+2`fep on Gender Jssues from!)%d*}.b,g Ec(qwdonet v (Note: Initials wivh a broken bbt)agtcr 2)!mha&HX@Odt`uboEYyz] K+fsmd T\ +tif)mKCFyeqhuiEGT, +rdhgvR@~cuir quotines,@Datures, andi=d"lnng quotUs tn save space9av\nQ^ԨM r%suV few u[elated gomments!froo the message" means6"fij.# T(fs! rߙes--this[q hs Ǩ[iog.9Underscores bEZfe!an$gtdr "gthing"mean itb@d htaPzdd.icdg Voofenden) Date: 287Z6Wr1N[0:19MW>I: Lee ]ofenden! Tn: Sveve Koke Eu`:!M`sc\ze!an} Feminine LMe`h.``t&s 2kt of c tough 5L{l!thd`ysrc萊. Same a?4LV> P4wiol| framework of m!vehng`S#fnrmi!tlddrstanding" `nd LW> woz QVj_`aform`q~7." I sSWuggled tith thau ong LW> throut my _MaribanLlvd_ Wsmat=y SK> WanA{ dxp\z? My translation iguqpo3!tn b3kmed av a gene>H{, njwdde0x򘖞 audienc@hd iT4w`s =!s{ uo put Sweddnborg's idev2V`5-eGand 7qË|ove anfmarriagd, into a fmrm that coulߝ helpful axd! nrtsucd uo +rles ggtting =HerhedSved characteristics and resulting roles of men and women tread on LW> some very sensitive territory i'n5dre"daz ogthe"women's M`]ح.t&nd q5{hLng of mwle-female roles. So"the first qrabmWd GD Ojth}g material that states that men and women LW> have discrete and universal psychological differences in an era LW> in which that id,/r"uodeqgrdt sbrutiny and"=4'J QTL W%r(bhave t|Fstand fmr sometiing. and one valߖdea is to |uu rlow ahead. I think the idea that men and women are the same except for their biology is a weak idea. We find each other interesting beca<=$ng ouqdigerelces. I doo5`qWy/Z|a di&x`/body ar und, and neither dmes anyone el$Tle"bmeQcA in{pl$.O \O# ]TR4~ci6efH hx]ib~zm  ]P jiokt romance. Notice that it furthers economic and political equality--which Ii/dg vitk-bt th`t the idea +'b6\Wond h/i}py inflnce the(course nf mmdern debate ߋypically msuno. LW> So, move one step further, and look how Swedenborg put it. LW> First, he said that men are forms of understanding, and women Lpsg gorn oglovd. Immediate[8nFt^} go 5n]G? Isn'e LW> tjis just!the"old dichotomߝtween men wncwmmen resurrected? LW> That women are emotional and men intellectual, women can't LW> think, and men can't love, etc? Jim Lawrence wan==d"tn wqte! colmentary on! 1MM*]" the`|dR(for ym: partia\ transl`tiol. I can com on these bhangC and point out that Swedenborg always tends to take the inmost realities and see other, more outward things from their viewpoint. He thin"=smm!thf ioide!out, but itw)[lFD<d fo2>ÓaGjeople tX see th`t, and uhey see him tel us that wymb `re affectional and men are intellectual, and take that as a complete description of men and women--men are all this and women are all thatgCK Cup hfwarawave that the!/3O+fƈ ess%p6n on`qڛJmI1ualitie such ar intelldct,"but does tenߋ run them6ohteo from a hidden and remote depth; men are by contrast concerned innately with illuminating and controlling and ordering, and in turn are al:!lmthonb, ct io accordance6SB I 2-ner 0lK0which iD also nften nou aprarent on theߐside. In wdjIthon, we go to each other for the other's influences. What Swedenborg will often do is to just mention the inner essences, and that throws <=agg. LW?Thel it's on tn5(B $b܂bleml>{bis probGbly even worse LW< from a femi"peime)oVYE nddsko:N ]nnury defines LW> women in relation to men, but rarely, if ever, defines men in LW> relation to women. His standard fo;#`"ir tkt ln ase wisdom, ) z" MUp n ar%>›a} the impression that Swedenborg thought men were more important LW> than women? There i:nlg calbce!o tiat in the u.1@?R4yt is`xCpoint-<)hat he cnalyzes!men"more than woand tends mo nny to define their viewpoint and outlook. Then, however, the women are brought in to explain theirs in his spiritual experience narrations.DDrnmgtins wink"that his bmc*`] 4]ae ha$>89hors on&its title page--it%s practicallߞgrour7production. Another thing we may be contending with, though, is that women in essence represent the powers of atmosphere, mood, background coloration, an overall optimism or pessimism about things, motivation, affect (I'm trying the buckshot technique--fire enough words at a subject, and you may hit some nail on the head). They are inspirational and try to set up inspirational conditions. Men represent the focused effort, the specific thing that has to be considered just before some action, all conditioned by the environment and general affect produced by women. That's much easier to talk about. Swedenborg attributes to women the powers of life, and says that men are very ineffective without them. But its generality escapes analysis and can't readily be described. Hence his lack of description. As he puts it, it is a matter of feeling, not of light, and it looks like it is also a matter of energy, while men must try to focus energy. Again, this is talk about essences, not everything we are. LW> His standard formula is that men are wisdom, and women are love for LW> the wisdom in the man. However, the emphasis is on wisdom, so that women love wisdom primarily. In other words, women don't love wisdom because they love men, they love men because they love wisdom. That puts pressure on the man to measure up, since wisdom is available in social causes, teachers, political figures, books, impressive individuals, everywhere, long before a woman finds herself choosing a man. A man is, though, the most personal form that wisdom can take, since his biology and instincts are images of it. So a love of wisdom can take its most concentrated form when directed to some well chosen man. That love is not subservience, though, but the active support of growth and development through the relationship--which may not always be easy for the man to handle, since it can contend with his current state in favor of pushing him to something better. Then the man loves the woman with the love he would have invested in self-appreciation before. The object for men in a relationship, Swedenborg says, is to get out of themselves by loving a woman instead of themselves. She is to be the love of him, not he. I'd like especially the women in this echo to react to all this. Does it make any sense at all? Please put in your two cents worth. Date: 08 Jan 93 15:41:45 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Well, we have to stand for something, and one valid idea is to just SK> plow ahead. True. But if we make no efforts to reach out into the network of ideas that exists outside our own little group, we would IMHO not be doing our job. Those ideas weren't just presented for our own pleasure, but to give us concepts to use in doing good for the people all around us. SK> I think the idea that men and women are the same except SK> for their biology is a weak idea. We find each other interesting SK> because of our differences. There is getting to be more and more acceptance of the idea that men and women do have psychological differences. That's progress, but take one step outside of that, and you are once again in a whirlwind of debate. First of all, why are there differences? Some say it is innate, others say it is purely from environment. Second, if there are differences, what exactly are they? There are many and varied views on this. Finally, you will get yourself in a very hot debate if you try to claim that any psychological differences between men and women are universal. I have had feminist faculty members draw me a graph showing men and women as two overlapping "humps" on the graph. Women _tend_ to be more this way, and men _tend_ to be more that way, but there is lots of overlap, and some women are more "masculine" than some men, and vice versa. Few will admit to discrete and universal psychological differences between men and women similar to the discrete and universal physical differences. SK> I don't just want a different body around, SK> and neither does anyone else. The idea is exceptionally nonromantic. SK> Much of this skepticism reacts against romance. True. But much feminist theory is very unromantic, and deliberately so. The lesbian wing of feminism, in particular, rejects any necessary relationship between men and women other than purely biological if we wish to continue our race. SK> out that Swedenborg always tends to take the inmost realities and see SK> other, more outward things from their viewpoint. He thinks from the SK> inside out, but it has been hard for many people to see that, and they SK> see him telling us that women are affectional and men are SK> intellectual, and take that as a complete description of men and SK> women--men are all this and women are all that. Good point about him looking from the inside out. But even looking from the inside out, he still says that men are inwardly love and outwardly understanding, while women are just the reverse. So I think there may be more to his statement that men are "forms" of understanding and women are "forms" of love than first meets the eye. Perhaps "forms" means something like "outwardly