With some misgivings I ask this...

Shasha spoke of w.c. on the Carmelite thread, and it made me remember what a great help his writing here has been to me (and many others, no doubt). So, Phil, I fear I may be committing a faux pas, but I wondered if you might let him know I'm surely not the only one who misses his presence here.

And Phil, Derek, Jacques, HP and Stephen have been a big help to me, too. Between my dad who favored me but wasn't as honest as I would have hoped, my brother who attacked me, my high school boyfriend killed in a car accident, another loved male friend killed the same way, and a funny but dishonest boyfriend, I am, um, squirrelly about men more often than not. I mean to say that being able to see the candid writing of guys here has been a good thing for me.

Ariel, I'll pass your request along when I contact them.

HP was here a few days ago posting on "The real face of Jesus" thread. w.c. is taking a break from computers, tv, and tech stuff in general, though we still do talk on the phone together every couple of weeks. JB is holding forth at christiannonduality.com, which is his website. Lots of other guys have come and gone, or else duck in from time to time: Stephen, Jacques, Ryan, Derek, etc. Don't give up on 'em.

Thanks, Phil.

I'll have to check out JB's website. I didn't leave Fred off my list because I forgot him--I know he's got his new job. And I remember Brad was here not too long ago.

Good for w.c., IMO, for trying to watch less tv! I experimented with watching nothing but the news and PBS a few years ago, and then realized even that was a drag on me; so I haven't watched any tv for about two years, and it's been freeing. (I'm no longer sitting in front of the tv as an adult with my eyes squeezed shut and ears covered every time an ad for a horror movie comes on, and then kind of afraid to take a walk in the dark.)

I'm spending a lot of time with men this past month as I get my burned farm building restored, and I'm becoming friends with one who is a Christian and lives nearby. He's much younger than I am and divorced--it's "just" a friendship--and I know being able to see men as slightly less incomprehensible beasts from reading here has helped me.

Hi Ariel,

I really appreciate your forthrightness and sharing here. Its true there has been a preponderance of “feminine energy” on the board lately.

What you’ve shared is affirming a basic truth in human development: that we all need to have meaningful, warm connections with members of both sexes. I’m sorry to hear of the many misfortunes you’ve had in connecting with men, especially the abuse and the tragic, and probably traumatic, losses you’ve experienced. Glad to know there's a kind of repairing go on through your connection with SP.

With love,
Shasha

Well, sometimes women can seem incomprehensible, too.

It's been nice to have a few women frequenting the board lately. There was a time when it was mostly men, and sometimes our discussions were . . . "animated" . . . OK, even contentious. But men seem to be able to do that and not take it too personally. Lots of women can, too, of course, but it's seemed that women have tended to avoid the forum on religion and culture, and it'd be great to hear more from women on those issues.

Yes,I remember when it was mostly men.. I didn't know what they were talking about sometmes, but I put my two cents in anway. LOL

I do miss Ryan, Steven, Brad and others though including mystical michael. ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:

What you’ve shared is affirming a basic truth in human development: that we all need to have meaningful, warm connections with members of both sexes.

Thanks, Shasha, for that. I do like reading any posting from each of the women here. SP, for me, though, has been especially good as a sort of "translate this page" button to help me relate to men as fellow human beings.

quote:

I mean to say that being able to see the candid writing of guys here has been a good thing for me.

How candid should we be, Ariel? It sounds like you have had your share of guy trouble. And no doubt, some guys out there are real heals. On the other hand, we're living more and more in a female-centric world. The guys are expected to change to be more the way women are. And I'm not talking about the normal process of turning men from beasts to civilized human beings. This is an enculturation process without which we would all be the poorer. Women are a civilizing influence on men, in general. Societies with lots of young, unattached males are societies where you will find abundant violence and crime.

But the masculine features of men have been degraded of late. Christina Hoff Sommers has a wonderful book titled "The War Against Boys" and I hear ongoing accounts from my friends who have children in school. One of them said outright to me "They're trying to turn the girls into boys and the boys into girls."

