Women who seek knowledge

[Andromeda]

Sorry, I haven't had time to keep up with the whole thread, but thought I'd chime in anyway with my thoughts about the situation in general.

As far as the question of women seeking knowledge, I think it would first be important to define what kind of knowledge we're talking about. Are we talking about more formal education, or wisdom from experience (i.e. objective knowledge)? If it's the first, women might have been at a disadvantage compared to men historically speaking by having less support, opportunity and expectation from family and society. There may even be some remnants of that today. They may also have been more disadvantaged by the fact that their brains (very generally) are less wired to pursue in that direction and to cope with the difficulties inherent in such a path. If it's the latter, it seems to me, that that is a god given right that has been available for the taking to anybody, throughout any period of history, and under any conditions. Not only is it a right, for both men and women, but an obligation. The only real difference between people in that regard, that I can see worth noting, is how actively and consciously anyone might learn. And, for the minority who do (actively and consciously pursue knowledge) I would surmise that the gender ratio is about equal. Just maybe using different methods depending on their life circumstances.

Now, if the whole question revolves around certain experiences or support being harder to come by for women due to whatever reason (societal pressure, the facts of life when faced with having a child, etc.), well, that's just a fact of life and applies equally but in different areas to men (of course). But everyone can learn just as well as they will from whatever they make out of what life gives them.

I think (very generally, again that most women are wired to get the most objective knowledge befitting their life plan as a woman, from doing the things that most women do, but in their particular way. Same for men. And, that ideally, men and women would gain in their specialty, depending on their wiring and life path, and then share it with each other to make an even more objective and whole knowledge.

But, it seems to me that issues come up not only when we see ourselves or others in black or white, but also when we forget that black and white is the very basis of our reality. Like a psychedelic yin-yang, there is a whole spectrum of individual positions based on..... the different combinations of black and white in each individual psyche. Are you a man or a woman, are you rich or poor, what's your family situation, your character, your level of soul growth, etc.? All of those considerations can help lead us to better understanding of ourselves and others, but should neither be focused on too much nor ignored. For those who feel rebellious against the categories they are put in, or are overly identified with the expectations that come with them, life can feel frustrating. But it doesn't have to feel so, if life is viewed as a a bigger lesson plan and there is any faith in the idea that we are all put exactly where we need to be to learn to see and to navigate to where we are supposed to go.

Anyway, we already know that. I guess my real point is that while it's fine to identify with being a woman having hardships seeking knowledge, fine to identify with as a man also having similar problems, and fine to discuss the details, I think we should also not lose sight of the bigger picture. Mainly because it seems like such a trigger happy subject for many these days.

When I was thinking about this topic the other night, I thought to myself that the main problem is how so many people seem to be susceptible to the seductive power of victim-hood and how that feeling is encouraged by others and then completely exaggerated and misguided. Exaggerated by projection of a person's subjective experience onto whole groups or, reverse-wise by taking on others difficulties as personal when they are not. Misguided because I think if anyone were to feel more objectively what they are vicitms of, they would mostly find that it's their own faulty thinking, feeling, and acting, rather than someone else's.

But then, I suppose that since people are wired to identify with and resonate with certain categories, whether man, woman, seeker of knowledge, or victim I guess it's not surprising. And I think that not only what a person identifies with, but also how they identify with or embody it, can tell you a lot about the person.

Then I got to thinking about where this problem of over-identifying and victim-hood stemmed from, and I think that the root of the problem for many, beyond basic human foibles and STS engineering, is the lack of true community.

I don't think that feminism or any other ism was created to destroy the family or society, although they were certainly used as tools for suffering. I think that societal division was engineered to test and teach the soul. And the nature of this reality which is perfectly set up for everyone's lesson's plans, is to struggle to figure things out (even more maybe for seekers of knowledge, and rightfully so). There doesn't seem to be any escaping that, so que sera, sera!

 

[Debra Lynn]

I grew up in the same time period as Laura so relate on that level. I had an oppressive childhood being raised by a raging tyrant of a father and an absent Mother who would go catatonic at times. Sat in the same position for hours or got lost cooking and sat things on fire. She was not present at all for the most part. I left home as soon as I was able and became a hippy/lost soul for awhile but eventually got married. I was just tired of running to be honest. My husband left me alone to my own devises for the most part as he was busy with his business. He neither encouraged nor discouraged me in my desire to learn but provided enough stability for me to gather my wits a bit. Even with a houseful of children I was able to learn anything I wanted. My children and I spent lots of happy hours at the library and at home reading and talking about everything under the sun. I made it a priority to 'see' and 'hear' them because I lacked that growing up. My house was never spotlessly clean but books were read and we had fun. My problem with feminism is it seems to have destroyed the family and many of our present problems relate to that in my opinion. Or not, it's all about the lessons.