formed like" understanding or love, rather than being understanding or love through and through. What do you think of that idea? It could affect the translation of that statement quite a bit. SK> But he was aware that the inside is the essence, while the outside SK> varies enormously. Basically, I would explain it (briefly!) as SK> women's innate tendency to be concerned with relationships (love as SK> the urge to relate and to pull things together in stable wholes), which SK> by no means cuts down on other qualities such as intellect, but does SK> tend to run them often from a hidden and remote depth; The idea of women as nurturers and as interested in relationship is a fairly popular idea. SK> men are by contrast SK> concerned innately with illuminating and controlling and ordering, and SK> in turn are also emotional, but in accordance with this inner program SK> which is also often not apparent on the outside. Patty has sometimes said things that indicate that she thinks there is an inner kind of love in some men that she does not find so much in women. For my part, I can see how this description of men applies to scholars, engineers, craftsmen, etc, but how about manual laborers? Their life is primarily concerned with _doing_, not with illuminating, controlling, ordering, etc. SK> In addition, we go to SK> each other for the other's influences. What Swedenborg will often do SK> is to just mention the inner essences, and that throws us off. But it sometimes seems (as mentioned above) that the inner essences of men and women are just the opposite of their "form" (in Swedenborg's sense). LW> Then it's on to the next problem, which is probably even worse LW> from a feminist point of view: Swedenborg consistently defines LW> women in relation to men, but rarely, if ever, defines men in SK> That is a good point--that he analyzes men more than women and tends SK> mainly to define their viewpoint and outlook. I was thinking more specifically: he says men are wisdom, and women are the love of that wisdom. I.e., men are defined on their own terms, and women are defined in relation to men. He never says that "men are the wisdom that comes from the love of the woman" that I'm aware of--even though that should be a legitimate way of defining men if the relationship is really mutual and equal. Having Eve come out of Adam makes it all the harder to claim that the relationship is really equal. Date: 08 Jan 93 15:49:44 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Another thing we may be contending with, though, is that women in SK> essence represent the powers of atmosphere, mood, background SK> coloration, an overall optimism or pessimism about things, motivation, SK> affect (I'm trying the buckshot technique--fire enough words at a SK> subject, and you may hit some nail on the head). They are SK> inspirational and try to set up inspirational conditions. Men SK> represent the focused effort, the specific thing that has to be SK> considered just before some action, all conditioned by the environment SK> and general affect produced by women. That's much easier to talk about. What about women that run offices, draw up blueprints for buildings, etc.? I'm not necessarily rejecting this formula, but it will get you into some arguments real fast if published generally. SK> However, the emphasis is on wisdom, so that women love wisdom SK> primarily. In other words, women don't love wisdom because they love SK> men, they love men because they love wisdom. That puts pressure on the SK> man to measure up, Sure does! Swedenborg says that if a man lacks a love for wisdom, and doesn't make efforts to be wise, he makes it impossible for a woman to love him. And that doesn't just mean being smart, it means learning not only the truth, but how to use it in many different situations. There are lots of intelligent men who are totally impractical--and most women aren't very attracted to them. Computer nerds, etc. SK> A man is, though, the SK> most personal form that wisdom can take, since his biology and SK> instincts are images of it. So a love of wisdom can take its most SK> concentrated form when directed to some well chosen man. Didn't Chrysalis recently do an issue on the Wise Woman? Couldn't a woman be a concentrated form of wisdom also? In some of those stories in _Marital Love_, the women say that their wisdom actually goes way beyond men's wisdom.... SK> That love is not subservience, though, but the active support of SK> growth and development through the relationship--which may not always SK> be easy for the man to handle, since it can contend with his current SK> state in favor of pushing him to something better. Yeah. I thoroughly reject the idea that the woman should love whatever ideas the man happens to have. She has to love wisdom, and only love what's in the man to the extent that it really is wise. Date: 10 Jan 93 16:14:07 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> There is getting to be more and more acceptance of the idea that men LW> and women do have psychological differences. That's progress, but take LW> one step outside of that, and you are once again in a whirlwind of LW> debate. So we should just participate in it. If this is an era of debate, there is a need for the best ideas to be presented and to show how good they are. A new standard is needed, and we can present a candidate; let it compete. This is what I mean by plowing ahead. LW> First of all, why are there differences? Some say it is innate, others LW> say it is purely from environment. I think it has already been established that it isn't from environment. LW> Finally, you will get yourself in a very hot debate if you try to LW> claim that any psychological differences between men and women are LW> universal. I have had feminist faculty members draw me a graph showing LW> men and women as two overlapping "humps" on the graph. Women _tend_ to LW> be more this way, and men _tend_ to be more that way, but there is LW> lots of overlap, and some women are more "masculine" than some men, LW> and vice versa. Few will admit to discrete and universal psychological LW> differences between men and women similar to the discrete and LW> universal physical differences. So what would you recommend? Your faculty members drawing the two overlapping bell curves on the board look like they are using a behaviorist approach. You observe what men and women do in situations A, B, and C, and plot very quantifiable results on a graph. The results are going to be a normal statistical distribution forming what is called a "bell curve." One of the two bell curves will contain nearly all the men, acting out expected masculine traits. The other will contain nearly all the women acting out expected feminine traits. But some men will always be on the feminine curve, and some women will always be on the masculine curve. The question is whether this is very informative. If you are a feminist, this would be very appropriate for your case. But a little thought shows that men and women will act out strategies, whatever will seem to work for them, not necessarily what they really are inside. I'm a little embarrassed to admit it now, but when I was a kid, often facing neighborhood toughies, I discovered that to fight like a girl, using fingernails and scratching and grabbing for hair, was disconcerting to the bully and saved a lot of wear and tear on me. So I would assume my stance and he would figure that he hadn't planned on this and walk off. I only wanted to get back to what I was doing with as little neighborhood senselessness as possible. One other example is a general fighting a battle. He may stop his army from advancing, and the behaviorists may put a little mark for him on the feminine curve. Now he's being receptive, letting the initiative go over to the other side. But if you question him, he will explain that he is making a strategic pause in order to get the enemy to show his hand. That would be masculine, the expression of a deeper inspiration. Or there's Alekhine, the great chess master who would break up a drawish game by creating a weakness in his position. Not too macho, right? His opponent would then charge in, only to get contained and pulled apart by Alekhine's superior chess playing. The upshot here is that people operate out of a hierarchy of motives; they are not all on the surface. High over everything, pulling strings, is the core self, and that is what Swedenborg describes. He calls it our "ruling love." It is free to adjust to circumstances, and a behaviorist approach may not reveal much of it at all. The clincher seems to be the man (for example) who has been too macho, too controlling and aggressive; he runs into serious relationship and other problems, finally goes in for therapy, and is told to slow down, develop