This turn of events has vastly increased the expectations women have for men, and those expectations are often edging on the completely unreasonable. One of the people who speaks eloquently (if a bit harshly) on this is Dr. Laura Schelessinger. I think she has well illustrated how the denial of maleness has made a wreck of many relationships. If the onus is all on men to understand and accommodate women, and none of the reverse, that's a recipe for disaster. And it has produced some disasters.

Food for thought, from a conservative guy's perspective.

Well, Brad...Nice to see you here, and you're going to get a real answer from me.

Note that "beasts" from me is not derogatory.

I wouldn't call any of the men who have had the most influence on me--both positive and negative--heels, pigs, or jerks. As for my dad, well, he was simply ashamed of being Jewish and figured, I guess, that his kids would be better off unaware of his family. On the plus side, he's always been affectionate and fun. As for my older brother who physically assaulted me very hard and often--he finally came right out as an adult and said he felt I was always favored, so, though the level of his violence was such that it left me scared of male aggression, I can see where he was coming from.

Of my high school boyfriend who was killed in an accident I have no painful memories other than of his loss. And of the childhood male friend who was killed about thirteen years ago: he did one of the kindest, most healing things for me; and yes, it was a male thing to do...not romantic, just a little risky and goofy. I simply miss him and treasure his kindness.

Next I had a pastor who, though flawed, was another person who left me with a warmth I treasure still.

Hmm...I going to post this now while I think about how to ask a question (to anyone, man or woman) that came up due to romantic relationships. Fear not--it's not a scary question.

I just realized I didn't answer Brad's opening question.

So, Brad, maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of a time when I've been harmed by what I'm choosing to call candor. But now I need to define candor as I see it.

I connect the words clarity, transparency, and candor into one graphic image in my mind--looking into a clear but deep pool at an object on the bottom and in the center. Candor's Latin root means "shining, white, glowing" and I guess from those meanings I've come to idiosyncratically associate candor with being also somehow see-through or crystal clear.

So when I say I've found the male candor here to be a good thing, I'm picturing being able to look down through water to that object on the bottom of other people's pools, and know they can look down there too. And then I see how others choose to identify what they see at the center of the pool, and that second part--the interpretation-- is what makes all the difference. Are people just selfish consumers, with--at best--selfish genes driving them? About women, it's easy for me to answer "no"; I am one, and despite all the many obscuring layers that confuse even me, I can say without doubt that I am not just a selfish consumer--of attention, material things, pleasure.

But what about men?..posting this while think how to say what I can see here.

Well, I think what I want to say is that in the men who have posted here over the years, I can see them looking through their own murky waters, pond-scummy addictions, immaturity, and selfishness. The scumminess in men may superficially vary from what I can recognize as pond scum in myself and my female friends: for example, I doubt a desire to be physically aggressive or an addiction to pornography would find much room in me. But under their own brand of pond scum, the guys here have pretty unanimously chosen, it seems to me, to look down into the water at their own souls and see a longing for a real, multi-faceted, pleasurable/painful relationship with God.

So, being a woman, and being told by media and much of society that men are indeed simply driven by selfish genes, there's nothing like hearing straight from the male beast's mouth that they, at center, are made of the same stuff as the women I know. Now that's something I can relate to.

Hi, All, I have been checking the board from time to time, but when I've looked recently, the discussions have all been about kundalini. This is a subject I know so little about that my few contributions were exhausted a long time ago.

I'm starting to re-read Bernadette Robert's THE PATH TO NO-SELF and appreciating it more than before. Her distinction between neck-up and neck-down mysticism particularly intrigues me.

Hi Derek--I had wondered if you were still around. Your book reviews are good, so I was hoping more would be forthcoming.

Hey Brad and Derek, thanks for showing up, here. As you can read, you've been missed.

Hey there BradNelson, glad you dropped by. Long time no talk to.

I'm curious, what's the thrust of that book, War Against Boys? and I'm assuming you agree with Dr. Laura that there's an attack on maleness? Can you be more specific?

