SES then and now - what has changed?

[Keir]

FT, Would that be a women's group (from the chair's perspective, perhaps)?

Ross, whilst I appreciate you have a lot to say, I have sadly been reduced to scrolling past your diatribes. Everyone sometimes has a long rant, and I am not above posting a multi paragraph effort, but the sheer number I see from you in various threads, one after the other, coupled with a slightly (IMHO) rambling style, makes it an infuriating and ultimately dissapointing task to read through them from start to finish.

Please could you make an effort to be more concise and to the point. I value the whole variety of viewpoints here but your long posts make it difficult to not resent them and you by extension.

Thanks.

PS I dont need a reply, honest.

[Free Thinker]

Why, of course Keir! I was commenting on the forceful separation of the sexes in the groups!

[NYC]

"obedience" can be - and is - interpreted on quite a few levels. Ideally, it means that the husband's or father's word on a subject is final.

Why is this an ideal?

In the end, who's to say that the ASSUMED [my shout, obviously] greater capacity for "steadier reason" is better or worse than the ASSUMED greater capacity for understanding, compassion and empathy?

Well exactly, but it also seems to me that one of the big pitfalls in describing reason as a masculine quality and empathy as a feminine quality is that if you are not terribly careful the ?masculine qualities? end up associated exclusively with biological men by the many IDIOTS in the world, and ?feminine qualities? exclusively with actual women.

I like the system of describing the masculine principle as ?yang? and the feminine principle as ?yin,? since it leaves women open to possessing/demonstrating whatever yang qualities they happen to have, and vice versa for men, rather than limiting either sex to an inaccurately narrow range of possibilities.

Women can be aggressive, extroverted, logical, selfish, driven, and any other yang quality you can name, and men can be empathetic, emotional, receptive, (even passive!) and any other yin quality as well.

Gah, I really wish you would get all yang on your tutor?s ass and clap him (or her!) on the head with a beer bottle next time s/he advocates this ideal of obedience. No, not QUITE, but for God?s sake if women run around obeying men simply because they ARE men we deserve the resultant oppression.

ADG, your example of ?read, understand and sucessfully use the instructions that come with Ikea furniture? as a definition of ?steady reason? or logic is a good one?however I must say that I?ve met plenty of guys who can do that, and plenty of women who could, as well. I just have absolutely no confidence at all that that ability is related to sex although it certainly might be to gender. (Sex being the genitalia, gender the constructed role that goes with those genitalia).

It is usually a bit more socially acceptable for women to dis men than the other way ?round since it is still ?a man?s world? in the overt sense?if you scan the leadership of corporations and governments, it skews male. But every man has a mother. Hetero men can not escape interaction with women entirely, and if women are oppressed, to the degree they are oppressed, men will suffer from it as well.

I wonder how many of the veiled women of Saudi Arabia poison their husbands after a particularly bad beating, or turn their sons against their fathers, if the man of the house ?rules? unfairly?in a social setting where women are devalued, such as in China where the one-child rule has meant that abortions are performed disproportionately on female fetuses, there is now such a shortage of marriageable women that dowrys are exorbitantly high and many many men will be unable to find a wife. Oppression has a way of returning to the oppressing group.

If men relinquish assumed superiority, they will also relinquish an enormous burden. Whether men relinquish it willingly or not, it is being taken from them.


Quick note to Ross ? you describe eloquently the sacrifices men have made to provide for their families and to defend the tribe or group from outside attackers; war. I do think it?s fair to recognize that contribution. But I also think that it is no longer (if it ever was) necessary for men to endure soul-killing work when their wives can get hired as well...and if the yin principle can be brought into international relations we might very well avoid some of the stupider conflicts. I second Keir that I would read your posts with more attention if you put a bit more thought into editing them.

Sigh?my family has often asked me why I am bothered so much by sexual equality questions when I didn?t grow up with a lot of ?into the kitchen, girl-child!? bullshit. I don?t really have an answer for that. I just know that it infuriates me to no end when men (or women) try to tell me I have a more limited capacity than I know myself to have.