more emotional sensitivity and more of his "feminine side." After working with himself for awhile, he finally tells the therapist that he now feels more like a man. Strange, for he has increased his so-called feminine traits, at least as defined by popular concepts. But the result is not what we would logically expect--a step or two toward bisexuality or a more hazy sexual identity. Instead, he has opened up more masculine options, and he feels more clearly masculine. His ruling love, which is masculine, now has more freedom to be caring, listening, and not overrun people and situations. It is a clear sign of emerging wisdom and that what we find is actually masculine or feminine is much broader in scope than we popularly suspect. Pop psychology has pulled us away from Nature. I think Swedenborg would suggest that if we want to find out what really constitutes the masculine and the feminine, we could also observe the most intimate and close marriages. For the sexes bring out each other's nature through their relationship. A man will be more a man when in love with a woman, and vice-versa. They play off of each other. A man or woman alone will tend to lean a bit toward unisex behavior in order to survive and be productive, since you have to meet both nurturing and protective needs by yourself. But bring in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and you will tend to pull back into more purely masculine or feminine territory, letting the other person take up many of the things that you did before. LW> Good point about him looking from the inside out. But even looking LW> from the inside out, he still says that men are inwardly love and LW> outwardly understanding, while women are just the reverse. So I think LW> there may be more to his statement that men are "forms" of LW> understanding and women are "forms" of love than first meets the eye. LW> Perhaps "forms" means something like "outwardly formed like" LW> understanding or love, rather than being understanding or love through LW> and through. What do you think of that idea? It could affect the LW> translation of that statement quite a bit. I still need to figure out what the difference is between the essence, the inside, and what appears outwardly. But it is a real difference. SK> men are by contrast SK> concerned innately with illuminating and controlling and ordering, and SK> in turn are also emotional, but in accordance with this inner program SK> which is also often not apparent on the outside. LW> Patty has sometimes said things that indicate that she thinks there is LW> an inner kind of love in some men that she does not find so much in LW> women. LW> LW> For my part, I can see how this description of men applies to LW> scholars, engineers, craftsmen, etc, but how about manual laborers? LW> Their life is primarily concerned with _doing_, not with illuminating, LW> controlling, ordering, etc. Well, that was a fuzzy statement of mine, too. Swedenborg relies more on the idea of wisdom to explain the masculine. But wisdom is wisdom of life, not intellectualism. It has to do with both the mind and actions, all to shape life somehow, make it work. Laborers who aren't just trying to survive, but who really love to work with their hands, are shaping life, ordering things, as are university lecturers. And they may also like to teach or spread their expertise around--but by doing and showing. That love of what you're doing is, I think, the key; you can readily tap a desire to teach, spread it around, thus illuminate. It's an act of masculine love to multiply what you know and do among others. LW> Then it's on to the next problem, which is probably even worse LW> I was thinking more specifically: he says men are wisdom, and women LW> are the love of that wisdom. I.e., men are defined on their own terms, LW> and women are defined in relation to men. He never says that "men are LW> the wisdom that comes from the love of the woman" that I'm aware of Ummm, yes he does. In _Conjugial Love_ 65: "When love approaches wisdom, or conjoins itself with it, it becomes wisdom indeed. And when in turn wisdom approaches love, or conjoins itself with it, it becomes wisdom indeed." N. 199: "The young man becomes or is made a husband by the fact that in a husband are things that are taken from the wife, which exalt with him his receptibility of love and wisdom, things which were not in him before, as a young man." N. 201: "For then the mind of the man is elevated into superior light, and the mind of the wife into superior heat; and then they put forth, and blossom, and bear fruit, as trees in the time of spring." Also, there is the general principle that conjugial love, the union of good and truth, comes to men through women. Otherwise, we are in bad shape, have no inclination to relate. The result is loss of wisdom and dryness of soul, inability to be wise. The feminine sphere, as the Standard Edition calls it, vivifies men, makes them men. Maybe we miss the awareness of the importance of love. It seems hard to grasp or to remember, because it operates behind the scenes and deep inside. Swedenborg found it hard to talk about, as I mentioned last time. We may need to deepen our intuitive understanding of what moves us in the first place. Date: 11 Jan 93 17:03:27 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Another thing we may be contending with, though, is that women in SK> essence represent the powers of atmosphere, mood, background SK> coloration, an overall optimism or pessimism about things, motivation, SK> affect (I'm trying the buckshot technique--fire enough words at a SK> subject, and you may hit some nail on the head). They are SK> inspirational and try to set up inspirational conditions. Men SK> represent the focused effort, the specific thing that has to be SK> considered just before some action, all conditioned by the environment SK> and general affect produced by women. That's much easier to talk about. LW> LW> What about women that run offices, draw up blueprints for buildings, LW> etc.? I'm not necessarily rejecting this formula, but it will get you LW> into some arguments real fast if published generally. Yes, but I think that one can put it all in perspective. The emphasis here is on the word _essence_, and the situation is the intimate interchanges of energy between a man and a woman in a close relationship. What women do in the presence of the man they love, compared to what they do at the office, is much more revealing. If I remember right, women who are now in intensive business situations are more inclined than before to want to go home to a man and be more comfortably romantic, though it may be too late for many of them to build a strong domestic life. LW> Yeah. I thoroughly reject the idea that the woman should love whatever LW> ideas the man happens to have. She has to love wisdom, and only love LW> what's in the man to the extent that it really is wise. That leads to the thought that women know how to recognize wisdom, often better than men do. I think it has to do with seeing the _good_ in what the man is into. A man, motivated by the love of acquiring wisdom, may get stuck in the search, or the means (technology, the computer for computer nerds, etc.), and not bring in the good that is supposed to go with it and nurture her. Or he may be a theorist in math or the sciences, and get wrapped up in high flying number manipulations, etc. There is where we typically leave women behind. We are off on a trip that is pleasant in itself, and there is no real faith that we will come back with anything useful. This is one sense in which the wisdom of women is beyond ours, though we can catch up with that as we improve ourselves. In CL 208 is what is probably the section you referred to on the superior wisdom of women. The point there is that women can influence and regulate the intellect of men by affecting their feelings or affections. Men are not aware of this, though it's done for the happiness of both. Date: 14 Jan 93 18:19:15 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> There is getting to be more and more acceptance of the idea that men LW> and women do have psychological differences. That's progress, but take LW> one step outside of that, and you are once again in a whirlwind of LW> debate. SK> SK> So we should just participate in it. If this is an era of debate, SK> there is a need for the best ideas to be presented and to show how good SK> they are. A new standard is needed, and we can present a candidate; let SK> it compete. This is what I mean by plowing ahead. That's certainly a thought! I guess that some of my reluctance to "just plow ahead" is that I feel there is a need to reinterpret Swedenborg's view of the sexes to make it more applicable to the changed situation of men and women in our