Sometimes I wish I had had my life together enough to go to college but it never happened. I'm sure there are things I could of gained and some added refinement but I've still never felt a lack of ability to gather knowledge and learn new things.

These days instead of chasing children around I am busy chasing all my little I's and trying to gain a deeper understanding of my Being. And I love it! And I am so grateful for women like Laura who, in my opinion, have paved the way in so many areas while still raising a family and being a wife and mother. And there are also many men I admire. Like Gurdjieff, Ark and the Apostle Paul. Oh and Vlad is pretty awesome too.

Thanks for this thread. It's been interesting.

 

[Chu]

It seems as though opportunities for growth are presented to each...male or female, as each soul knows what it needs and how it intends to progress with the set up that is chosen and then naturally present for each.

Thanks for putting it that way. I think that sums it up pretty well. It's not about "gender difficulties", and more about soul paths and choices, IMO. Laura's quote from the Cs, as rare as people who seek true knowledge are, is it in a nutshell.

 

[Chu]

So what's our preliminary conclusions here in terms of women who seek "objective knowledge"?

Is it reasonable to suggest that the suffering and discrimination that women experienced at certain times in history isn't really relevant to the topic because if women throughout history had never experienced such, the vast majority of them would, like most men, not have bothered searching for objective knowledge anyway? That they would, like most women (and men) today, have simply distracted themselves with relative trivialities and the daily chores of life?

I think that's the case, indeed. And that, like others said, objective knowledge is "genderless". We live in a reality that presents us with lessons one way or another, and the epoch, the society, the gender and the person we are born as in each incarnation are parts of those lessons, or rather, the "setting" in which each "soul" comes here to learn. NOT what determines the learning.

 

[Joe]

Misguided because I think if anyone were to feel more objectively what they are vicitms of, they would mostly find that it's their own faulty thinking, feeling, and acting, rather than someone else's.

Amen! If more people would investigate this aspect first, rather than quickly seeking to identify their victimizer (which entrenches the idea that they are victims) people would realize that they have been far less abused and discriminated against than they like to think.

It's a truism that any suffering anyone has ever experienced in the history of human suffering has always had a lack of knowledge/awareness at its core, and that in the presence of knowledge appropriate to the situation, all suffering could have been avoided.

Of course, that a pretty high expectation to place on anyone, and it's not very fair or practical to hold anyone to it (especially in the case of children), but it's still a useful and productive approach (because it's positive) for me as an adult to take to my suffering, i.e. that I am responsible for it (through lack of knowledge), because it can encourage me to fix those knowledge gaps and hopefully, thereby, reduce my suffering, or least any repeat suffering.

That process of fixing those gaps does appear, however, to be a lifelong (or more likely lives-long) endeavor.

 

[Joe]

A woman after marriage is expected to deal with all trivialities and daily chores of life, to be kind and to look pretty. The man is expected to ‘hunt’.

What if a woman liked trivialities and and the daily chores of life, was actually kind, and pretty? And what if that was all fulfilling enough for her? What if a man liked 'hunting' and was sufficiently fulfilled by doing that? Do you think there are many such men and women in the world today?

Have you started to understand why others here have said that you seem to tend to conflate your personal nature and subjective experiences with the experiences of the billions of women who have lived on this planet throughout the ages, many or most of whom might agree with you on generalities but not on specifics?

And ultimately, could it not be said that the lived experience of the individual, rather than a group, is the only really useful and meaningful yardstick by which we can understand any human experience?

 

[Ina]

What if a woman liked trivialities and and the daily chores of life, was actually kind, and pretty? And what if that was all fulfilling enough for her? What if a man liked 'hunting' and was sufficiently fulfilled by doing that? Do you think there are many such men and women in the world today?

Have you started to understand why others here have said that you seem to tend to conflate your personal nature and subjective experiences with the experiences of the billions of women who have lived on this planet throughout the ages, many or most of whom might agree with you on generalities but not on specifics?