The Hindu goddess Kali is a demonic figure, female power unchecked. In tyhe traditionsal portrayal, she stands astride Shiva , wearing a necklace of skulls and dripping blood from her fangs. I feel she represents the rebellion against repression, something everyone, male or female, Aryan or Dravidian, can identify with. ?Go ahead and try to keep me down,? she says, ?at YOUR OWN FUCKING PERIL."

[a different guest]

When I see women demanding to work in coal mines

another thing that leapt out at my whilst scrolling.

women have not so much "demanded" they work in coal mines - they always have. Of course at great cost to their families.

testimonies from south wales mines

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynam ... sson7.html

Jane Peacock Watson.
"I have wrought in the bowels of the earth 33 years. I have been married 23 years and had nine children, six are alive and three died of typhus a few years since. Have had two dead born. Horse-work ruins the women; it crushes their haunches, bends their ankles and makes them old women at 40.

and

Isabel Wilson, 38 years old.
"I have been married 19 years and have had 10 bairns [children]:...My last child was born on Saturday morning, and I was at work on the Friday night...

and

http://www.dmm-gallery.org.uk/colleng/520a-01.htm

Attention was drawn to the continued use of women by Mr. Robert Bold in 1808 in his "view of the Coal Trade of Scotland," in which he remarks on the severity of the toil performed by the female coal bearers in the collieries there. Dr. Holland (Fossil Fuel), mentions that in 1835 women were still to be found working in the mines of Staffordshire and Shropshire. In Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, South Wales and Scotland, women and children were still employed up to 1842 in "hurrying" the coal wagons or sledges (Fig. 4). In Scotland, "bearing" still existed, the women carrying the coal in creels, or in large pieces, to the shaft bottom and even up ladders to the surface (Fig. 5).

but this is all as off-topic as are most things Ross brings up. But NYC do note, these women's earnings WERE vital. Both men AND women were employed in "soul killing" work. And think about such "women's work" as working in the dairy - ever turned a butter churn for hours? This type of work was considered, years ago, too hard for men. LOL

But NYC I do like the idea of referring to "ying" and "yang" - cos even tho this does, on one level, equate to "feminine" and "masculine", still they are at least not those, problematic, words. Men and women DO embody both, tho to what degree of which can, of course, vary.

and re ikea furniture, did you, like Ross, not see the smiley? Yes it was a joke, but also, like many jokes, it DOES have at least SOME reference to reality. How else could Dory in Finding Nemo get so many laughs from her "what is it about men and directions?" line.

and just on your comment re women in Saudi and poisening their husbands - keep in mind that in western societies (well Australia at least) the VAST majority of divorces are instigated by the wife - often after years of marriage. Empower women and they get rid of the drop-kicks quick smart

[daska]

All men are capable of assembling IKEA bookshelves, it's just that none of them ever learn to read...

I know one man who has a very effective strategy for assembling IKEA bookshelves. He opens the packaging, spends several hours sucking his teeth and cursing the lack of the one fixing that IKEA forgot to include and then goes to the pub. By the time he gets back the pixie has done the pesky job for him! This same pixie also plumbs, wires, tiles, decorates, works full time and has a womb.

[Free Thinker]

Some men have a LOT of reason.

My husband just comes to me first off for help with a new computer program, programming the VCR, or putting together a piece of IKEA furniture! It's much easier that way.

[daska]

The SES ideal of obedience

My understanding, after having it rammed down my throat for 16 years:

The woman anticipates and obeys the man's spoken and unspoken commands immediately, instinctively and without question. His 'Reason' is infinitely superior to hers because women don't have any reasoning capacity, therefore the woman must not question the man's decision under any circumstances or in any way because that she is not capable of doing so. He is ALWAYS right. She obeys joyfully because her husband/father is God and she must worship him as such for her entire life (even if he is unfaithful or violent).

[bella]

People's experiences of this will vary, but the way it's been put in my groups is:

"Men have greater access to reason, and need to cultivate emotion. Women have greater access to emotion, and need to cultivate reason."