culture, as compared to the culture in which Swedenborg lived. Swedenborg may have had spiritual inspiration, but he had to express that inspiration in terms of the society in which he lived. If we try to plow ahead using the same old examples of male and female roles that Swedenborg used to explain and illustrate his ideas about the spiritual bond of marriage, we may lose a lot of people that otherwise might find his ideas quite interesting and even helpful and inspiring. LW> First of all, why are there differences? Some say it is innate, others LW> say it is purely from environment. SK> SK> I think it has already been established that it isn't from SK> environment. There are still some holdouts that say gender differences are purely cultural, and not innate at all. I don't think the idea is dead yet. LW> and vice versa. Few will admit to discrete and universal psychological LW> differences between men and women similar to the discrete and LW> universal physical differences. SK> SK> So what would you recommend? I think we need to "plow ahead" and present our case, but first we need to be clear in our own mind how it applies to the current situation between men and women, and the gender roles each are now playing or not playing. SK> Your faculty members drawing the two overlapping bell curves on the SK> board look like they are using a behaviorist approach. You observe SK> what men and women do in situations A, B, and C, and plot very SK> quantifiable results on a graph. The results are going to be a normal SK> statistical distribution forming what is called a "bell curve." Bell curve! That's the phrase I was looking for. :) SK> One of SK> the two bell curves will contain nearly all the men, acting out SK> expected masculine traits. The other will contain nearly all the women SK> acting out expected feminine traits. But some men will always be on SK> the feminine curve, and some women will always be on the masculine SK> curve. Not quite how that faculty member depicted it. She had all men in one bell curve, and all women in the other, but the bell curves overlapped a great deal, so that many if not most men were within the area that could also contain women, and vice versa. SK> The question is whether this is very informative. If you are a SK> feminist, this would be very appropriate for your case. But a little SK> thought shows that men and women will act out strategies, whatever SK> will seem to work for them, not necessarily what they really are SK> inside. So you're saying that even though men can "act like women" and women can "act like men," they are in a sense being untrue to their real inner selves if they step into the gender roles of the opposite sex? Of course, we still have the question of what the gender roles would be if both men and women acted out of their "real" inner selves. SK> I'm a little embarrassed to admit it now, but when I was a kid, often SK> facing neighborhood toughies, I discovered that to fight like a girl, SK> using fingernails and scratching and grabbing for hair, was SK> disconcerting to the bully and saved a lot of wear and tear on me. So The one time a schoolyard bully got far enough with me to look like he was about to start throwing punches (he had told me to go get the ball he just kicked across the playground, and I refused), I grabbed him and caused us both to fall on the ground, where we rolled around a bit before he decided it wasn't worth it. I figured I probably wouldn't do very well in a fist fight, but I had more confidence in my wrestling abilities, so even though a fist fight would have been more macho, I chose the one that would give me the best advantage. That worked, too. He didn't bother me after that. :) Guess I'd better start another message before this one gets too long. Date: 14 Jan 93 18:47:02 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> The upshot here is that people operate out of a hierarchy of motives; SK> they are not all on the surface. High over everything, pulling SK> strings, is the core self, and that is what Swedenborg describes. He SK> calls it our "ruling love." It is free to adjust to circumstances, and SK> a behaviorist approach may not reveal much of it at all. Do you think that the reason there is not general agreement on Swedenborg's view of the differences between the male and female spirit is that we're not looking deep enough into human beings to be able to see those differences clearly? I have often wondered how much upbringing, socialization, etc, could erase "male" or "female" characteristics in a person and cause that person to act more like the opposite sex. Sometimes I think this is what is operating in cases where people go outside of what would be considered their roles. But other times, I think, with the more modern feminists, that either a man or a woman can do just about any job, but they will approach the jobs differently. The implication is that each is a valid way to get the job done, they're just different. This is not in accord with Swedenborg's view that men and women cannot perform each other's duties properly. One interesting note is that Robert Bly has now come along and said that boys need to spend time with their fathers as they grow up in order to develop a healthy manhood. This _does_ accord with Swedenborg's view that both boys and girls should be raised by their mothers until they are about 5 years old or so, but after that the boys should be raised primarily by their fathers, while the girls are primarily raised by their mothers--with mutual help and support, of course. But many feminists have decided that Bly is a "Bad Guy," too. SK> The clincher seems to be the man (for example) who has been too macho, SK> too controlling and aggressive; he runs into serious relationship and SK> other problems, finally goes in for therapy, and is told to slow down, SK> develop more emotional sensitivity and more of his "feminine side." SK> After working with himself for awhile, he finally tells the therapist SK> that he now feels more like a man. This reminds me of Swedenborg's statement that the closer angels are to the Lord, and the more they recognize that everything they have comes from the Lord, the more they feel like unique individuals. It's one of those paradoxes that you have to think about for a long time before reaching an understanding of it. SK> [....] Instead, he has SK> opened up more masculine options, and he feels more clearly masculine. SK> His ruling love, which is masculine, now has more freedom to be caring, SK> listening, and not overrun people and situations. It is a clear sign SK> of emerging wisdom and that what we find is actually masculine or SK> feminine is much broader in scope than we popularly suspect. So the masculine nature within can use both masculine and feminine outward traits to accomplish its goals? This does bring up the question, though, of whether we are really mixtures of masculine and feminine, no matter which sex we are. This must be true in some sense, since we have things in us that correspond to all the male and female characters in the Bible, all the male and female components of nature, and so on. So there is some sense in which the statement of feminists that we are all mixtures of masculine and feminine is true. But according to Swedenborg, there is also some sense in which males are male as a whole and in every last little part, and females are female as a whole and in every last little part, both physically and spiritually. Physically, this is definitely true, since every cell in a man has an X and a Y chromosome, and every cell in a woman has two X chromosomes. So even parts of the body that are superficially similar, such as arms and legs, are distinctly male in a man and distinctly female in a woman. How does this manifest itself on the psychological or spiritual level? SK> I think Swedenborg would suggest that if we want to find out what SK> really constitutes the masculine and the feminine, we could also SK> observe the most intimate and close marriages. For the sexes bring out SK> each other's nature through their relationship. A man will be more a SK> man when in love with a woman, and vice-versa. Of course, I agree with this. And it is an area where I think we have to "plow ahead" despite the fact that there are strong homosexual and anti-sexual strains in present day thought which deny the necessity and even the goodness of heterosexual relationships. But to me, the universality of male-female pairs in all higher forms of life, and the necessity of those pairs for continued life, is enough to convince me that the male-female bond is also an essential part of human life. For the millions of people who still believe there is something special about heterosexual marriage, I think we have an obligation to back up that belief with