And ultimately, could it not be said that the lived experience of the individual, rather than a group, is the only really useful and meaningful yardstick by which we can understand any human experience?

, have I started... Funny.
My emphasis was on the need of personal education towards personal knowledge for both boys and girls, and in a subsequent post for greater discernment in chosing to get married and have children.
Interesting how stereotypes are the most visible in my posts.
So to answer to your middle question in the light of your third question, my answer is, Yes Sir, Joe, Sir.

 

[Debra Lynn]

Sorry, I haven't had time to keep up with the whole thread, but thought I'd chime in anyway with my thoughts about the situation in general.

As far as the question of women seeking knowledge, I think it would first be important to define what kind of knowledge we're talking about. Are we talking about more formal education, or wisdom from experience (i.e. objective knowledge)? If it's the first, women might have been at a disadvantage compared to men historically speaking by having less support, opportunity and expectation from family and society. There may even be some remnants of that today. They may also have been more disadvantaged by the fact that their brains (very generally) are less wired to pursue in that direction and to cope with the difficulties inherent in such a path. If it's the latter, it seems to me, that that is a god given right that has been available for the taking to anybody, throughout any period of history, and under any conditions. Not only is it a right, for both men and women, but an obligation. The only real difference between people in that regard, that I can see worth noting, is how actively and consciously anyone might learn. And, for the minority who do (actively and consciously pursue knowledge) I would surmise that the gender ratio is about equal. Just maybe using different methods depending on their life circumstances.

Now, if the whole question revolves around certain experiences or support being harder to come by for women due to whatever reason (societal pressure, the facts of life when faced with having a child, etc.), well, that's just a fact of life and applies equally but in different areas to men (of course). But everyone can learn just as well as they will from whatever they make out of what life gives them.

I think (very generally, again that most women are wired to get the most objective knowledge befitting their life plan as a woman, from doing the things that most women do, but in their particular way. Same for men. And, that ideally, men and women would gain in their specialty, depending on their wiring and life path, and then share it with each other to make an even more objective and whole knowledge.

But, it seems to me that issues come up not only when we see ourselves or others in black or white, but also when we forget that black and white is the very basis of our reality. Like a psychedelic yin-yang, there is a whole spectrum of individual positions based on..... the different combinations of black and white in each individual psyche. Are you a man or a woman, are you rich or poor, what's your family situation, your character, your level of soul growth, etc.? All of those considerations can help lead us to better understanding of ourselves and others, but should neither be focused on too much nor ignored. For those who feel rebellious against the categories they are put in, or are overly identified with the expectations that come with them, life can feel frustrating. But it doesn't have to feel so, if life is viewed as a a bigger lesson plan and there is any faith in the idea that we are all put exactly where we need to be to learn to see and to navigate to where we are supposed to go.

Anyway, we already know that. I guess my real point is that while it's fine to identify with being a woman having hardships seeking knowledge, fine to identify with as a man also having similar problems, and fine to discuss the details, I think we should also not lose sight of the bigger picture. Mainly because it seems like such a trigger happy subject for many these days.

When I was thinking about this topic the other night, I thought to myself that the main problem is how so many people seem to be susceptible to the seductive power of victim-hood and how that feeling is encouraged by others and then completely exaggerated and misguided. Exaggerated by projection of a person's subjective experience onto whole groups or, reverse-wise by taking on others difficulties as personal when they are not. Misguided because I think if anyone were to feel more objectively what they are vicitms of, they would mostly find that it's their own faulty thinking, feeling, and acting, rather than someone else's.

But then, I suppose that since people are wired to identify with and resonate with certain categories, whether man, woman, seeker of knowledge, or victim I guess it's not surprising. And I think that not only what a person identifies with, but also how they identify with or embody it, can tell you a lot about the person.

Then I got to thinking about where this problem of over-identifying and victim-hood stemmed from, and I think that the root of the problem for many, beyond basic human foibles and STS engineering, is the lack of true community.

I don't think that feminism or any other ism was created to destroy the family or society, although they were certainly used as tools for suffering. I think that societal division was engineered to test and teach the soul. And the nature of this reality which is perfectly set up for everyone's lesson's plans, is to struggle to figure things out (even more maybe for seekers of knowledge, and rightfully so). There doesn't seem to be any escaping that, so que sera, sera!

