Male verses female spirituality

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Altair

It’s not all down to culture. Men having more testosterone literally makes them less likely to cry. This is why boys find it easier to cry and many men, even when very sad, still don’t easily cry. Even transgender men observe the difference when they are on hormones. Yeah, some men cry easier than other men and it doesn’t make those that do “more open” but just different from the norm. Same with hugging like women do.

I don’t believe we should assume that men who cry more and are more touchy feely are more “open” or “more spiritual” for being so. Some of us are more stoic naturally, and less expressive, others more.

I find there to be a lot of sexism going on in this thread. A number of posters are basically saying men that aren’t overly emotional are somehow failed human beings and it also sounds as if they are “incomplete women”, which is ludicrous!

All people are fine when it comes to this topic... sensitive women, tough women, sensitive men, tough stoic men. It does not matter!

I don't think what I have shared is sexist; I am just sharing my observations. As a former licensed psychotherapist I observed in New York, Denver, and in California, I noticed that more women voluntarily go to therapy to discuss their feelings then men, and most of the men in therapy were court ordered.

I also noticed that there are more males in prison then females. Generally speaking men will wait until something breaks before they address it while women will talk inaccessibly about things regardless. Yes, I am using generalities. I taught behavioral sciences at the University of Colorado, and what I taught was based on statistical data; that is not sexist.

It is a historical fact that for a very long time men have been sexist towards women. Did not allow women to vote here in the U.S. and only recently have women been allowed to drive cars in Afghanistan. Not to mention how females today are subjugated in many parts of this world; it is not sexist to acknowledge this, as it is a fact. Denying this is like denying that there is racism in this world, as sexism and racism have similar dynamics.

I am sharing my observations of having worked for about 42-years in the behavioral and social sciences, and what I have shared is documented in history books. It is not sexist, it is human history.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Starman

I don't think what I have shared is sexist; I am just sharing my observations. As a former licensed psychotherapist I observed in New York, Denver, and in California, I noticed that more women voluntarily go to therapy to discuss their feelings then men, and most of the men in therapy were court ordered.

I also noticed that there are more males in prison then females. Generally speaking men will wait until something breaks before they address it while women will talk inaccessibly about things regardless. Yes, I am using generalities. I taught behavioral sciences at the University of Colorado, and what I taught was based on statistical data; that is not sexist.

It is a historical fact that for a very long time men have been sexist towards women. Did not allow women to vote here in the U.S. and only recently have women been allowed to drive cars in Afghanistan. Not to mention how females today are subjugated in many parts of this world; it is not sexist to acknowledge this, as it is a fact. Denying this is like denying that there is racism in this world, as sexism and racism have similar dynamics.

I am sharing my observations of having worked for about 42-years in the behavioral and social sciences, and what I have shared is documented in history books. It is not sexist, it is human history.

Male and female ''energies'' is not about science, but pseudo-science and belief.
With respect, but I am naturally skeptical about psychology. I took a couple of courses in uni for extra ects in psychology and I couldn't help but notice the flaws of the discipline. You have to work with operational definitions, and much research, especially in cultural psychology as well as personality psychology relies on Richter scale statistics and questionnaires. This is fine and well, but not actual science. So unless you refer to neuropsychology I very much take it with a healthy degree of skepticism. That's not to say these other psychology fields aren't of value (they can be very insightful.).

Yeah, there are more men in prison, but this is down to nature. If women had more testosterone than men and were the more dominant and leaders everywhere it would be another society with inequality. There are always hierarchies and inequalities in societies because they naturally develop that way. You either take charge and power somewhere or someone else will. It is like that everywhere, in every field, and even in your local supermarket when you compete for a place in the queue (it's not always about asking and 'understanding' one another). So any topic that deals with these ''men subjugate women'' are really not about gender/sex IMO, but nature itself. Things would be no different if women were larger and stronger than men, then it would be the women who would be more violent and more women than men in prison.

What I call out as sexist are the comments in this thread that basically reduce men to ''incomplete women'' and men being ''less'' than women because they're not as ''emotional'' and ''intuitive'' or women being less ''logical''. In many professions one needs to think intuitively as well as logically. It is only in Modern Spirituality/New Age where men are seen as unevolved and in need of correction and women being close to flawless. I get that impression from some posts. It's a radicalism not too dissimilar to medieval monks believing women are all sinners.

[Starman]

Altair,the only pure science is mathematics, all other sciences have flaws. The psychology I taught was based on mathematics, specifically statistics. There are hundreds of schools of psychological thought but the average American only learns about Freudian psychology, which dominates western thought. All effective disciples are interdisciplinary because no disciple can function adequately alone by itself; nothing can thrive in a vacuum.

What was considered pseudoscience yesterday is considered mainstream science today. Acupuncture was once called a pseudoscience because it deals with channeling blocked energy, but today it is considered a mainstream effective treatment. Still science can not truly explain how acupuncture works. There are lots of things that humanity regularly accepts that can not be proven by science.

Just because it is the way that things are always done does not mean that it is natural. In my opinion there are not always hierarchies, and dominance is and expression of insecurity, in my opinion.

P.S. Women are just as flawed as men.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Starman

Altair,the only pure science is mathematics, all other sciences have flaws. The psychology I taught was based on mathematics, specifically statistics. There are hundreds of schools of psychological thought but the average American only learns about Freudian psychology, which dominates western thought.All effective disciples are interdisciplinary because no disciple can function adequately alone by itself; nothing can thrive in a vacuum.

I got next to nothing on Freud when I did my psychology courses, so idk about your definition of ''western thought'' but it does not apply to my university and education, despite living and having studied in Europe. I noticed a lot of psychological research rests on Richter/Likert scale-based statistics (which isn't science but opinion and feeling based). Ofc my understanding is limited but much psychological research coming out (unless its neuroscience related) is quite flawed even from an already layman's perspective (but often interesting so please don't take this wrongly).

