Misogyny

[Mandy]

@Serenity😆 I genuinely adore Rick Astley and 80's music, so I do! 🙂

[Serenity]

1 minute ago, Mandy said:

@Serenity😆 I genuinely adore Rick Astley and 80's music, so I do! 🙂

🙌

I got a thing for Careless Whisper.

 

It's sooooo good.

 

 

[Loop]

2 hours ago, Serenity said:

I'm gonna look into it.  Maybe I should start a practice.

Go for it! It is pretty simple once you get a feeling sense for how to move with the earth, essentially make every move you make a falling into the earth. Raising your hands above your head and make gentle spinal waves to aline each joint, finger tips to toes is a great warm up exercise to line up your structure first. 
 

Try to raise your hands by sinking into yourself & into the earth. 
Every movement from the core, feeling the earth. 
Feeling the Whole Body. 
 

When following along with someone else, aim more for the movement being as effortless as possible than being exactly what they are doing. 
 

You could essentially start to create your own movement from there, which is honestly more of what actual Tai Chi is about, the connection You make with yourself and the earth are what matters most. 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Loop

[Jonas Long]

On 11/22/2022 at 4:18 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

But then there's also the reverse, women who seem to have a problem with men.  It goes both ways!  I've seen it go both ways.  Men are blamed for all the world's problems but it's a projection because the woman is acting like a man herself and secretly wants to be the kind of man she is criticizing.  It's a way to dominate men as a female who wants to be top dog herself.  If you argue with a woman like this as a man, I feel totally sorry for you because she's got something deep to prove and you may not even realize that.  You can sniff it out if you pay attention.  The attitude is there.  You might even witness a pattern of her trashing men, i.e., calling grown men "the boys" to denigrate them.  I knew a female lawyer who as a partner herself but not as high ranking calling the senior male partners in the firm "the boys" which is kind of messed up.  She scoffed at them openly around the entire office like they were little kids.  She was a feminist but masculine and dominating as hell herself.  These were the managing partners of the firm she was putting down!  These were not boys, these were the most powerful very masculine men in the office.  You could feel that hatred of and envy of the power that these men had with their huge offices and even huger egos.  That said, it's true that lots of men treat women like they're lesser than men which is unfair and should not be tolerated by women or men.  Everybody should be permitted to decide for themselves how much of the feminine or masculine they want to integrate regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I don't think you really appreciate the degree to which we are submerged in a male dominated world.  Misogyny is the smog we all breathe.  "It goes both ways" is like when white people talk about "reverse racism", the systematic issues cut one way and one way only.  Look at yourself, I've only ever seen you reference male philosophers, you very often use the term "man" often pretentiously capitalized "Man" to refer to human beings as a whole, the way you interact with males here on this forum is noticeably different from how you interact with females, you are obsessed with all these models of thinking that were invented by men, etc.  The bias runs much more deep than you have examined, is my guess anyway.

[Jonas Long]

I've experimented with using a female name on youtube, and leaving the exact same comments as I would under another account with a male name, I constantly got accused of being "too emotional" "irrational" and various adjectives to that effect, which I NEVER got accused of being as a "male".  It's quite stunning really.

[Serenity]

@Lester Retsel

 

100%

 

The experience is really unappealing.  Condescendence, mansplaining, contempt, projection, objectification, all sort of life trap set up for you to be allocated as a ressource for diverse purposes...  😳🤮

 

If you state stuff for what they are, here you go, becoming a feminazi with hundreds of people flocking at you with pitchforks . Patriarchy is a big collective ego spreading its agents to put you back where they think you belong if you do not conform. And it's frankly to be found in the mind of quasi everyone you meet...

Plus your own self.

 

 

[Serenity]

18 hours ago, Loop said:

Go for it! It is pretty simple once you get a feeling sense for how to move with the earth, essentially make every move you make a falling into the earth. Raising your hands above your head and make gentle spinal waves to aline each joint, finger tips to toes is a great warm up exercise to line up your structure first. 
 