Thank you Andromeda! After reading your post things started clicking into place on a deeper level. It goes deeper than identifying or disagreeing with any 'ism'. It's about different lesson plans and how best to obtain the needed knowledge and growth. And having a true community of like minded people or at least somewhat on the same path is so important. I had been thinking feminism had destroyed the family but in reality, looking back, families have been a mess since Cain killed his brother. I know it's just a story but it does seem to represent our situation a bit. Just thinking out loud here but this puts a more accurate twist on our current situation I think.

 

[Chu]

I'd like to comment on Sybill's first post, trying to understand why it was misconstrued in the beginning, and what needs more nuances, FWIW:

One significant part of why the Wave books are so appealing to me is the fact, that it is a woman, a mother who is in the quest for knowledge.

For me, when I first read it, it was her amazing mind. And the fact that she answered so many questions I had and more that I hadn't even considered yet, and that what she wrote came not just from her intellect, but from her heart and hard life experiences. It was her relentlessness, her courage, her never giving up. I think I see what you meant. It IS admirable, for too many reasons to be listed here. But in that case, I think it's more because of who Laura is and how admirable she is. If she had been a man, I would admire her equally.

It is not easy for women and as history proves that it was dangerous for women to seek objective knowledge. While females had a hard time getting any closer to knowledge, it was almost impossible for mothers. Looking after the house, the children, the husband... if one actually survived the childbearing age.

Here is where I think your post may have led to misunderstandings, and where you yourself may have a slight biais? The difficulties you describe above are there in many cases, but also for men, just in different ways. As Andromeda said above, it depends on how you define knowledge. Are you familiar with Gurdjieff's quote about Knowledge and Being? I'll share it on my next post just in case.

After one LBL (Life Between Life) session I felt one of my past life. I felt because this is the only way I can describe it. I was a young woman, holding a baby in my arms to wave goodbye to my husband who would go to the war on the side of Napoleon. He never came back and I died with my baby. We starved to death. I felt that pain. I can still feel it. It is still echoing in my soul. I know it was countless lives full of pain as a mother who lost her child. I wonder how many of us, mothers, carry this unspoken pain inside.

Well, I'm not a mother in this life, but have similar "memories" to yours from past lives. I also have "memories" of having been a man and suffered like crazy. I think that perhaps, the focus should be not on motherhood and women's suffering, but on what that suffering makes you learn if you allow it? And on what kind of suffering we choose? And on separating the life circumstances and programming each of us have, from the actual determining factor, which is possibly an "inner fire", a drive to really learn, due to where we each are at in our path?

I'm am not a feminist, (I don't believe in 'ism' s) but the history of humankind was not kind to women and mothers.

True in many cultures and contexts, but the same could be said for men. And in either case, whether one gender suffered more than the other is kind of irrelevant, I think, because we were probably both (men and women) at different points in time, and in the end, it's all about lessons.

It is a difficult path for women to seek out knowledge and even more difficult to apply the knowledge when one has to cook, clean, and look after the children. Men had the 'luxury' to travel, study, engage in politics, while women were restricted in every possible way.

Here, I think you need a lot more nuances. See below.

Only in recent times, women had equal rights to pursue their interests freely.

In countries where that has been done the most, and to the greatest degree of equality, like in Scandinavia, some problems arise nonetheless. Women naturally gravitate towards "caring" professions, but feel that now they have to join the Army or be a CEO. Nanny State takes care of the rest. That creates its own problems and conflicts! Not only that, but you can see how nowadays, even common sense is being thrown out of the window, and children are taught that gender is a social construct, they don't learn anything basic about respecting and loving boys and girls equally, they are getting conflicting messages opposed to their natures, etc. So, out of both extremes, I am grateful to have been born in the 80s, when girls were girls and boys were boys, even if in order to have that teaching, it also came with some of the programming you yourself described.

In the end, I think the problem with what you wrote above is, at least partly, that because people are so ignorant and "strangers to themselves", equal opportunity to pursue our interests is still kind of irrelevant, because we don't know what our real interests are! We are bombarded by our own biases, ignorance, culture, etc. And until we Work on ourselves, and have enough of the nonsense and mistakes we make, we could have all the opportunities and equality in the world, we would still choose "unconscious suffering" and things that are opposite to our true nature. Only each individual can decide to break the chain. Inside oneself.

However, social dogmas and expectations still apply. I was born and grew up in a country where young women had to grab a man quickly and keep them satisfied in the marriage because if they don't another younger and prettier woman will steal the man. There was no place for women who want to study and seek knowledge.