Being in a heterosexual partnership is supposed to allow both these things to happen more effectively. It's not been suggested to me that women have no reason, and men have no emotion, but that generally speaking, one or the other is predominant depending on the gender.
I also don't get the feeling that what's being spoken of is the ability to put together kit furniture, build planes or program a VCR. The main thing I get out of this suggestion is that men generally have a greater capacity to make a decision (or direct action) without being swayed from reason by emotion. What's rational and what feels right at the time don't always match up. I gotta say, in my years on the planet, my experiences have actually led me to agree with this generalisation, regardless of how reasonable I might suppose myself or other women to be. It's possible to agree with the principle without approving of its interpretation or implementation, too.

[daska]

quite a difference there between what Bella gets now to what I got at school!

and my experience tells me that men have great access to emotion - just watching the temper tantrum that results in the hammer being thrown across the room before he goes to the pub...

[NYC]

?ever turned a butter churn for hours??

Yeah, I keep it on the fire escape?next to the cow...

I did work briefly in an Alaskan salmon cannery, and although the factory would hire women it was an unofficial rule that we didn?t touch the tools. (This was in the early 90s.) The result was that the jobs which were less physically demanding, like driving the forklift or nailing wooden boxes together, were done exclusively by men, and the women did things like separate the fish guts from salmon roe & sponge salt on or off the packing. I have never again experienced the kind of back pain you get from sponging salt for hours on end; after twenty minutes your back, wrists, & neck are in flames, and you look at the clock ? yay, only 13 more hours to go! It looks like a very femme job, just a sponge in your hand, but it was physically excruciating.

I didn?t mean to discount the contribution of the hordes of women who have had difficult, dangerous, dirty jobs in the past; but I think Ross?s point is a fair one that men have traditionally had the BURDEN of work outside the home, as well as the opportunity. I do wish he was not quite so ready to equate ?women historically have not been aircraft designers? with ?women can?t be aircraft designers.?

Btw, Ross referred to me as an SES member?I don?t consider myself one since I have no plans to accept initiation. It?s true that I am somewhat sympathetic to religion, I don?t consider myself a secular humanist?but I am waiting to see the results of the internal inquiry before I decide whether or not I?ll continue at the SoPP as a student.

"obedience" can be - and is - interpreted on quite a few levels. Ideally, it means that the husband's or father's word on a subject is final.

Why is this an ideal?

Bella, your husband is not a member of the School so you can bring home exactly as much of the doctrine as you care to, interpreted in the way that makes the most sense to you. But you are also a initiated member of an org which attempts to influence both children and adults, and so you bear partial responsibility for whether that influence is benign or malignant. In karma terms, you will reap the fruit not only of your own individual actions, but also the actions of whatever larger group you are a part of ? your family, country, religion, tribe, etc. Your School advocates women obey men. I can?t believe you agree with it.

Earlier, you wrote

women obeying men (specifically their father or husband) is suggested as the ideal. The father or husband is said to embody the Absolute?the woman is said to embody nature

You have not supplied a reason why men embody the Absolute better than women do. I don?t imagine you believe it, yourself, and I would guess that the School doesn?t try to actually demonstrate that men have some access to God women do not have?but merely sets up the structural parallels I outlined earlier, men/women, the Absolute/nature, ?reason?/emotion, etc.

But advaita does not separate the Absolute from nature. To quote the London website, ?the formless, invisible source of the creation, and the manifest creation itself, are essentially one and not separate.? Dualism, which DOES separate spirit and matter, is a far more prevalent belief system than advaita/nondualism.

And the dualistic outlook is SO common it frequently slips in under the radar. Perhaps humans have an innate sort of bias towards dualism ? we have a hemispheric brain and a bilateral body, and so our perceptive mechanism just naturally tends to divide the world into pairs rather than triads, for example.

But the BIG problem comes in I think when dualism becomes hierarchical, instead of merely right/left, it is up/down. Hierarchical dualism, patriarchy, privileges one term over the other, instead of viewing them as complementary, as in the yin/yang model. The Absolute is not only divided from manifest nature, but privileged over it, men are associated with the Absolute, and so men are privileged over women.

But the School will never try to defend male authority and privilege in terms of men?s greater access to the Absolute, since it is too much like saying men are closer to God and nobody will believe that now. (In medieval times women were not allowed to sing in choir since, it was argued, they did not actually possess souls. I learned this in a music history class at NYU.) Instead, the debate will shift to pairing women with ?emotion? and men with ?reason? to support men having the final word/authority, since it is much easier to appeal to direct experience through that route. Women certainly seem more emotional & empathetic, and men may seem (although not in Daska?s experience) more ?reasonable.? I won?t get into whether that is innate or socially reinforced here.