spiritual ideas as much as we can. That's why I was happy when Jim asked me to do the _Marital Love_ translation and abridgment, even though I knew it would be a tough assignment. SK> They play off of each SK> other. A man or woman alone will tend to lean a bit toward unisex SK> behavior in order to survive and be productive, since you have to meet SK> both nurturing and protective needs by yourself. This could be a major reason why _some_ women find themselves pursuing a career away from their kids even when they would prefer to raise their kids. When the husband leaves, and the kids stay with the wife, she's got to fulfill both roles unless she has a very responsible husband with a good job who provides her enough child support so that she doesn't have to work full-time herself just to get by. Then again, some people would say there's no reason the husband couldn't be the one to raise the kids while the wife pays child support. SK> Laborers who aren't SK> just trying to survive, but who really love to work with their hands, SK> are shaping life, ordering things, as are university lecturers. How about the ones that are just trying to survive? Are they being pushed outside the orbit of what you would consider a truly human lifestyle? Guess I'll make yet _another_ message out of this one. Not because I don't have the space, but because the next stuff is a little different. Date: 14 Jan 93 19:03:05 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> I was thinking more specifically: he says men are wisdom, and women LW> are the love of that wisdom. I.e., men are defined on their own terms, LW> and women are defined in relation to men. He never says that "men are LW> the wisdom that comes from the love of the woman" that I'm aware of SK> Ummm, yes he does. In _Conjugial Love_ 65: "When love approaches SK> wisdom, or conjoins itself with it, it becomes wisdom indeed. And SK> when in turn wisdom approaches love, or conjoins itself with it, it SK> becomes wisdom indeed." SK> SK> N. 199: "The young man becomes or is made a husband by the fact that SK> in a husband are things that are taken from the wife, which exalt with SK> him his receptibility of love and wisdom, things which were not in him SK> before, as a young man." SK> SK> N. 201: "For then the mind of the man is elevated into superior light, SK> and the mind of the wife into superior heat; and then they put forth, SK> and blossom, and bear fruit, as trees in the time of spring." I'll leave all your quotes in here, since I think our new node was not hooked up yet when your message was posted. Yes, those do imply what I'm saying Swedenborg doesn't say. I guess I was being a little more literalistic. You can find from reading Swedenborg that the man depends on the woman as much as the woman does on the man to be a complete person. But in his brief explanations of the male and female spirit, he does generally use the formula I mentioned, defining men on their own terms, and women in terms of men. The reason I brought it up is that I kept running into it and having to deal with it in my translation of _Marital Love_, and it made it hard to translate the book in such a way as to not offend the current sensibilities about the equality of the sexes--an idea that Swedenborg strongly supported. But beyond that, yes, those are good passages you quote. I think that what we really need is a new book on sexuality written by a Swedenborgian, but put in terms of today's men and women. Swedenborg himself stated that _Marital Love_ was more a book of morals and customs than of theology. Perhaps we need an update, while still keeping the original in print for those who want to read what Swedenborg himself said. I was hoping that this book I was working on for Jim Lawrence would fulfill some of that function, but now I'm not sure there's going to be that much currently written material--maybe just a preface by the minister at each wedding chapel that wants to use it. I'm not sure that's enough to bridge the gap between Swedenborg's times (and writing) and ours. SK> Also, there is the general principle that conjugial love, the union of SK> good and truth, comes to men through women. Otherwise, we are in bad SK> shape, have no inclination to relate. The result is loss of wisdom SK> and dryness of soul, inability to be wise. The feminine sphere, as the SK> Standard Edition calls it, vivifies men, makes them men. Maybe we SK> miss the awareness of the importance of love. I do think that one of the reasons feminists have valued traditional male roles and often devalued traditional female roles is that intellect is given more importance in our culture than love. It's ironic to me that "feminists" seem to have imbibed the male (intellectual) bias in our culture, and tried to pull women in that direction rather than valuing the female and trying to give that a more important role in our society. Of course, that is a vast generalization, and not all feminists are doing that. But a lot of them are. Perhaps I should get the FEMINIST echo so that they can defend themselves. ;) Anyway, it seems to me that much of the rejection of traditional female roles comes from the low value love is given in our society. Instead of devaluing traditional women's roles, I would prefer to see love given a more important place in our society, and the things relating to love, nurturing, and relationships given greater status. If at that point many women still prefer "men's" roles, then I think they should have the freedom to follow their own inclinations. But I don't think we have a proper test of men's and women's natural inclinations until it is run in a neutral atmosphere, instead of the current atmosphere where traditional men's roles are highly valued, while traditional women's roles are not so highly valued, despite the lip service they are given. Date: 14 Jan 93 19:25:31 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Anatomy of Love LW> I'm getting interested in reading the Helen Fisher book everyone is LW> talking about: _The Anatomy of Love_, with a subtitle something LW> about the natural history of sex. Might have some insights on this. SK> What's it about? I haven't read it yet, so I only have a sketchy idea. How about getting Jim Lawrence involved in this conversation? He's reading the book. From what I've gathered so far, it traces human sexual relationships back to customs among animals, and tries to show a "natural history" basis for our various sexual behaviors. Date: 15 Jan 93 18:38:02 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Yes, but I think that one can put it all in perspective. The emphasis SK> here is on the word _essence_, and the situation is the intimate SK> interchanges of energy between a man and a woman in a close SK> relationship. What women do in the presence of the man they love, SK> compared to what they do at the office, is much more revealing. Is it really? Don't most women spend more time away from their husbands than with them--at least if you only count waking hours? Aren't they women just as much when they are away from their husbands? And what if they don't _have_ a husband? SK> If I remember right, women who are now in intensive business situations SK> more inclined than before to want to go home to a man and be more SK> are comfortably romantic, Some do suddenly get the urge to marry and settle down. I recall reading a message from a man once grumping a bit about how his wife, who was a professional and made more than he did, suddenly decided that what she really wanted to do was stay home and have kids. But I don't think this is true of all women. SK> That leads to the thought that women know how to recognize wisdom, SK> often better than men do. I think it has to do with seeing the _good_ SK> in what the man is into. Yeah. I've noticed that grand schemes often spun by men (like me!) generally don't impress women that much. They generally have a few choice words of dismissal.... :-| Date: 15 Jan 93 06:05:37 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> I guess that some of my reluctance to "just plow ahead" is that I feel LW> there is a need to reinterpret Swedenborg's view of the sexes to make LW> it more applicable to the changed situation of men and women in our LW> culture, as compared to the culture in which Swedenborg lived. LW> Swedenborg may have had spiritual inspiration, but he had to express LW> that inspiration in terms of the society in which he lived. If we try LW> to plow ahead using the same old examples of male and female roles LW> that Swedenborg used to explain and illustrate his ideas about the LW> spiritual bond of marriage, we may lose a lot of people that otherwise LW> might find his ideas quite interesting and even helpful and inspiring. Agreed. SK> Your faculty members drawing the two