Me too. I can relate to several of the things other ladies related in this thread. But then, I moved to a "freer" country, and that came with its own problems. The freedom and opportunities looked better, yet, I was trapped in my own mind, lacked knowledge and did stupid things nonetheless. The setting only allowed me to experience the lessons I needed to experience (first in one culture, then in the other) in order to seek something truer later in life. I realized later that none of the conditions, or programming were impediments to growth. In fact, they were the fertile ground TO grow in. For lack of a better term, the limiting factor was my "predator's mind", my ignorance, my ego, my illusions. And I had nobody to blame for those than myself. Just look at how different some people are: given the same circumstances, one person's life path goes one way, the other one's the opposite. That says something about their natures more than nurture (and culture), I think.

In this thread, I would like to start a conversation with women, mothers on their experience on the path of seeking knowledge.

I think you started an even better conversation than with just women or mothers in particular.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. If I had to summarize all of the above, I'd say: it's all in the path a person chooses. Life circumstances help no matter how hard they seem. A calamity of any sort can be a great opportunity for growth, or a path towards disintegration or giving up, depending on the person choosing what to do about it. One person will decide to wallow in self-pity, the other to stand up and be the best person he/he can be regardless. And intellectual endeavors are not the only venue towards knowledge. You need information, certainly, but you also need an inner drive to be a better person, to give to others, to be "emotionally intelligent", to apply what you learn, and much more that can never be taken away from you if it is in you to begin with. OSIT.

 

[Chu]

Here is the quote. In the context of this conversation, I think that both men and women face challenges when trying to balance Knowledge and Being. It may be different on the surface, but in the end, we are all here to learn if we choose to:

"There are," he said, "two lines along which man's development proceeds, the line of
knowledge and the line of being. In right evolution the line of knowledge and the line
of being develop simultaneously, parallel to, and helping one another. But if the line of
knowledge gets too far ahead of the line of being, or if the line of being gets ahead of
the line of knowledge, man's development goes wrong, and sooner or later it must
come to a standstill.

"People understand what 'knowledge' means. And they understand the possibility of
different levels of knowledge. They understand that knowledge may be lesser or
greater, that is to say, of one quality or of another quality. But they do not understand
this in relation to 'being.' 'Being,' for them, means simply 'existence' to which is
opposed just 'non-existence.' They do not understand that being or existence may be of
very different levels and categories.

[...]

And they do not understand that knowledge depends on being.
Not only do they not understand this latter but they
definitely do not wish to understand it. And especially in Western culture it is
considered that a man may possess great knowledge, for example he may be an able
scientist, make discoveries, advance science, and at the same time he may be, and has
the right to be, a petty, egoistic, caviling, mean, envious, vain, naive, and absent
minded man. It seems to be considered here that a professor must always forget his
umbrella everywhere.

"And yet it is his being. And people think that his knowledge does not depend on
his being. People of Western culture put great value on the level of a man's knowledge
but they do not value the level of a man's being and are not ashamed of the low level
of their own being. They do not even understand what it means. And they do not
understand that a man's knowledge depends on the level of his being.

"If knowledge gets far ahead of being, it becomes theoretical and abstract and
inapplicable to life, or actually harmful, because instead of serving life and helping
people the better to struggle with the difficulties they meet, it begins to complicate
man's life, brings new difficulties into it, new troubles and calamities which were not
there before.

"The reason for this is that knowledge which is not in accordance with being cannot
be large enough for, or sufficiently suited to, man's real needs. It will always be a
knowledge of one thing together with ignorance of another thing; a knowledge of the
detail without a knowledge of the whole; a knowledge of the form without a
knowledge of the essence.

"Such preponderance of knowledge over being is observed in present-day culture.
The idea of the value and importance of the level of being is completely forgotten.
And it is forgotten that the level of knowledge is determined by the level of being.
Actually at a given level of being the possibilities of knowledge are limited and finite.
Within the limits of a given being the quality of knowledge cannot be changed, and
the accumulation of information of one and the same nature, within already
known limits, alone is possible. A change in the nature of knowledge is possible only
with a change in the nature of being.