The main thing I get out of this suggestion ["Men have greater access to reason, and need to cultivate emotion. Women have greater access to emotion, and need to cultivate reason."] is that men generally have a greater capacity to make a decision (or direct action) without being swayed from reason by emotion. What's rational and what feels right at the time don't always match up.

Bella, I understand you want to take what is valuable on offer and leave the rest but you are equivocating terms here. I?ll distinguish them by using small r reason when I mean ?logic? and capital R Reason when I mean "rational" -- that thing Plato was forever going on about [if you grew up in the School no doubt this is familiar to you but if not here?s a quick summary of Plato?s description of the human psyche; he described:

a multi-headed monster, representing the Desires (for a good meal, a new car, etc, roughly correspondent to Freud?s id or the ?inner two-year-old?)

a lion, representing the Will (or the ego, the exertion of self to satisfy the Desires) and

a little man, representing Reason (or the superego, the sense of unity/solidarity with others, etc).

Now, I prefer to think of Reason as the North Star, a guiding light, rather than a little man since I?d like to change what is sexist about the classic forms. But whatever metaphor you use, a little man or a pole star, Reason in this sense contains both emotion and logic in perfect balance.

Plato recommends that capital R Reason should control the Will and the Will should control the multitudinous Desires. Emotion plays a part throughout this system, not solely in the ?I want? of Desires, but also in the exertion of the Will. The highest expressions of emotion (compassion, love, empathy, etc.) are as integral to Reason as logic.

The School supposes that ?men have greater access to reason [in the sense of logical thought] and need to cultivate emotion.? Bella suggests that the justification for men having final authority is that ?men generally have a greater capacity to make a decision?without being swayed from reason [logic] by emotion. What's rational [or derived from ?Reason,? in the Platonic sense] and what feels right at the time don't always match up.?

But what Plato recommends as the final authority is not logic but Reason, and the argument that men should be decision makers because they have greater access to reason in the sense of logic gives them no greater access to Reason in the sense of Platonic Rationality, logic and emotion in balance.

The stereotypical man is just as likely to err as a stereotypical woman, albeit on a different side of the fence. What is ?Rational? in the Platonic sense MUST be informed by compassion, etc as well as logic and so men and women have a better chance of behaving in a Rational way working together than if men are the final authority.

It?s an ancient equivocation, this switcheroo from ?reason? meaning logic to ?Reason? meaning wisdom. It wouldn?t work too well if the School had to put in premise ? argument ? conclusion format:


Men have greater access to logic and need to cultivate emotion.
Women have greater access to emotion and need to cultivate logic.

Reason should be the basis of decision-making.
Reason is the balance of emotion and logic (or wisdom and love, to use the words the School favors).

Therefore, men should make the final decisions because men have greater access to logic?
oh wait, it doesn?t work anymore.


Or possibly Bella is presenting the School?s argument as reason (logical thought) is all that is needed for Rationality?but Plato, that hero of the SES, would not agree (nor would you seem to from your previous posts).

As far as differences between the sexes go, the advantage that I see men having is not greater ability to think logically or to act in accordance with Reason, but to be brave, bold, to take on more than they comfortably know how to do.

An example from my personal experience would be when I?m teaching headstand in yoga classes. The women often need a great deal of coaxing and encouragement to attempt it, even if they have a lot of physical skill and have been practicing a long time. Pretty often, a woman will bring her boyfriend to class & they tend to be much bolder in attempting to go upside-down, even though they?re not really ready to do it. In those cases it?s my job to run around and actually discourage the guy from flinging himself into the air & hurting himself (or someone else as he comes crashing down). Very seldom do I need to pull a woman back.

My point is, while women and men definitely encounter different challenges doing a headstand (the men have greater upper body strength but consequently less shoulder flexibility, the women vice versa) both CAN do it and the men TEND (though not always) to need to be encouraged to take a more yin approach and the women frequently need to get all yang on it.