Originally Posted by Starman

Just because it is the way that things are always done does not mean that it is natural. In my opinion there are not always hierarchies, and dominance is and expression of insecurity, in my opinion.

The only exception would be a 'pure' anarchy but then eventually it would develop leaders and establishes dominance and hierarchy again. Dominance is not necessarily an ugly word. It occurs everywhere, in families, in team sports, in any business, etc. It doesn't have to mean beating others up or making them beg or kneel, lol.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Altair

The only exception would be a 'pure' anarchy but then eventually it would develop leaders and establishes dominance and hierarchy again. Dominance is not necessarily an ugly word. It occurs everywhere, in families, in team sports, in any business, etc. It doesn't have to mean beating others up or making them beg or kneel, lol.

Actually democracy, or majority rule, occurs in some of the animal kingdom and is attempted in many human societies, although in humanity it is flawed. But there are also employee owned businesses where all of the employees have a vote, or say, in how a company is run. A top down design is only one of many administrative models, and dominance or having control and power for the most part is and illusion. Human dominance is very limited and we have control over very little. The coronavirus should have taught us that. In my opinion dominance is more of and ego trip than anything else, and it often functions by instilling fear in those it wants to control. Those who are dominated seldom accept being dominated, although there are some people who like being dominated. I agree that dominance is not always a bad thing, but I am not sure if it is a natural thing in humankind.

[Starman]

I don't think it is testosterone that divides the sexes as much as it is the ability to express oneself. Men go to prison for some of the same reasons that women go to therapy; this is a generalization.

Women generally talk about their issues while lots of men hold stuff in until it explodes. Females have complained for ages how their man does not talk to them, they just grunt at questions their female might ask. Like I said, this is a sweeping generalization.

I remember going to house party's and often the guys would gather out on the porch, or someplace else, and talk, while the girls would almost always gather in the kitchen and talk. Once I went into the kitchen to break up this gender division, and I was looked at and treated as though I did not belong there. Like this was the girls space.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

In past lives, I have loaned to people money which they did not have to pay back in that life time.

In this lifetime, I haven't been loaning out money like that.


So am I less spiritual?

Originally Posted by ketzer

You should see if you can track those people down in this lifetime and tell them it is time to pay up.

BTW: You still owe me that $100 from two lifetimes ago, ya deadbeat!

I have met many of those people in this life time. I mentioned to them the lifetime and their promise they would pay me back, not in that life time but in a future life time. The interest was suppose to be only 1 percent. Because so much time has transpired, no matter how much they make in this life time, they can not pay me back.

What these people do is they become part of a group that pray that when I die, I ascend so the debts are cancelled.

As for the $100.00 you gave me: you paid me in Thistle Dollars. There would have been no problem except the silver in the coins turned out to be German silver. Before you gave me the $100 Thistle Dollars, you already owned me a lot of money from three previous lives. I guess you thought I had forgotten.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Starman

Actually democracy, or majority rule, occurs in some of the animal kingdom and is attempted in many human societies, although in humanity it is flawed. But there are also employee owned businesses where all of the employees have a vote, or say, in how a company is run. A top down design is only one of many administrative models, and dominance or having control and power for the most part is and illusion. Human dominance is very limited and we have control over very little. The coronavirus should have taught us that. In my opinion dominance is more of and ego trip than anything else, and it often functions by instilling fear in those it wants to control. Those who are dominated seldom accept being dominated, although there are some people who like being dominated. I agree that dominance is not always a bad thing, but I am not sure if it is a natural thing in humankind.

It is completely natural and dominance and hierarchy make societies more efficient. If they would not exist and everyone was actually equal than we literally cannot organize anything whatsoever. There are always people more strong, more intelligent, etc. You seem to be hung up about the words themselves and associate them with ''ego'' ((something malevolent?)) and ''fear'', perhaps you imagine the worst cases. That says something about one's beliefs but does not devalue the practical need they have in human society.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Altair

It is completely natural and dominance and hierarchy make societies more efficient. If they would not exist and everyone was actually equal than we literally cannot organize anything whatsoever. There are always people more strong, more intelligent, etc. You seem to be hung up about the words themselves and associate them with ''ego'' ((something malevolent?)) and ''fear'', perhaps you imagine the worst cases. That says something about one's beliefs but does not devalue the practical need they have in human society.

Are you saying that the Prime Minister of Britain or President of the U.S. are the most intelligent and strongest in their societies? No I am not hung up on the word "dominance," I just think that there are other paradigms which are just as, or even more, effective than dominance. But I will admit that I do believe in equality and equifinality. Fixations on dominance also says something about one's beliefs.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Starman

Are you saying that the Prime Minister of Britain or President of the U.S. are the most intelligent and strongest in their societies? No I am not hung up on the word "dominance," I just think that there are other paradigms which are just as, or even more, effective than dominance. But I will admit that I do believe in equality and equifinality. Fixations on dominance also says something about one's beliefs.

Clearly you are hung up about the word dominance because you associate it with figures that you dislike, and as a consequence, you think it says something about me as well.

I'll clarify...
Dominance means power and influence over others (source: Lexico). A parent has dominance over a child, a boss over a worker, a professor over his students etc. etc.

We can of course ask ourselves ((and we should!!)) to what degree dominance should be displayed and kept in check, but to do away with it would be anarchy and also does not work nor does it exists. You have a certain idea/image about ''dominance'' (PM of Britain, President of the US) and you associate them with the word, and you then think it is best to do away with what is behind the word.