Women who seek knowledge

That is bothering me too. I work better with men than with women. I think men are more secure of their place in the hierarchy of their pack. Women on the other hand, most of the time find themselves at the bottom where , surprise surprise, find only women to contend with.
Besides, one cannot make to 'lady' when you have to deal with cleaning and sorting out mess, being there as nurse and clown and angel. What is left is bitch and diva.
Having said that, my subconscious has another opinion. When I dream of men, something bad happens. When I dream of women something good happens.
Tricky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryu
I had amazing female bosses that thought me a lot. They were all older than me, in their 40es when I was in my 20es
 
Having said that, my subconscious has another opinion. When I dream of men, something bad happens. When I dream of women something good happens.
Tricky.
I dont have bad dreams of men. Unless its about my ex husbands. 😂
Im my dreams the masculine energy is always reassuring.
 
I have been keeping track of this thread since it began a couple of days ago and it continues to provoke a reaction in me (or several) that I am finding difficult to express but I will try to get some of it out. To go in a direction of who suffers more, men or women and discuss the millions of ways this has been done throughout history can be cathartic for some and possibly appropriate in certain settings. I do think the subject is interesting and meaningful as I am a woman and certainly can relate to the issue. However, now it seems to be on the edge of morphing into a blaming, bashing and complaining party with a flavor of self righteousness in spots. I would caution against going there as it does not serve the purpose, in my opinion.

Currently, my sixteen year old granddaughter is very much enjoying her "women as activists" course in school now. She has been asking me questions for homework assignments and as a result I have re-experienced some of my forgotten memories of how it was to grow up in the 50's and 60's as a female. Remembering provided me with a compass to see how things have changed in the world and also to check what has changed within me. So, I process all of that. However, now I think it serves me mostly to see it, understand it but then bump it to the next level of understanding as best I can.

Laura mentioned that she turned her rebellion and chip on her shoulder into a search for the meaning of it all and why. I grew up in roughly the same time period as Laura in the USA. My childhood was peaceful. I was advised to get an education as a nurse, teacher or secretary in case "something happened to a husband and I needed a back up". I began the same search for meaning as Laura but as a result of heartache as an adult rather than rebellion. 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.

I am recalling something I read in the "RA Material" that is case in point for me. They painted the picture of a person checking out in a super market. The person got to the counter and did not have enough to pay. There were others in line behind. Each may have had a different reaction to same the event witnessed, dependent upon their situation. One may have considered the person lesser than...looked down upon him or her. The second may have been annoyed by being held up in line. The third may have had compassion for the person who was embarrassed and without money to pay and then another may have paid the bill without a second thought. All are valid reactions within the identical catalyst for growth. (I may have made up some of this scenario because I don't have it on hand, but it is close).

Anyway, this thread can be a rich subject for understanding of ourselves as women and also understanding of how it is to simply be in a body facing the struggles of being a human trying to get it right.
 
That is really really bothering me too. Men have a sort of brotherhood with unwritten words. Women on the other hand could kill each other over trivial things. Maybe that's why I liked working with men instead of women. Men are usually straightforward, while women, you never know...
That is bothering me too. I work better with men than with women. I think men are more secure of their place in the hierarchy of their pack. Women on the other hand, most of the time find themselves at the bottom where , surprise surprise, find only women to contend with.
Besides, one cannot make to 'lady' when you have to deal with cleaning and sorting out mess, being there as nurse and clown and angel. What is left is bitch and diva.
There's an excellent book on navigating workplace relationships with other women by the name of: "In the Company of Women: Indirect Aggression Among Women: Why We Hurt Each Other and How to Stop"

In a nutshell, the book's thesis is that while men organize themselves hierarchically seeking power, women do not, instead seeking security through horizontal connections, resulting in the book's notion of a "power dead even" rule, using a biological essentialist model to explain office politics. Coincidentally, this motivates the genesis of the 'make nice' program. The "kill each other over trivial things" isn't about the "trivial thing" so much as it is about the upsetting of the "power dead even" rule and implied collective getting along for "security". The main failure of the book is that it doesn't integrate an understanding of psychopathy or narcissism, but still, a good read.
 