"Taken in itself, a man's being has many different sides. The most characteristic
feature of a modem man is the absence of unity in him and, further, the absence in him
of even traces of those properties which he most likes to ascribe to himself, that is,
'lucid consciousness,' 'free will,' a 'permanent ego or I,' and the 'ability to do.' It may
surprise you if I say that the chief feature of a modem man's being which explains
everything else that is lacking in him is sleep.

"A modern man lives in sleep, in sleep he is born and in sleep he dies. About sleep,
its significance and its role in life, we will speak later. But at present just think of one
thing, what knowledge can a sleeping man have? And if you think about it and at the
same time remember that sleep is the chief feature of our being, it will at once become
clear to you that if a man really wants knowledge, he must first of all think about how
to wake, that is, about how to change his being.
"Exteriorly man's being has many different sides: activity or passivity;
truthfulness or a tendency to lie; sincerity or insincerity; courage, cowardice; self
control, profligacy; irritability, egoism, readiness for self-sacrifice, pride, vanity,
conceit, industry, laziness, morality, depravity; all these and much more besides make
up the being of man.

"But all this is entirely mechanical in man. If he lies it means that he cannot help
lying. If he tells the truth it means that he cannot help telling the truth, and so it is
with everything. Everything happens, a man can do nothing either in himself or
outside himself.

"But of course there are limits and bounds. Generally speaking, the being of a
modem man is of very inferior quality. But it can be of such bad quality that no
change is possible. This must always be remembered. People whose being can still be
changed are very lucky. But there are people who are definitely diseased, broken
machines with whom nothing can be done. And such people are in the majority. If
you think of this you will understand why only few can receive real knowledge. Their
being prevents it.

"Generally speaking, the balance between knowledge and being is even more
important than a separate development of either one or the other. And a separate
development of knowledge or of being is not desirable in any way. Although it is
precisely this one-sided development that often seems particularly attractive to
people.

"If knowledge outweighs being a man knows but has no power to do. It is useless
knowledge. On the other hand if being outweighs knowledge a man has the power to
do, but does not know, that is, he can do something but does not know what to do.
The being he has acquired becomes aimless and efforts made to attain it prove to be
useless.

[...]

"In order to understand this and, in general, the nature of knowledge and the nature
of being, as well as their interrelation, it is necessary to understand the relation of
knowledge and being to 'understanding.'

"Knowledge is one thing, understanding is another thing.

"People often confuse these concepts and do not clearly grasp what is the difference
between them.

"Knowledge by itself does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased
by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends upon the relation of
knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And
knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to
be far removed from either. At the same time the relation of knowledge to being does
not change with a mere growth of knowledge. It changes only when being grows
simultaneously with knowledge. In other words, understanding grows only with the
growth of being.

"In ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish understanding from knowledge.
They think that greater understanding depends on greater knowledge. Therefore they
accumulate knowledge, or that which they call knowledge, but they do not know how
to accumulate understanding and do not bother about it.

"And yet a person accustomed to self-observation knows for certain that at different
periods of his life he has understood one and the same idea, one and the same thought,
in totally different ways. It often seems strange to him that he could have understood
so wrongly that which, in his opinion, he now understands rightly. And he realizes, at
the same time, that his knowledge has not changed, and that he knew as much about the given
subject before as he knows now. What, then, has changed? His being has changed.
And once being has changed understanding must change also.

 

[Sybil]

I'd like to comment on Sybill's first post, trying to understand why it was misconstrued in the beginning, and what needs more nuances, FWIW:



For me, when I first read it, it was her amazing mind. And the fact that she answered so many questions I had and more that I hadn't even considered yet, and that what she wrote came not just from her intellect, but from her heart and hard life experiences. It was her relentlessness, her courage, her never giving up. I think I see what you meant. It IS admirable, for too many reasons to be listed here. But in that case, I think it's more because of who Laura is and how admirable she is. If she had been a man, I would admire her equally.



Here is where I think your post may have led to misunderstandings, and where you yourself may have a slight biais? The difficulties you describe above are there in many cases, but also for men, just in different ways. As Andromeda said above, it depends on how you define knowledge. Are you familiar with Gurdjieff's quote about Knowledge and Being? I'll share it on my next post just in case.



Well, I'm not a mother in this life, but have similar "memories" to yours from past lives. I also have "memories" of having been a man and suffered like crazy. I think that perhaps, the focus should be not on motherhood and women's suffering, but on what that suffering makes you learn if you allow it? And on what kind of suffering we choose? And on separating the life circumstances and programming each of us have, from the actual determining factor, which is possibly an "inner fire", a drive to really learn, due to where we each are at in our path?