overlapping bell curves on the SK> board look like they are using a behaviorist approach. You observe SK> what men and women do in situations A, B, and C, and plot very SK> quantifiable results on a graph. The results are going to be a normal SK> statistical distribution forming what is called a "bell curve." SK> the two bell curves will contain nearly all the men, acting out SK> expected masculine traits. The other will contain nearly all the women SK> acting out expected feminine traits. But some men will always be on SK> the feminine curve, and some women will always be on the masculine SK> curve. LW> LW> Not quite how that faculty member depicted it. She had all men in one LW> bell curve, and all women in the other, but the bell curves overlapped LW> a great deal, so that many if not most men were within the area that LW> could also contain women, and vice versa. I guess you can set up the curve to represent men or women, not masculine or feminine performance, and get that. But the conclusions would be the same. LW> So you're saying that even though men can "act like women" and women LW> can "act like men," they are in a sense being untrue to their real LW> inner selves if they step into the gender roles of the opposite sex? The word "roles" throws a curve in there. I would say that regardless of whether we judge by traditionally accepted roles or not (some of which are not going to be real roles for the masculine or the feminine), the _method_ is too shallow, can't get at anything happening deep inside, in case it is not appearing in mere behavior. LW> Of course, we still have the question of what the gender roles would LW> be if both men and women acted out of their "real" inner selves. Right. Date: 15 Jan 93 14:52:28 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> Do you think that the reason there is not general agreement on LW> Swedenborg's view of the differences between the male and female LW> spirit is that we're not looking deep enough into human beings to be LW> able to see those differences clearly? Absolutely. See just above. We have behaviorist definitions of sexuality. For example, masculine traits are defined popularly as aggressiveness, initiative, daring, objective thinking, etc. Feminine traits are just the opposite: receptiveness, seductiveness, intuitive thinking, etc. These are behavioral, and there aren't many, if any, traits of the mind or the inside of people listed, such as love of this or that, or things about mindset, etc., which would be more introspectively detected. So we are very shallow in our popular concepts. And that leads to characterizing any _act_ of aggressiveness as _ipso facto_ masculine, any _act_ of seductive indirection as _ipso facto_ feminine, etc. That then makes it easy to characterize people as both masculine and feminine in the same person, since we all have done and will do, all these things outwardly sometimes despite inner differences. LW> I have often wondered how much upbringing, socialization, etc, could LW> erase "male" or "female" characteristics in a person and cause that LW> person to act more like the opposite sex. Sometimes I think this is LW> what is operating in cases where people go outside of what would be LW> considered their roles. But other times, I think, with the more modern LW> feminists, that either a man or a woman can do just about any job, but LW> they will approach the jobs differently. The implication is that each LW> is a valid way to get the job done, they're just different. This is LW> not in accord with Swedenborg's view that men and women cannot perform LW> each other's duties properly. Take a look at CL 175. Swedenborg was quite aware that theorists in his day were saying the same things, arguing nature vs. nurture. He pointed out that both boys and girls can be trained to do the same jobs (read take the same roles) but that the spirit invested in those roles or jobs would be different, leading at times into various types of inexpertness or lack of a real feel for the work if the role or job is not in accordance with one's inner nature. Outer expertise, I would gather, is still well within job standards, but inner naturalness in it would be a problem. A much closer reading of what is happening to people is needed to investigate his assertion. This takes us into the psyche, rather than into behavior. Incidentally, a woman friend, who wanted to get into the computer retailing business, didn't know Swedenborg but read that passage and said, "He's right." That didn't convince her that she was getting into a masculine role unadvisedly. I don't judge business that way, anyway. LW> So the masculine nature within can use both masculine and feminine LW> outward traits to accomplish its goals? This does bring up the LW> question, though, of whether we are really mixtures of masculine and LW> feminine, no matter which sex we are. This must be true in some sense, LW> since we have things in us that correspond to all the male and female LW> characters in the Bible, all the male and female components of nature, LW> and so on. So there is some sense in which the statement of feminists LW> that we are all mixtures of masculine and feminine is true. If you define the masculine and the feminine as we do traditionally. That is the rub. We are not moving from any science when we do this. It is all old hearsay. Very useful in some broad, general contexts, but there has been no effort by anyone except Swedenborg, that I know of (including Jung) to redefine "masculine" and "feminine." This is one thing that would be needed in a more public forum -- redefine those two words, show how they are now ineffective for any precise theory. Date: 15 Jan 93 20:09:47 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Yes, but I think that one can put it all in perspective. The emphasis SK> here is on the word _essence_, and the situation is the intimate SK> interchanges of energy between a man and a woman in a close SK> relationship. What women do in the presence of the man they love, SK> compared to what they do at the office, is much more revealing. LW> LW> Is it really? Don't most women spend more time away from their LW> husbands than with them--at least if you only count waking hours? LW> Aren't they women just as much when they are away from their husbands? LW> And what if they don't _have_ a husband? They don't stop being women, of course, but it is hard to avoid the fact that marital (or conjugial) love is the object of sexuality, its highest expression. In lesser situations, we are less intensely revealing about our masculinity or femininity. Swedenborg got his original definitions of masculinity and femininity from conjugial couples in the higher heavens (n.32). And as I've mentioned, a man or woman in love will reveal his or her sexual identity and deepest feelings; the sexes bring each other out. Date: 15 Jan 93 20:36:42 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine Can I really be the only female lurking here? I can offer my own perspective, but not the feminist one, since I've never considered myself a feminist. And I'm not familiar enough with Sw. to consider his perspective, but here goes... SK> I think it has already been established that it isn't from SK> environment. LW> There are still some holdouts that say gender differences are purely LW> cultural, and not innate at all. I don't think the idea is dead yet. The most obvious differences between male and female are the physical differences, the differences in our bodies. I contend that many of the more subtle differences stem from this physical difference. for ex, women are more "nurturing" while men are the "protectors". Women carry babies inside them for 9 months, and thereafter feed the baby directly from their own bodies (well, not ALL women do, but most could, whereas men could not). One would have to be a brick not to feel nurturing after undergoing this process. The man's participation in the process is long over- but he is big and strong even while the mother and child are most vulnerable. These are psychological differences brought about strictly due to the physical differences. If we were all disembodied spirits, male and female would be irrelevant; without the obvious physical differences, I don't think the psychological differences would exist. Patiently waiting for the male response to the above thoughts, I remain....LL Date: 15 Jan 93 20:51:20 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine Lee- LW> I do think that one of the reasons feminists have valued traditional LW> male roles and often devalued traditional female roles is that LW> intellect is given more importance in our culture than love. It's LW> ironic to me that "feminists" seem to have imbibed the male LW> (intellectual) bias in our culture, and tried to