Derek, I, too, struggle with whether or not to repeat myself here at SP. So many have heard many of my stories and POVs, but then we keep adding interested parties...so do we keep saying the same things and bore those who've heard us already?

quote:

As for my older brother who physically assaulted me very hard and often--he finally came right out as an adult and said he felt I was always favored, so, though the level of his violence was such that it left me scared of male aggression, I can see where he was coming from.

Well, I know somewhat (if only a quarter as bad) what you mean, Ariel. I had an older brother (we're great friends now) who was always picking on me, verbally and physically. More than just the normal pecking-order stuff. It was constant. It's unknown whether he actually called me by my first name until I was at least 21. I had all kinds of derogatory "pet" names. Such is life.

Outside of traumatic stuff like you've undergone, I wonder how many couples are stressed and split apart because of "power" games and/or this culture's unwillingness to sometimes even admit that men are different from women. I'm not referring to you, Ariel, but it's something for all of us to keep in mind. That's what I was alluding to in my previous post. Let me expound on that.

I remember (either reading or listening...I think listening) to Dr. Laura's show one night (on the way back from somewhere...I hardly ever listen to her). She was recapping a marital issue that she had helped to solve. The issue was that a woman was complaining that, every night, her husband would come home and plop himself down in his chair in the rec room or den. And she (by her own admission, I believe...after having it dragged out of her by Laura) typically would pepper her husband with questions and demands as soon as he came in the door.

Well, Dr. Laura immediately saw the problem. What many women forget (and the reverse could apply as well) is that men are not at work all day sipping tea and pasting daisies into scrapbooks. It's often stressful work where they take there share of hard knocks. When they come home, they need some time to decompress. The last thing they need is someone IN THEIR OWN HOME just continuing the same kinds of demands. They need a refuge.

Well, what Dr. Laura told this wife to do was basically to shut up for the first half hour. Instead of nagging him, she should bring him a glass of milk and couple cookies and say something like, "Let me know if there's anything else you need." Well, when the lady did this, she didn't have to wait 30 minutes for the husband to decompress. His attitude changed far quicker than that and was amenable to talking with his wife about non-nagging stuff.

I thought that was a good story.

quote:

Are people just selfish consumers, with--at best--selfish genes driving them?

Yes, and no. As I typically say, genes are the scorekeepers. They are like the abacus of life. They are (quite literally) an encyclopedia of information in regards to living, of what works and what doesn't work. And these genes are not unimportant. But where some people get confused (and this is easy enough to do) is to say the purpose of it all is genes. But the genes are not the life force, the impetus, the energy. The universe is both material and immaterial, and it may even be earthly and transcendent.

But in regards to "selfishness," that's simply another word for "Wants to live," "Wants to have," "Wants to experience life to the fullest." And because we're not the only beings in existence, we have to adjudicate differences. The impulse is not bad. It's by no means selfish to want to live, to own, and to prosper, despite whatever anyone might be hearing from some circles. But we do have to respect that spark of life in others. That accommodation is never easy and morality is an ongoing struggle.

Regarding material pleasures (and this could be a long, boring essay but I'll try my best to keep it short), be careful of letting anyone talk you into feeling guilty about material possessions and pleasures. It's not an either-or between spiritual matters and material pleasures. Some of the most egregious human rights violations have come about by bands of people who collectively got together, denounced supposedly shallow material concerns, and said that all of society must, and should, have some deeper spiritual meaning. And then freedom quite literally goes down the toilet because people were not allowed to find their own spiritual meaning.

As I say, don't go crazy about it, but enjoy all those funny and creative little things that are the product of the creative talent of the human mind and industry. So many of these things (cameras, modern medicines, computers, automobiles) add to the spiritual dimension of life by opening up doors.

quote:

I'm curious, what's the thrust of that book, War Against Boys? and I'm assuming you agree with Dr. Laura that there's an attack on maleness? Can you be more specific?