True in many cultures and contexts, but the same could be said for men. And in either case, whether one gender suffered more than the other is kind of irrelevant, I think, because we were probably both (men and women) at different points in time, and in the end, it's all about lessons.



Here, I think you need a lot more nuances. See below.



In countries where that has been done the most, and to the greatest degree of equality, like in Scandinavia, some problems arise nonetheless. Women naturally gravitate towards "caring" professions, but feel that now they have to join the Army or be a CEO. Nanny State takes care of the rest. That creates its own problems and conflicts! Not only that, but you can see how nowadays, even common sense is being thrown out of the window, and children are taught that gender is a social construct, they don't learn anything basic about respecting and loving boys and girls equally, they are getting conflicting messages opposed to their natures, etc. So, out of both extremes, I am grateful to have been born in the 80s, when girls were girls and boys were boys, even if in order to have that teaching, it also came with some of the programming you yourself described.

In the end, I think the problem with what you wrote above is, at least partly, that because people are so ignorant and "strangers to themselves", equal opportunity to pursue our interests is still kind of irrelevant, because we don't know what our real interests are! We are bombarded by our own biases, ignorance, culture, etc. And until we Work on ourselves, and have enough of the nonsense and mistakes we make, we could have all the opportunities and equality in the world, we would still choose "unconscious suffering" and things that are opposite to our true nature. Only each individual can decide to break the chain. Inside oneself.



Me too. I can relate to several of the things other ladies related in this thread. But then, I moved to a "freer" country, and that came with its own problems. The freedom and opportunities looked better, yet, I was trapped in my own mind, lacked knowledge and did stupid things nonetheless. The setting only allowed me to experience the lessons I needed to experience (first in one culture, then in the other) in order to seek something truer later in life. I realized later that none of the conditions, or programming were impediments to growth. In fact, they were the fertile ground TO grow in. For lack of a better term, the limiting factor was my "predator's mind", my ignorance, my ego, my illusions. And I had nobody to blame for those than myself. Just look at how different some people are: given the same circumstances, one person's life path goes one way, the other one's the opposite. That says something about their natures more than nurture (and culture), I think.



I think you started an even better conversation than with just women or mothers in particular.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. If I had to summarize all of the above, I'd say: it's all in the path a person chooses. Life circumstances help no matter how hard they seem. A calamity of any sort can be a great opportunity for growth, or a path towards disintegration or giving up, depending on the person choosing what to do about it. One person will decide to wallow in self-pity, the other to stand up and be the best person he/he can be regardless. And intellectual endeavors are not the only venue towards knowledge. You need information, certainly, but you also need an inner drive to be a better person, to give to others, to be "emotionally intelligent", to apply what you learn, and much more that can never be taken away from you if it is in you to begin with. OSIT.

Thank You, Chu. I only wish that one day I will be as wise as you.

 

[Tauriel]

It doesn't seem to matter what pushes one into the search or learning or whatever. It seems as though opportunities for growth are presented to each...male or female, as each soul knows what it needs and how it intends to progress with the set up that is chosen and then naturally present for each.

In the context of this conversation, I think that both men and women face challenges when trying to balance Knowledge and Being.

So maybe it's not such a mystery at all but all about balance.

I came into this world with a very clear notion of men and women being equals

..... and then we get to get an either male or female body to inhabit according to the soul's make up and the lessons that must be learned next.
And trouble begins when we use our gender to provide victimhood at least until we realize what Chu said so well:

I realized later that none of the conditions, or programming were impediments to growth.

It's not about "gender difficulties", and more about soul paths and choices, IMO

 

[Approaching Infinity]

So what's our preliminary conclusions here in terms of women who seek "objective knowledge"?

Is it reasonable to suggest that the suffering and discrimination that women experienced at certain times in history isn't really relevant to the topic because if women throughout history had never experienced such, the vast majority of them would, like most men, not have bothered searching for objective knowledge anyway? That they would, like most women (and men) today, have simply distracted themselves with relative trivialities and the daily chores of life?