pull women in that LW> direction rather than valuing the female and trying to give that a LW> more important role in our society. LW> Instead of devaluing traditional women's roles, I would prefer to see LW> love given a more important place in our society, and the things You have hit the proverbial nail smack on the head with this one!! This is one of many reasons I could never consider myself a "feminist". I don't want to be a man, but I'd love to see our society give some respect to the job of parenting, and other traditional women's work. (I can't help but wonder how much taxpayers are paying some woman to bake cookies for Hilary and her daughter at the White House). -LL Date: 16 Jan 93 21:48:07 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> The question is whether this is very informative. If you are a SK> feminist, this would be very appropriate for your case. But a little SK> thought shows that men and women will act out strategies, whatever SK> will seem to work for them, not necessarily what they really are inside. True. But if men are better by nature at some things and women are better by nature at others, that should show up in their performance. And if the differences are universal, like the physical differences, then the performance difference should be universal as well. After all, a man can't get pregnant, give birth, and nurse a baby no matter who feminine his vibes are, and a woman can't impregnate another woman no matter how masculine her vibes are. This does play into your statements that it is in relation to the other sex that men are particularly male and women are particularly female. Most male and female attributes not directly relating to reproduction are more of a continuum. For example, the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, but there are some women who are stronger than some men--more like the bell curves in my teacher's diagram. Date: 16 Jan 93 22:09:24 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Take a look at CL 175. Swedenborg was quite aware that theorists in SK> his day were saying the same things, arguing nature vs. nurture. He SK> pointed out that both boys and girls can be trained to do the same jobs SK> (read take the same roles) but that the spirit invested in those roles SK> or jobs would be different, leading at times into various types of SK> inexpertness or lack of a real feel for the work if the role or job is SK> not in accordance with one's inner nature. Might as well reproduce the number here for the benefit of those who don't have a copy of the book handy. Sorry for the archaic translation. It's the only one I have in electronic form. 174. XVI. THAT THERE ARE OFFICES PROPER TO THE MAN, AND OFFICES PROPER TO THE WIFE; AND THAT THE WIFE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE OFFICES PROPER TO THE MAN, NOR THE MAN INTO THE OFFICES PROPER TO THE WIFE, AND RIGHTLY PERFORM THEM. That there are offices proper to the man, and offices proper to the wife, has no need of being illustrated by a recountal of those offices; for they are many and various, and every one knows how to classify them according to their genera and species if only he exert his mind to the distinguishing of them. The offices above all others by which women conjoin themselves to their husbands are the education of the little children of both sexes, and of girls up to the age when they are given in marriage. 175. That the wife cannot enter into the offices proper to the man, nor, on the other hand, the man into the offices proper to the wife, is because they differ as do wisdom and the love thereof, or thought and its affection, or the intellect and its will. In the offices proper to men, understanding, thought, and wisdom play the leading part, but in the offices proper to wives, the leading part is played by will, affection, and love; and the wife performs her offices from the latter, and the man performs his from the former. Therefore, by their very nature their offices are divergent, yet in their successive series they are conjunctive. [2] It is thought by many that women can perform the offices of men if only they are initiated into them from their earliest age, as are boys. They can indeed be initiated into the exercise of them, but not into the judgment on which the right performance of the offices inwardly depends. Therefore, in matters of judgment, women who have been initiated into the offices of men are constrained to consult men; and then, if they are in the enjoyment of their own right, they choose from their counsels what favors their own love. By some it is also supposed that women are equally able to [3] elevate the sight of their understanding into the sphere of light in which men are, and to view things in the same altitude. This opinion has been induced upon them by the writings of some learned authoresses. But in the spiritual world, when these writings were explored in the presence of those authoresses, they were found to be works, not of judgment and wisdom, but of genius and eloquence; and works which proceed from these two, by reason of the elegance and fine style of the verbal composition, appear as though sublime and erudite but only before those who call all ingenuity wisdom. That men, on the other hand, cannot enter into the offices [4] proper to women and rightly perform them, is because they cannot enter into the affections of women, these being entirely distinct from the affections of men. Because from creation and hence by nature, the affections and perceptions of the male sex are so distinctive, therefore, among the statutes given to the sons of Israel was also this, The garment of a man shall not be upon a woman, neither the garment of a woman upon a man, for it is an abomination. Deut. xxii.5. The reason was, because in the spiritual world all are clothed according to their affections, and the two affections, that of woman and that of man, can be united only as between two, and never in a single person. SK> Incidentally, a woman friend, who wanted to get into the computer SK> retailing business, didn't know Swedenborg but read that passage and SK> said, "He's right." That didn't convince her that she was getting SK> into a masculine role unadvisedly. I don't judge business that way, SK> anyway. What _do_ you think are male and female roles that the opposite sex can't properly perform? SK> If you define the masculine and the feminine as we do traditionally. SK> That is the rub. We are not moving from any science when we do this. SK> It is all old hearsay. Very useful in some broad, general contexts, SK> but there has been no effort by anyone except Swedenborg, that I know SK> of (including Jung) to redefine "masculine" and "feminine." This is SK> one thing that would be needed in a more public forum -- redefine those SK> two words, show how they are now ineffective for any precise theory. Go at it, Steve! Date: 17 Jan 93 16:56:58 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Masculine and Feminine LL> Can I really be the only female lurking here? No. There's at least one other female lurker, but so far she's choosing not to say anything. LL> I can offer my own LL> perspective, but not the feminist one, since I've never considered LL> myself a feminist. What do you think feminism represents, and why don't you consider yourself a feminist? This is not a leading question--I'm just curious. LL> And I'm not familiar enough with Sw. to consider LL> his perspective, but here goes... LL> The most obvious differences between male and female are the physical LL> differences, the differences in our bodies. I contend that many of LL> the more subtle differences stem from this physical difference. Swedenborg would say that it is the other way around: the physical differences stem from the psychological (or spiritual) differences. His view was that our bodies are actually shaped by our spirits. So to put your statements the other way, since a woman's soul is nurturing, she has a body that expresses that; and since a man's soul wishes to protect the woman and her baby, he has a body that expresses that. There! That's probably the shortest answer you'll ever get out of me when you jump in on a complex and controversial subject! ;-) Date: 17 Jan 93 17:08:34 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> Instead of devaluing traditional women's roles, I would prefer to see LW> love given a more important place in our society, and the things LL> You have hit the proverbial nail smack on the head with this one!! LL> This is one of many reasons I could never consider myself a LL> "feminist". I don't want to be a man, but I'd love to see our society LL> give some respect to the job of parenting, and other traditional LL> women's work. This has been one of my long-standing annoyances with the feminist