There's an excellent book on navigating workplace relationships with other women by the name of: "In the Company of Women: Indirect Aggression Among Women: Why We Hurt Each Other and How to Stop"

In a nutshell, the book's thesis is that while men organize themselves hierarchically seeking power, women do not, instead seeking security through horizontal connections, resulting in the book's notion of a "power dead even" rule, using a biological essentialist model to explain office politics. Coincidentally, this motivates the genesis of the 'make nice' program. The "kill each other over trivial things" isn't about the "trivial thing" so much as it is about the upsetting of the "power dead even" rule and implied collective getting along for "security". The main failure of the book is that it doesn't integrate an understanding of psychopathy or narcissism, but still, a good read.
Ran out of edit time, but here's a description of the book's "power dead even" rule:

In the Company of Women said:
For a positive relationship to be possible between two women, the self-esteem and power of one must be, in the perception of each woman, similar in weight to the self-esteem and power of the other. These essential elements must be kept "dead even". Exceptions might include situations where one woman is older and more experienced that the other, and therefore has more power a priori. Another might be a mentoring situation where one woman is actively working toward increasing the power of another.
 
I have been keeping track of this thread since it began a couple of days ago and it continues to provoke a reaction in me (or several) that I am finding difficult to express but I will try to get some of it out. To go in a direction of who suffers more, men or women and discuss the millions of ways this has been done throughout history can be cathartic for some and possibly appropriate in certain settings. I do think the subject is interesting and meaningful as I am a woman and certainly can relate to the issue. However, now it seems to be on the edge of morphing into a blaming, bashing and complaining party with a flavor of self righteousness in spots. I would caution against going there as it does not serve the purpose, in my opinion.

Currently, my sixteen year old granddaughter is very much enjoying her "women as activists" course in school now. She has been asking me questions for homework assignments and as a result I have re-experienced some of my forgotten memories of how it was to grow up in the 50's and 60's as a female. Remembering provided me with a compass to see how things have changed in the world and also to check what has changed within me. So, I process all of that. However, now I think it serves me mostly to see it, understand it but then bump it to the next level of understanding as best I can.

Laura mentioned that she turned her rebellion and chip on her shoulder into a search for the meaning of it all and why. I grew up in roughly the same time period as Laura in the USA. My childhood was peaceful. I was advised to get an education as a nurse, teacher or secretary in case "something happened to a husband and I needed a back up". I began the same search for meaning as Laura but as a result of heartache as an adult rather than rebellion. 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.

I am recalling something I read in the "RA Material" that is case in point for me. They painted the picture of a person checking out in a super market. The person got to the counter and did not have enough to pay. There were others in line behind. Each may have had a different reaction to same the event witnessed, dependent upon their situation. One may have considered the person lesser than...looked down upon him or her. The second may have been annoyed by being held up in line. The third may have had compassion for the person who was embarrassed and without money to pay and then another may have paid the bill without a second thought. All are valid reactions within the identical catalyst for growth. (I may have made up some of this scenario because I don't have it on hand, but it is close).

Anyway, this thread can be a rich subject for understanding of ourselves as women and also understanding of how it is to simply be in a body facing the struggles of being a human trying to
Agree. We don't have to go into the 'who suffered more' direction. It wasn't the point anyway at all. It was part of the awakening from my part.
 
That is really really bothering me too. Men have a sort of brotherhood with unwritten words. Women on the other hand could kill each other over trivial things. Maybe that's why I liked working with men instead of women. Men are usually straightforward, while women, you never know...
I think part of it on men's side is a recognition of what aggression can cost if good relationships are not maintained. It's not always obvious what sort of power another man wields and so it would be unwise to instigate things unnecessarily. Respect is a 2 way street and maintains harmony between men. When harmony is broken the costs can end up being unnecessarily high - I'd say more high than in the case for women treating each other without respect. Don't forget it's men who fight wars. Also for men it's not a question of one man vs another man but it's also the perception of right and wrong to the wider group - a bully might rally others against him depending on the milieu. You shouldn't forget that underneath all these there are some deep rooted animal instincts at work - we're animals after all.
 
Let all hypocritical men reflect: which death is easier? That of a mother alone with her baby, dying of hunger for days, depending on how strong her body is, and mother's bodies are very strong, and her baby cries out with hunger until it falls asleep exhausted, and she falls asleep too, and when she wakes up she finds that her baby is dead aaaaaaaaaaaaa; or the death of a drunken and drugged soldier in a battle or a bear fight, surrounded by his kind? Which experience would you want your child to have?