Try to raise your hands by sinking into yourself & into the earth. 
Every movement from the core, feeling the earth. 
Feeling the Whole Body. 
 

When following along with someone else, aim more for the movement being as effortless as possible than being exactly what they are doing. 
 

You could essentially start to create your own movement from there, which is honestly more of what actual Tai Chi is about, the connection You make with yourself and the earth are what matters most. 

 

I am looking for a way to be more connected with the earth. Just found out my root chakra is in a terrible state and has been at the root of a lot of my issues (no pun intended 😄)

 

Will do some now on my own. Do you recommend learning in a center, or maybe more alone, like in a park?

[Joseph Maynor]

5 hours ago, Lester Retsel said:

I don't think you really appreciate the degree to which we are submerged in a male dominated world.  Misogyny is the smog we all breathe.  "It goes both ways" is like when white people talk about "reverse racism", the systematic issues cut one way and one way only.  Look at yourself, I've only ever seen you reference male philosophers, you very often use the term "man" often pretentiously capitalized "Man" to refer to human beings as a whole, the way you interact with males here on this forum is noticeably different from how you interact with females, you are obsessed with all these models of thinking that were invented by men, etc.  The bias runs much more deep than you have examined, is my guess anyway.

I think you raise a legitimate issue regarding structural preference of the masculine over the feminine in the collective human intellectual ego.  I use Man because that's what Spinoza uses in his God vs. Man duality.  I'm a student of Spinoza, but I'm trying to use human more lately because I'm more conscious of how this can be seen as a kind of unintended obnoxiousness.  Derrida thought the masculine has a foothold on the human collective intellectual ego in his idea of Logocentrism. Logos is the masculine principle which means order and control. So, take the following dualities and notice how the first (the masculine) is privileged over the second (the feminine): Mind vs. body, serious vs. playful, God vs. human (or Man), adult vs. child, Logic vs. feelings, straight vs. gay, sane vs. insane, truth vs. pragmatism, truth vs. aesthetics, calm vs. volatile, fearless vs. fearful, army of one vs. the team player, science vs. art, rational vs. irrational, housed vs. homeless person, control vs. surrender, beauty vs. ugliness, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, meaning vs. nonsense, order (cosmos/logos) vs. chaos, principled vs. intuitive, idealism vs. acceptance, one size fits all vs. unique snowflakes, closed-minded vs. open-minded, selfish vs. social, philosophy vs. mysticism, static vs. change/cyclical, knowledge vs. opinion, objective vs. subjective, being right vs. being good, the individual vs. the collective, nailing things down vs. keeping things flexible, strength vs. weakness, intellect vs consciousness, extension vs. being in the world, big vs. small, ego vs. no ego, masculine vs. feminine, etc. Notice that the first of these is always privileged over the second.

 

So Derrida is following Jung but applying a kind of shadow work to the intellect (the masculine) whereas Jung was applying shadow work to the body or being (the feminine). What Derrida thought is that yes, as humans, we tend to privilege the masculine side when we consider oppositions or dualities. That's a structural problem for Derrida he called logos-centrism or masculine-centrism. What he was trying to do is expand the intellect of humans to take the feminine poles of duality out of the shadow so they can be allowed to be here. So Derrida makes an argument that the human collective intellectual ego naturally or by default does privilege the masculine over the feminine.

 

But remember, the masculine is not men and the feminine is not women. There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men! So females who are feminists who are very masculine aren't really advocating for the feminine. That's the feminine being channeled through the masculine. So just because you're a woman doesn't mean you're taking the feminine out of the shadow as a feminist. You could be playing the same game as the masculine but as a female. So, we shouldn't confuse gender for the masculine and the feminine. Derrida doesn't really use masculine and feminine, that's my interpretation of Yin vs. Yang metaphysics being superimposed on his thought. But if you look at his concept of logocentrism and how one side of dualities is usually privileged over the other, it's almost always the masculine side being privileged over the feminine side.

