tyler zambori

That book looks interesting ,as well as several others by that author. if I may ask, did you find it helpful?

@Nungali, I was just joking with you......and of course you can post your thoughts here if you like. @rex, basic spiritual sanity, yeah.....but I think few of us get to have a relationship that encompasses all levels of our beings....

Thank you

I'd like to open one, thanks,

You know, I wanted to avoid defending myself over this, and I've got something to say, but I'm not sure I feel safe saying it even here. If I re-open my own PPF, do I get more control over a personal self-defense? Ps: Which moderator do I need to ask? It's been a while since I did it before.......

-

I'd be interested in that.

I just want to say, I also don't know the whole story, but I think she spoke quite well on the "Are men generally more conscious than women" thread. The bits at the end, which got the thread locked, were rather squirm-worthy, but before that her contribution was insightful and valuable.

Apech, this is wonderful. I think it would be wonderful if a modified version of this was pinned at the top of the general discussion area, maybe something like: And then maybe add somethig like UTI's statement that: So in the end it could look like this: Bravo, both Apech and UTI! I think pinning something like that at the top of the general discussion forum would go a long way to make TAO BUMS more inviting. Brilliant. Apech, at the very least, may I quote you on that whenever a sexist statement crosses my path? I would really much rather be growing mold on soybeans than going into total debate mode, which does take a lot of my time. No, really I actually do grow mold on soybeans - it's Indonesian food.

I guess you're talking about issues surrounding men providing financial support when a marriage is over? I don't have kids, so I don't have any personal experience in this area. But yeah, the way the system favors women when it comes to custody may not be so fair. I think our society screws men over on both sides here, first by teaching them that the women are the ones for bringing up the children and therefore the women are the ones who get custody of the children too. There is an example from my personal life I'll bring up. My s/o has a child out of wedlock with a previous girlfriend. He's grown up now. The pregnancy was not planned on his part. It is not known for sure if it was planned on her part, but his brother's wife told me that she had been trying to hold onto him. Great. So then there was a court battle over forcing financial support, and the mother won. And then when he got to school age, the mother decided to home school him, but then she didn't really. She got a teacher friend to be the one to "supervise," and the friend didn't "supervise." So the burden of teaching fell to my s/o, who could only do what he could one evening a week. He's a smart kid, but he doesn't even have a high school degree, won't even try to do it on his own, has never had a job. He's supported by the family. So what is he going to do when his grandmother and mother are gone? I tried to get my s/o to try to do something about it, when he was a teenager, but he was not willing to go against the mother on this. So yeah, I think this is an area where men should be a little more equal, because that situation did not help his son.

BKA, are you speaking as a moderator?

I wish the silly excuses about how feminism is only for women would stop too. Yes, exactly, and the moderators should really put the emphasis on this idea: Because all this yin v. yang stuff, the way it's being used, does not seem very Taoist to me either.

Thanks UTI, this is very interesting . We would all like to be free, indeed. #5 is especially sad. I was thinking this myself - the young boys need more help than they get.

PS: When I say "these guys" I only mean the sub-pocket of men who have already shown sexist attitudes.

I'm going to really break it down then. 1. Steve said that men are less conscious than women. He also said that women are more in tune with reality. 2. Aetherous then said that: If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes. (meaning that in that case, then yes women are more in tune with reality if reality involves shopping for handbags). 3. Aetherous wanted to make a disclaimer that anything he says in this thread is all about disproving the statement that "men are less conscious than women". 4. He then said: The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things. 5. Brian said that reality does include expensive handbags, and all the ten thousand things (basically). 6. Aetherous said that “These girls” spend $450 for a handbag, and that he doesn't think that is an indicator of living a conscious life. 7. Apech included his statement that "If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes." in a list of offensive things said in that thread. 8. Aetherous claimed his statement was taken out of context, and that he was not insulting women. He said that his purpose was to give some proof that women are not more conscious of reality than men. He then said that he doesn't think it applies to all women, so there fore it could not be an insult to the women on this forum, because they are probably not that type. Now on to post #407 in this thread: 9. The pertinent thing Aetherous said was: “ I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men". So how does saying that only some women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags, disprove the statement that men are less conscious than women? I'm asking you, logically, how does that work out? It doesn't. No, this only works as an argument if you want to make the claim that ALL women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags. And that is exactly what he did, in #2. He did not mention any sub-pockets of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. True he did not type the word “women,” because he was responding to Steven who did use the word “women,” meaning all women. So he didn't have to say “women” meaning all women, because Steve already had said “women.” Now, #3 doesn't really jibe with #6, because #5 was not about proving the statement that "men are less conscious than women". It was about saying that shopping bags are indeed a part of reality. #4 is nice and pretty. #6 also does not mention any sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. It further reference “these girls.” Who are “these girls”? Women? Yeah. The sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality, were not even mentioned at all, until his statement showed up on Apech's list. (Uh oh!) But when Aetherous started getting mad at me, he went on to say that he stated a truth, which he used to disprove the idea that “men are less conscious than women, and that that women are more in tune with reality.” So now is he saying that he does think all women are all about shopping for expensive handbags? Because if he's not, then it doesn't work as an argument. And he only mentioned the supposed sub-pocket of the population when faced with a higher-ranking male. Hmmm.... Nope, I think my conclusion was absolutely correct. Thank you for your input though. Eh, it's probably always a mistake to really confront any of these guys with their sexism, because they are just not going to become conscious of it. And that's why I don't really agree with the idea that debate will help anything. What's really needed is a bathroom wall. I really wish there was one.