Hi, Sasha. Nice to see you again. Yes, it's a great book, although I didn't read the whole thing. (I often do that with books once I get the "gist" of them.) And although the book is full of facts and real stories, it's one thing to read about something. It's another to hear this from my friends. And not just once, but all the time. In public schools in particular, there is an ongoing war against boys and maleness.

Here's chapter one of Christina Sommers' "The War Against Boys." (Unfortunately you need to register with the NY Times, but it's free.)

In short (and this is my analysis), there's been a fair amount of narcissism and victimhood in the feminist movement. Women (grown women) have apparently mistaken the normal pressures and hardships of life for "sexism" and all other kinds of "isms." It's one thing to counter real sexism where it exists. It's another to butt up against a reality that won't hand one everything on a silver platter and then to blame it on a "male-dominated society" as has been done.

Especially instructive, destructive, (and Orwellian) is the whole issue of Ritalin being given to supposedly misbehaving boys. Yes, there really are some boys out there who are far very very rambunctious. But that wasn't what was going on. What was going on was that the traits of the male (normal rambunctiousness) was seen as something to be cured. In essence, boys were being compared to the ideal of girls and found lacking. Talk about sexist, but such is our crazy politically correct society right now.

That's a good story, Brad, about the woman giving her husband milk and cookies (or beer and chips ) and time to unwind a bit. Lots of men are more introverted than their wives, and they're thinking types, too, while their wives are feeling types. So the women want to talk and the men need some time to unwind and "just be" awhile before they're ready to talk, and even then, they might not share as much on a feeling level as the woman would hope (this is a skill that can be learned, however, with many good consequences).

All that said, I've found it very difficult to generalize about male and female personalities. Women, it seems, are more relational, in general, and men more "logical." That said, men are relational in discussing logical issues, and there's a certain logic to the relational concerns and patterns women are attuned to. Far better to just be oneself and to relate to others as unique individuals.

- - -

Ariel, as Brad has been so forthcoming, I'm wondering if you'd share what you perceive to be some of the perplexities of men?

Okay, Phil...just as soon as I can cut some eye holes and a breathing hole in a paper bag before I slip it over my head in embarrassment.

Brad, good food for thought (and are you sure it was milk and cookies?-- a beer and chips does seem more likely. )

Uh...umm...I have to head out to hay the horses and feed the barn cats.

Umm...with the assurance that this is not a pounce on maleness, and in my particular story (which I won't tell in detail here) I myself was guilty of callous disregard of another woman, here goes a brief description of one of my perplexities.

To be blunt: The pastor I spoke of before--flawed but a good man nevertheless, and married to a very pretty and sweet woman, fell in love with one of my closest friends (uncommonly good-looking and also married). Though nothing happened, he left the church and left the area. In spite of his struggles, he was a good influence on me. As for me, when I was younger, two men, both married to lovely women, offered to have an affair with me. I am sure I did not provoke that, and I was disheartened by it since it I took it as evidence of what some men might be like: these were nice guys, but if they were contemplating unfaithfulness to their wives, I'd have to be idiotic to think they'd act differently with me. Eventually I met someone who I really fell in love with. And, you guessed it, I found out after friendship then dating that he had was entangled in a undeniably unhealthy relationship in another part of the state, from long before we met, though twice he asked me to marry him.

I'm going to spare myself and others the details of my former personal mess, but basically--I can't relate to male unfaithfulness itself. And were it not for the fact that I can see, in part, that longings that I can relate to, could drive that--and even be good longings underneath it all--I'd just be plain wary and scared of men and stick with relationships with women and animals.

I have a question for people here, coming up.

So here's the question, for anyone--

I can see that during times in the history of the human race, polygamy might have a practical purpose---men get killed in war, for example, leaving an unbalanced number of unmarried women, perhaps, left without the possibility of having children. But relationship-wise, I doubt any man has the emotional resources to give more than one woman what they long for. Polygamy stinks for women, and, I think, for men, too.