 

So, in conclusion, there's an argument the collective intellectual ego of humans structurally privileges the masculine side of dualities or oppositions over the feminine side.

This is a good introductory video but it doesn't really go into everything I would want it to.

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Loop]

@Serenity

 

I’d say both, I mostly learned from books and videos first, then it seems Flow brought a teacher for free. He just wants to be friends with me, it is quite nice trusting Feeling, these things just fall into place. It was a real ‘When the student is ready, the teacher appears’ moment that seemed to come out of nowhere. 

It is also nice if you have a place at your home with a bit of space, a more advanced version would be doing it with an object, I usually use a practice sword, then you surrender to and join with the object, as well as the earth. A great exercise for learning to interact with objects.

 

[yeah right]

On 11/25/2022 at 2:46 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

I think you raise a legitimate issue regarding structural preference of the masculine over the feminine in the collective human intellectual ego.  I use Man because that's what Spinoza uses in his God vs. Man duality.  I'm a student of Spinoza, but I'm trying to use human more lately because I'm more conscious of how this can be seen as a kind of unintended obnoxiousness.  Derrida thought the masculine has a foothold on the human collective intellectual ego in his idea of Logocentrism. Logos is the masculine principle which means order and control. So, take the following dualities and notice how the first (the masculine) is privileged over the second (the feminine): Mind vs. body, serious vs. playful, God vs. human (or Man), adult vs. child, Logic vs. feelings, straight vs. gay, sane vs. insane, truth vs. pragmatism, truth vs. aesthetics, calm vs. volatile, fearless vs. fearful, army of one vs. the team player, science vs. art, rational vs. irrational, housed vs. homeless person, control vs. surrender, beauty vs. ugliness, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, meaning vs. nonsense, order (cosmos/logos) vs. chaos, principled vs. intuitive, idealism vs. acceptance, one size fits all vs. unique snowflakes, closed-minded vs. open-minded, selfish vs. social, philosophy vs. mysticism, static vs. change/cyclical, knowledge vs. opinion, objective vs. subjective, being right vs. being good, the individual vs. the collective, nailing things down vs. keeping things flexible, strength vs. weakness, intellect vs consciousness, extension vs. being in the world, big vs. small, ego vs. no ego, masculine vs. feminine, etc. Notice that the first of these is always privileged over the second.

 

So Derrida is following Jung but applying a kind of shadow work to the intellect (the masculine) whereas Jung was applying shadow work to the body or being (the feminine). What Derrida thought is that yes, as humans, we tend to privilege the masculine side when we consider oppositions or dualities. That's a structural problem for Derrida he called logos-centrism or masculine-centrism. What he was trying to do is expand the intellect of humans to take the feminine poles of duality out of the shadow so they can be allowed to be here. So Derrida makes an argument that the human collective intellectual ego naturally or by default does privilege the masculine over the feminine.

 

But remember, the masculine is not men and the feminine is not women. There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men! So females who are feminists who are very masculine aren't really advocating for the feminine. That's the feminine being channeled through the masculine. So just because you're a woman doesn't mean you're taking the feminine out of the shadow as a feminist. You could be playing the same game as the masculine but as a female. So, we shouldn't confuse gender for the masculine and the feminine. Derrida doesn't really use masculine and feminine, that's my interpretation of Yin vs. Yang metaphysics being superimposed on his thought. But if you look at his concept of logocentrism and how one side of dualities is usually privileged over the other, it's almost always the masculine side being privileged over the feminine side.

 

So, in conclusion, there's an argument the collective intellectual ego of humans structurally privileges the masculine side of dualities or oppositions over the feminine side.

This is a good introductory video but it doesn't really go into everything I would want it to.

 

But look what you did, you referenced a bunch of guys in your reply, and shared a video of another guy talking.  Do you read any female authors?  Do you watch any female youtubers?  You can talk about gender theory and "integrating" till the cows come home, but what direct experience do you have of actual womens points of view?