Sounds reasonable to me, on the whole. I think there may be some exceptions. Let me throw an example into the pot, though it's about a man. In the Thomas Sowell biography documentary that came out in the last year or so, he tells the story of his childhood. From his perspective as an old man, he looks back at one experience that he says was essential to his development as a thinker. He grew up poor, went to a bad school, etc. But he was lucky in that an older acquaintance saw something in him and suggested he go to another school (or something to that effect). At least according to Sowell, he doesn't think his life would have turned out the same if not for that intervention from someone who saw something in him.

I think it's probably true that those with the most drive will follow the path no matter what the obstacles. Maybe the same would have been true for Sowell? But at the same time, I think there have probably been cases of men and women where circumstances (e.g., living and working on a farm in the middle of nowhere, no education prospects whatsoever, no rich mentors, etc.) did greatly block their full potential from manifesting. Of course, they could still have been the best they could given the circumstances - a wise old farmer, for example. But given access to more educational opportunity, maybe that wise old farmer would've been the next Copernicus?

Or maybe not? If we want to be fatalistic, maybe everyone is exactly where they are supposed to be. If the circumstances seem too oppressive for potential to actualize, maybe that's just another lesson, and next time around, that experience will be put to good use. And maybe, like Sowell, those who really need it WILL encounter a person to guide them on the path, even if it is just one tiny step.

 

[msante]

It was quite difficult to reply to Joe’s conclusion-question, because it is formulated to cover a long trend in societal development as well as bringing the issue in a common denominator scenario.
I replied as I did.
Intersting is, that you could have given me some pointers, as a work colleague, on how you manage, and how to address my problem. If you would have done that I would have gladly accepted that my wiew about the woman’s role is limited and antiquated.

Ina, I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but if my post seemed somewhat rude, I assure you that was not my intention. I pointed out about the reply to Joe because I found it curious that you quoted him; perhaps I could have put an emoji ( ) to make it better understood that it wasn't a kind of reprimand but rather perplexity. So if that was the case, I apologize.

On the other hand I wanted to share my case to highlight that there are many different realities and that personal experiences are enriching but their growth potential increases when they are shared and compared to the experiences of others... and I didn't offer you advice because I didn't think you were asking for it. Aside from that, I don't know if I would have any advice to give you in this case either

You said modern expectations are different and the roles are somewhat shared with unprescribed boundaries. That’s why modern family work projects bring such a nebula of role confusion vibes. I think that is happening because of the modern ‘personal space’ vs ‘shared space’ notions rather than greater interdependance between partners, but that’s my personal unqualified opinion.

In fact, what I was trying to say is that, unlike in the past, today this differentiation of roles is not so evident. Having said that, I don't see this as a positive thing either and I don't think that a step forward has been taken. I don't think that the dissolution of roles has solved anything, quite the contrary. Possibly a conscious recognition of these roles would have contributed much more to human development because it would have helped each one to recognize and value the importance of the other and would have promoted the communal work of men and women as a true team.

 

[John G]

In fact, what I was trying to say is that, unlike in the past, today this differentiation of roles is not so evident. Having said that, I don't see this as a positive thing either and I don't think that a step forward has been taken. I don't think that the dissolution of roles has solved anything, quite the contrary. Possibly a conscious recognition of these roles would have contributed much more to human development because it would have helped each one to recognize and value the importance of the other and would have promoted the communal work of men and women as a true team.

If a woman or man is talented enough to be say a theoretical physicist, it seems OK to go for it for both. If Annie Oakley became a sharpshooter via hunting to provide for her family; seems like a good reason. If more women had to work in factories while men are away at war and then some aren't overly satisfied losing jobs to men coming back, that seems understandable. If a famous graphic designer complained as the only female faculty member being given only female students that seems like a ridiculously valid complaint (seriously graphic design is art and tech, a mix of gender stereotypes really). Some flexibility is needed a lot. I've been a stay at home dad for 20 years.; even did mother-in-law nurse-like things for a few years before she died; I'm much better suited for that than the cut throat corporate world I got laid off from (IBM).

I'm not particularly good at cooking and I really only clean up when someone is coming over which isn't often; things get lost at times when I clean up and I claim them to be victims of the great cleanup. At the marriage level, it helps if the two can agree on something that works well enough without someone being a jerk. That famous designer used to do all the housework until they talked about sharing it; it had never occurred to either to do so previously, the husband was fine with it once the subject was discussed. My cooking is definitely not as good as my wife's but that makes dieting easier for all (one can only eat so much really dry chicken or pork). My son though has to soak his in 3/4ths a cube of butter, not so great for calories but still healthy at least.