One last thing re decision making -- Ross referred to the military/corporate model, structures where one person has final say and those below in the hierarchy must go along with it. That?s not the only model, consensus decision making is another way to go?and I get deeply depressed at the idea of organizing a family like the military.

I understand the School is a big advocate of marriage and heterosexual complementarity (which has its own issues) but why doesn?t the School advocate a partnership model between husband and wife as the ideal?

[Free Thinker]

I think the answer to that, NYC, lies in the fact that Mr. M hated women.

[a different guest]

but I think Ross?s point is a fair one that men have traditionally had the BURDEN of work outside the home, as well as the opportunity.

Well in that he would be incorrect. Before the industrial revolution familys worked together in home based industrys. going "out" to work (in factories etc) was a product of the IR and both women AND men would "go out" to work. It was only with the emergence of a "middle class" who wanted to emulate the lifestyles of the upper classes that the idea of the women "traditionally" being home and men going out to work gained some ground. But poorer women STILL went "out" to work. The "tradition" of women being the homekeepers is very recent and was class specific.

Your School advocates women obey men. I can?t believe you agree with it.

I wonder this too Bella. I am not sure if you have children, but if you do are you happy for them to attend the SOP day schools here which, as can be shown by the Sydney school's website, actively teach young girls to "instantly obey"? Do they also teach the boys that the girls are meant to obey them?

NYC - from what I understand (not having studied Plato myself) but the SES "take" on Plato would generally be considered somewhat errornous by any true student of philosophy (ie. academic study). Is that how you see it or have you not gone far enough in the SES's version?

[ross nolan]

Dear people,
I have filtered your commentaries on my last diatribe, I generally accept the responses but I think I should first reply to a couple of statements made of or to me before I go on to encapsulate my position on the 'business' of this forum-- or at least my reason for being involved.

To begin with I had no idea that you were all females (ADG excepted) and can appreciate that you might have taken exception to my defence of the male role in things as being a criticism of female strengths -- the very perceptive discussion on 'duality''polarity' 'pairing of opposites' etc as almost forcing people to "take sides" --placing me by default on the SES side - contains a lot of truth (maybe we need a few transexuals to join in )

The adversarial nature of some western legal,philosophical and religious procedures is guilty of excluding many alternatives and obscuring the truth in many ways (the British adversarial legal system is inferior to the French inquisatorial system in significant ways and fosters hollow debate rather than a search for truth as an example ) -- the labelling of things as 'feminist' can equally close off real thought .

My last couple of postings were made whilst I was "crook as a dog" and had a bit too much spare time (check the times, one was 2.00 am ) and could not get any sleep anyway -- a bit turgid certainly , I freely admit to being less than succint but I hope not vapid either .

Any argument about a description of reality has to eventually come down from the arcane and abstract generalizations to some simple specifics and concrete factual examples to illustrate and support the thing being proposed -- the argument about whether women 'characteristically' do certain things like design aircraft, swing a pick in a coal mine, or some other 'occupation' that I would maintain is characteristically "male" should be able to be resolved by reference to common experience, official statistics or just common sense however I have come to the conclusion that with AGD, at least, I cannot take a trick -- she refuses to even agree that most hard manual jobs are carried out by males .

I do not know how such a proposition can be honestly argued and started with such an example as something that would be accepted by most reasonable people as a fact --- there are perhaps a number of genuinely
contentious issues that can be debated from opposite viewpoints but I do not see how this can be one of them .. where "feminism" is simply a guise for anti male propaganda disagreement ceases to be resolvable by intellectual,rational or arguable means -- what is left is dogma.

My argument with the SES and religion in general, abusive authority and entrenched belief systems of various kinds (lots of 'isms') is partially that they are dogmatic . It is then both frustrating and ultimately fruitless to try to talk and abide by the rules of civilized dissertation and dissent .



What is my purpose in participating in these forums ? Why bother?

My aim is to gather and distill what is known about the SES/SOP so as to be able to go to the relevant authorities, their 'landlords' in Melbourne ,-- as in the Royal Society and my local council , the newspapers and railways who carry their ads,.etc so as to actually have some remedial action begun.

The sort of information and evidence that will have some influence on the persons and bodies that can take action will not be based on esoteric debates on fine points of philosophical interpretation; even though these are fascinating in their own right .