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, yeah right said:

But look what you did, you referenced a bunch of guys in your reply, and shared a video of another guy talking.  Do you read any female authors?  Do you watch any female youtubers?  You can talk about gender theory and "integrating" till the cows come home, but what direct experience do you have of actual womens points of view?

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
 

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[yeah right]

12 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Eve Sedgwick

 

Ok...one person?  

The point stands that you constantly refence the work of men, even in the context of gender theory.  I meant it more as something for you to notice and be aware of.

Btw what happened to your content?

[Joseph Maynor]

9 minutes ago, yeah right said:

Ok...one person?  

The point stands that you constantly refence the work of men, even in the context of gender theory.  I meant it more as something for you to notice and be aware of.

Btw what happened to your content?

I understand.  I'm very aware of the masculine bias in philosophy.  I actually do follow her work and she is excellent.  My videos are temporarily private as I am looking for a job and don't want my online presence to hinder me from getting more work.  After I find work and that stabilizes, I'll make my videos and writings public again.  It's temporary.  Nowadays when you apply for a job the first thing they do is look at your online footprint, especially in the legal profession where I work.  And if you have a history of having no filter like me that can ruffle feathers of people who don't want that kind of image in someone they want to hire.   So, I need to play defensive for a while until I can open back up when the time is ripe and right.  Thanks for asking.  Everything will go back up in due time.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[yeah right]

11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I understand.  I'm very aware of the masculine bias in philosophy.  I actually do follow her work and she is excellent.  My videos are temporarily private as I am looking for a job and don't want my online presence to hinder me from getting more work.  After I find work and that stabilizes, I'll make my videos and writings public again.  It's temporary.  Nowadays when you apply for a job the first thing they do is look at your online footprint, especially in the legal profession where I work.  And if you have a history of having no filter like me that can ruffle feathers of people who don't want that kind of image in someone they want to hire.   So, I need to play defensive for a while until I can open back up when the time is ripe and right.  Thanks for asking.  Everything will go back up in due time.

Interesting....did you lose a job over your content?

[Blessed2]

27 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm very aware of the masculine bias in philosophy.

 

Just something that came to mind, it's probs not masculine bias, it's just sexism.

 

It's more like if you don't have a penis, you're out. Not if you're feminine.

[Blessed2]

A masculine - feminine imbalance is a different thing than misogyny / patriarchy.

 

I don't think we need to mystify it. It's just exclusion and oppression based on sex.

[Joseph Maynor]

10 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

 

Just something that came to mind, it's probs not masculine bias, it's just sexism.

 

It's more like if you don't have a penis, you're out. Not if you're feminine.

I get a little leery when people start defining categorical grievances.  There are plenty of women that are strong who have no problem with sexism.  I'm not discounting sexism or other categorical grievances, but sometimes it just comes off as an excuse to blame someone else for not taking personal responsibility to make sure your life as an individual works well.  If someone is too weak to do that, well then work on that, but that's a personal problem not a problem with anyone else.   It's much easier and ultimately useless to point out some external factor as to why you can't make your life how you want it to be. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Serenity]

@Joseph Maynor

 

Take a dive into Gender Studies. It could open your eyes on a whole new reality. 😀

[yeah right]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I get a little leery when people start defining categorical grievances.  There are plenty of women that are strong who have no problem with sexism.  I'm not discounting sexism or other categorical grievances, but sometimes it just comes off as an excuse to blame someone else for not taking personal responsibility to make sure your life as an individual works well.  If someone is too weak to do that, well then work on that, but that's a personal problem not a problem with anyone else.   It's much easier and ultimately useless to point out some external factor as to why you can't make your life how you want it to be. 

Sounds like youve been listening to jordan peterson....that pov is all the easy for the priveledged half to hold, much like racism.  Do you really think 2000+ years of systemic oppression can just not be a factor for you if you "take personal responsibility"?  Sounds like you need to read less and talk to human beings(who arent white males) more.

[Blessed2]

Women were literally not allowed to vote, own stuff, go to university etc. for most of history across the planet.

 

And that is still a reality in many places today.