Please try to avoid silly oversimplification and obtuseness. That's not what this thread is about.
 
No one kills sober. Drugs are used extensively in the military and always have been.

An absurd claim, to say the very least.

If you want to understand the position of women in society, I can only recommend Gloria Steinem's 'The Revolution from Within' and empathy. Empathy with the feelings of people you oppress has only gotten us to where we are now.

Gloria Steinem is the last person I would consult on any of these issues since there is evidence to show that she was a CIA mouthpiece at best, a 4D STS tool at worst.

The only thing that bothers me more than men desperately trying to convince everyone they are suffering equally is women treating other women like bitches instead of sisters.

As far as I can see, men are suffering equally, though in a different way.

I agree that women should treat one another better, but my observations and experiences are such that I don't think that is possible unless and until the whole problem is healed, especially the distortion of the psyches of men who, almost inevitably are at the root of women's rivalry.

Another read is 'Taida' by Anatole France - an amazingly accurate portrayal of the nature of men and women. Written by a man, yes. Of course, not all men are equal, and both sexes are responsible for the way things are, but if you base your arguments on the obvious, you have none.

Cannot comment since I have not read it. What do you mean about basing arguments on the obvious?

Can we go beyond what we know and face reality as it is for all of us, not just some of us? Because that would help make this world a better place, and that's always important, especially in times of chaos.

Somehow, if you are working off Steinem, I don't think that is what you are doing.
 
I think part of it on men's side is a recognition of what aggression can cost if good relationships are not maintained. It's not always obvious what sort of power another man wields and so it would be unwise to instigate things unnecessarily. Respect is a 2 way street and maintains harmony between men. When harmony is broken the costs can end up being unnecessarily high - I'd say more high than in the case for women treating each other without respect. Don't forget it's men who fight wars. Also for men it's not a question of one man vs another man but it's also the perception of right and wrong to the wider group - a bully might rally others against him depending on the milieu. You shouldn't forget that underneath all these there are some deep rooted animal instincts at work - we're animals after all.

Thanks for this. And the last statement is what so many forget and fail to take into account. We must KNOW our machine in order to drive it properly. And this is a huge part of External Considering as Gurdjieff described it.
 
Another item worth throwing into the pot. Just comparing and contrasting the different realities that men / women existed in for a long duration of time. I wouldn't say that historically speaking it was expected for a woman to provide for herself, however, I'd say that it was for a man. I think it's undeniable that this put different pressures on the 2 genders and drove different kind of behaviours. For sure nowadays all genders are expected to provide for themselves but even in this, women have an easier exit route through choosing a male partner with higher means. So for a guy it's rarely "I'm going to work my way out of a bad economic situation by meeting and marrying a well to do woman", rather it's "I really have to figure this out otherwise I'm condemned to a life of struggle". I think that kind of pressure drives a certain kind of behaviour which may not necessarily be fully recognised and appreciated by women generally speaking. I think there is a certain kind of underlying level of aggression and drive that is qualitatively different in men compared to women and you can't deny that this result in somewhat different realities for the 2. I can't deny to not being able to fully understand certain aspects of women's realities as I don't expect women's world's to be the same and hold precisely the same expectations, be they unspoken. I'd say as a man you are way closer to death than a woman, at least like as a general rule. The world is a bit more visceral and raw to the male, a bit more unforgiving too. It really does call you to harness masculine qualities if you intend to navigate it okay, otherwise you'll run into some serious problems - rarely will anyone come to rescue you, rather you must endure. But again this is not to say women don't face real dangers too. It's just that things aren't the same between the 2 even though the 2 occupy the same space.
 
Added: No wonder we have a rise of she-males in today's world. It flipping isn't easy to be a man and be a man well - to do it well. It requires being able to handle fear and the unknown, it requires bravery and courage in the presence of scary odds. It requires a lot! It's much easier to take an exit route if one is presented to you and if that exit route is to deny reality and say that gender doesn't exist and that you can be a woman too, then many will take it especially if it becomes fashionable. But I dare say there will be costs - weak men allow for the rise of tyrants & tyrannical systems and both genders will pay the price for this.
 
Back
Top Bottom