violent and dysfunctional. And we concentrated on children hurt by violence and sexual abuse.

 

Yet the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organisations were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could also be victims.

 

I was picketed by hundreds of women from feminist refuges, holding placards which read: "All men are bastards" and "All men are rapists".

 

I became aware of a far more insidious development in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating a poisonous attitude towards men.

 

in a social policy paper called The Family Way.

 

It said: "It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."

 

It was a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.

 

For nearly four decades, these pernicious attitudes towards family life, fathers and boys have permeated the thinking of our society to such an extent that male teachers and carers are now afraid to touch or cuddle children.

 

Men can be accused of violence towards their partners and sexual abuse without evidence. Courts discriminate against fathers and refuse to allow them access to their children on the whims of vicious partners.

 

the feminist movement envisaged a new Utopia that depended upon destroying family life. In the new century, so their credo ran, the family unit will consist of only women and their children. Fathers are dispensable. And all that was yoked - unforgivably - to the debate about domestic violence.

 

To my mind, it has never been a gender issue - those exposed to violence in early childhood often grow up to repeat what they have learned, regardless of whether they are girls or boys.

 

I believe that vision was hijacked by vengeful women who have ghetto-ised the refuge movement and used it to persecute men. - Erin Pizzey, author of the first book in the world on domestic violence in 1974 - Scream Quietly Or The Neighbours Will Hear

I mean, you can tell alot about a country by its popular music. And having travelled a bit, American music is generally very angry, raging, macho, jaded, cynical, sad & tortured by comparison. Which I think reflects the inner nature of people here...and one that is not exactly happy or healthy. Any simply happy or romantic song would get laughed at as cheesy here. Even Max says that when he looks around, people are all sad inside. Which you have to wonder why when we have one of the highest standards of living in the world! But one reason is because people are selling fear and anger in this country. Now, I have no problem with rational fear and justifiable anger...but these are irrational fears and unjustifiable anger pimped solely for power & profit.

 

If any of your power is derived from negative falsehoods...sorry, but you need to unplug from that and find it from somewhere else more positive.

 

Point is, this country has a lot of suppressed issues, and purposeful misrepresentation of facts is only making them worse. So, let's just all stick to the facts and start from there.

Edited October 13, 2007 by vortex

[thelerner]

Vortex, I see the book you're quoting from is from 1974. There was a rise in radical feminism then, I think the pendulum has swung back quite a bit. To me it sounds like you're fighting a war thats largely over. The pendulum swings. Forces and counter forces come into existence.

 

To me isolation and indifference are this decades main enemy. I thought the battle of the sexes was over, and that those who found a good partner to have sex with Won.

 

 

 

Michael

[gendao]

Vortex, I see the book you're quoting from is from 1974. There was a rise in radical feminism then, I think the pendulum has swung back quite a bit. To me it sounds like you're fighting a war thats largely over. The pendulum swings. Forces and counter forces come into existence.

No, this author wrote a book on domestic violence in 1974.

 

But, this article is one she wrote back in January of this year talking about how those efforts had quickly gotten hijacked by feminists for their own agenda.

 

Wow, I can't remember the last time I've been so repeatedly misunderstood!

Edited October 13, 2007 by vortex