Neither will a snappy 'in your face' delivery with clever rejoinders or put
downs -- I believe that there are serious issues involved and I am looking to see why certain actions by SES/SOP have been taken -- remember the example I gave way back of the female 'student' being told that her miscarriage was her fault and due to her wrong conduct in an earlier life (bad karma) ? -- the laws of manu and vedic teaching being applied.

In beggining to examine the SOP firstly I had to question my own conclusion from personal exposure that they are indeed not only somewhat "strange" but fundamentally I believe represent a bad thing rather than a good thing . (suspend condemnation or lectures on being judgemental for a minute)

Having reached such a conclusion any further information received has served mainly to reinforce the initial hypotheses -- that included finding this (and other) websites , getting "secret cult" and making various other investigations .

Putting out feelers to get further substantial testimonies and persons who had been affected (much harder than with the day schools case) is ongoing but basically I feel there is enough evidence to justify and support initiating action to have the group brought to account ,so that will commence .

I consider the enforcement of the warped teachings behind the SES/SOP in the matter of female "inferiority" and the repugnant beliefs about women as stated in the laws of manu to be both morally wrong and actionable in the legal sense -- therefore on both grounds I am interested in learning more about how these beliefs impact on women in the movement
(notwithstanding the ongoing debate about the detailed 'rights and wrongs' of their gender based rules etc -- I had not been aware that FT and NYC were female until the last exchanges ) Obviously anti discrimination law can be invoked in the case of blatant unequal opportunity or unlawful teaching.

Any basis to stop wrongdoing is worth pursuing (remember they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion ) -- if the SES is stopped and discreditted then their future child victims are automatically also protected.

Maybe this piece can be torn apart by reference to my prejudices on rational versus emotional thinking etc but it is my primary motivation in the whole field -- I have blundered into something that is, at some level, 'evil' and I have decided not to let it flourish from my inaction.

Apologies for any offence taken and none intended.

Ross Nolan

[bella]

NYC, I only have a couple of minutes before I have to go to bed, but I did want to say that I think you've put up a bit of a strawman here.

Bella suggests that the justification for men having final authority is that ?men generally have a greater capacity to make a decision?without being swayed from reason [logic] by emotion. What's rational [or derived from ?Reason,? in the Platonic sense] and what feels right at the time don't always match up.?

But what Plato recommends as the final authority is not logic but Reason, and the argument that men should be decision makers because they have greater access to reason in the sense of logic gives them no greater access to Reason in the sense of Platonic Rationality, logic and emotion in balance.

I never equated reason with logic - that's all yours. I know people can follow logic without being reasonable, and vice versa. As far as I'm concerned, reason equates, as I said, to the ability to make necessary decisions and distinguishments without being unduly influenced by emotion. Compassion, love, etc. are not going to unduly influence you, if they're free of personal bits and pieces (wants, demands, etc.). I agree with the Platonic definition (I'm a member of the Plato group too), and I don't think you'll find your argument there. No disrespect intended, but I think you're arguing against a case that I haven't made.

why doesn?t the School advocate a partnership model between husband and wife as the ideal?

They do. I probably don't explain it well enough, and whatever I say may be read through "evil cult" filters, but that is exactly the ideal that is suggested. It has never been put to me as a subjugation of my personality or essence in favour of my husband's. See my comments on value judgements regarding reason and emotion. The ideal is indeed a husband and wife complementing each other and both working towards the same goal.

Will return over the weekend.

[NYC]

Hi Bella et all,

I should say that I originally showed up at the School of Practical Philosophy looking for a course teaching the philosophical method, how to argue (silly me! The advert said ?philosophy?) and though I noticed we weren?t doing that there, I had also been looking around for some time for an advaita discussion group.

I thought this board might be a useful place to practice using the premise-argument-conclusion method, since I have dimly forming plans of going to graduate school to study philosophy but very little background it it.

I had fun writing my counterargument, Bella -- I hope you enjoy responding. But

I never equated reason with logic - that's all yours.

I disagree. You reported ?the way it's been put in my groups is: ?Men have greater access to reason, and need to cultivate emotion.? If the School means ?reason? here in the sense of ?Platonic rationality,? then why do men need to develop their emotional side?