Phil, I think I said somewhere before that faith does not come easily to me. So I see in the media what seems like weekly revelations of infidelity on the part of politicians and celebrities, and I've had my own experience of being "the other woman" (complete with a Jerry Springer-like assault from the first woman which to a degree I deserved). Sometimes I'm tempted to buy the idea that God has played little part in the development of the human race. Certainly some parts of the scientific community promote the idea that as a species concerned with passing on our genes, the human male was never meant to be monogamous, whereas by some "mistake", women are.

Sure, I know women can be unfaithful, and I know my own limited experiences have warped my perspective. But still I wonder why it seems men are unfaithful so much more often than women.

Testosterone
- see http://www.mayoclinic.com/heal...rone-therapy/AN01390 for evidence that when women undergo testosterone therapy, they experience an increase in sex drive. Men always have this hormone circulating.
- Also, http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../11/041123115913.htm

Men in unhappy marriages also tend toward extramarital affairs.

But testosterone can go a long way to explaining some of the differences in how men and women regard each other.

Hi Ariel,

You are so funny! I've used the very same Jerry Springer comment to relay about one of my darkest hours! Sad but true that sexual unfaithfulness is about the oldest story in the book. We are, at some level, still "Neanderthal" creatures. I don't think women's monogomous inclinations are a mistake. I suspect that women are hard-wired to secure/ possess a providing, protective and faithful male to help raise her babies. Without that help, she and her babies would be doomed.

Phil,

Psychologists have known for a long time that testosterone is behind some of the basic, hard-wired differences between men and women. Stronger sexual drives being the most obvious. As you note, t. leads to stronger sex drives. Hence, there is more room for brokenness in that area such as sexual perversions, addictions, and promiscuity.

It's interesting that even in the womb, the circulating of t. in boys leads to different brain development, suppression of left-hemisphere development and greater right. This t.-determined difference accounts for the male superiority of visual-spatial reasoning. This is why women are better at verbal IQ. Blame it on our anatomy. (Unless the research here shown something different since my studies nearly two decades ago!)

Well, there's so much going on and I'd like to contribute more, but gotta get ready for a train ride to Chicago with my son.

love to all,
Shasha

Thanks, Phil and Shasha. The Science Daily website looks full of interesting articles.

While I'm not on a train going anywhere (God's traveling mercies to you, Shasha), today is a rare day of refreshingly low humidity and I'm heading out to buy diesel to cut grass. I have to try not to sing "America the Beautiful" loud enough for my neighbors to hear over the mower.

I'd like to say more when I'm more settled about being inside.

Shasha, your post points out very well how much our biochemistry influences who we are. Testosterone is probably the culprit behind a lot stereotypical male behaviors, while ocytocin surely influences nurturing behavior in women. Then there's estrogen and progesterone. . . .

Here are a few more links on biological and behavior in men and women:
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../11/041123115913.htm

- http://www.narth.com/docs/york.html

- http://www.ehow.com/facts_5984...ones-men-women_.html

All that acknowledged, and as noted above, I'm still first and foremost cued in to the human-ness of men and women. Our common struggles are much more alike than different, and in spirituality the issues are pretty much the same.

Hey Brad,

I didn't mean to overlook your reply to me above, but in my rush (something I'm vowing to cure in my life) to get out of town on time (!), I did overlook your post.

When I get settled back, I'd like to look at that chapter. In general though, I do see and agree with your points about quick ADD and ADHD diagnoses are overused while more compassionate and complex understanding of boys behavior is sorely lacking.

On the feminist front, I agree too that there is an oversimplification of these issues. Some feminists discharge in ways that seem more in service of hostility and defensive envy of males than a thoughtful way to integrate complex dynamics. That's not so say the feminist movement, in general, hasn't made an important and needed impact on society, which it certainly has.

And about the milk and cookies husband, I see these kinds of problems as more related to the broader problem of lack of empathy and an interest to know what the other's perspective is. This is hard to do for us human creatures who spend most of our energies reeling from our own unmet needs. Women tend to be better at empathy but still broken in terms of how to get our needs met.