movement. However, I do think that things are changing a bit. There are new branches of the feminist movement that are trying to do just what you say about respecting traditional women's work. And there are other groups who don't consider themselves part of the feminist movement that are doing the same. Patty came across an interesting one a while ago. I think it was in a new-agey sort of cookbook, written by a group of women who love to parent and do other traditional women's things, and are proud of it--not in a fundamentalist sort of way, but because they think it's an earth-mother holistic sort of thing to do. You probably have that cookbook in your kitchen. :) It's interesting that although Swedenborg does say that young children who die are brought up in heaven by women, this seems to happen only in certain areas of heaven. So there must be other areas of heaven where women do _not_ raise kids. What do they do? I can't believe they cook and clean all day. I wouldn't be surprised if they do many of the same things the men do. I'm thinking particularly of the job of greeting new arrivals to heaven and getting them settled into the community. This is a job that women might even be better at than men. Now I suppose I should get out my Swedenborg search program and start looking.... LL> (I can't help but wonder how much taxpayers are paying LL> some woman to bake cookies for Hilary and her daughter at the White LL> House). Hee hee! Date: 18 Jan 93 06:31:13 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> The question is whether this is very informative. If you are a SK> feminist, this would be very appropriate for your case. But a little SK> thought shows that men and women will act out strategies, whatever SK> will seem to work for them, not necessarily what they really are SK> inside. LW> LW> True. But if men are better by nature at some things and women are LW> better by nature at others, that should show up in their performance. LW> And if the differences are universal, like the physical differences, LW> then the performance difference should be universal as well. After LW> all, a man can't get pregnant, give birth, and nurse a baby no matter LW> who feminine his vibes are, and a woman can't impregnate another woman LW> no matter how masculine her vibes are. You are right in principle, but I'm not clear what point you want to make here. It should be obvious that we adopt strategies and act _them_ out and not _necessarily_ always let our inner selves be very visible to others. In other words, a revealing performance is not always allowed. If the strategy is natural to the inner self and expresses it, then fine. But how often do we not let our inner selves come out without social compromise and adaptation? The feminist argument would ignore that consideration and make behavior or performance always indicative of what is inside. Date: 19 Jan 93 17:55:14 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> What _do_ you think are male and female roles that the opposite sex LW> can't properly perform? I would just go with Swedenborg, since that is the best way I've found so far to make sense of the masculine and the feminine. My big interest these days is understanding how his basic terms would apply. That has been a big and interesting pursuit--finding out, for example, that his "love of wisdom in the man" doesn't imply a servile or diminished status for women, but is in fact capable of leading the relationship if the man isn't taking care of his own life. That in turn reminds me of the lost value of love, in that we tend to see it as not very significant if it isn't building a super-independent and self-sufficient personality. Western individualism keeps on justifying masculine values to most of us. In fact, it's no wonder that feminism fails to be feminine--it doesn't really accept the feminine, but tries to emulate the masculine and then show that there is no difference between the sexes. I realize that your question is a serious one, and I'm going to have to think about it. This week, I'm off to Boston for a Cabinet meeting. More later. Date: 20 Jan 93 18:42:55 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> True. But if men are better by nature at some things and women are LW> better by nature at others, that should show up in their performance. LW> And if the differences are universal, like the physical differences, LW> then the performance difference should be universal as well. After LW> all, a man can't get pregnant, give birth, and nurse a baby no matter LW> how feminine his vibes are, and a woman can't impregnate another woman LW> no matter how masculine her vibes are. SK> You are right in principle, but I'm not clear what point you want to SK> make here. That if, as Swedenborg claims, there are jobs appropriate to men and jobs appropriate to women, and they cannot rightly perform each other's jobs, we should be able to notice some performance difference between men and women in these jobs. Otherwise what meaning could there be to his statement except that it is _improper_ for them to switch jobs--which is a flimsy justification if there is no actual harm done by men and women playing interchangeable roles. If men are by nature better at some things and women are by nature better at other things, there ought to be some way besides Swedenborg's assertion to tell that this is true. SK> It should be obvious that we adopt strategies and act SK> _them_ out and not _necessarily_ always let our inner selves be very SK> visible to others. True. But Swedenborg seems to claim that men don't have the _capacity_ to perform women's roles, and vice versa. He says that if women take jobs that require deep judgment to fulfill, they will have to consult wise men because they lack that capacity themselves. I wonder what Sandra Day O'Connor would say to that? Date: 20 Jan 93 18:48:40 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> What _do_ you think are male and female roles that the opposite sex LW> can't properly perform? SK> SK> I would just go with Swedenborg, since that is the best way I've found SK> so far to make sense of the masculine and the feminine. He was pretty traditional about his views of male and female roles. Is that one of the areas where you think the times in which Swedenborg lived _didn't_ affect his thinking and writing? SK> I realize that your question is a serious one, and I'm going to have SK> to think about it. This week, I'm off to Boston for a Cabinet meeting. I'll wait. Date: 25 Jan 93 12:21:38 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> You are right in principle, but I'm not clear what point you want to SK> make here. LW> LW> That if, as Swedenborg claims, there are jobs appropriate to men and LW> jobs appropriate to women, and they cannot rightly perform each LW> other's jobs, we should be able to notice some performance difference LW> between men and women in these jobs. Otherwise what meaning could Not unless the inner lack of judgment (on the part of women in a man's role) or the lack of affection and emotional sensitivity (on the part of a man in a woman's role) showed through. We do all right, as long as the inner lack of the appropriate spirit doesn't come out and only a good outer performance is needed. LW> there be to his statement except that it is _improper_ for them to LW> switch jobs--which is a flimsy justification if there is no actual LW> harm done by men and women playing interchangeable roles. If men are LW> by nature better at some things and women are by nature better at LW> other things, there ought to be some way besides Swedenborg's LW> assertion to tell that this is true. There is, but the clue is the inner state--the lack of appropriate thought or feeling, not the outer performance necessarily. Swedenborg says that the sexes can be initiated into the _exercise_ of each others' jobs, but not the inner states on which they more naturally depend. So we have to see him as reserving room to allow some darn good performances from either sex in a particular role. The inner situation can in these cases be very flawed; but it needn't come out. Your original statement didn't distinguish between performances _per se_ and performances which exhibited the inner state. Swedenborg doesn't say that it's improper for the sexes to switch jobs, only that the inner self, the state of feeling or judgment in each sex, will be more appropriate to some jobs than to others. This is basically the reason why the writings of erudite women were examined before them in the spiritual world. Anything examined in the spiritual world is examined for its intentions and for what we here would call its unconscious motivations or its deeper character as it might be analyzed by depth psychology. It is not analyzed for things on the surface. SK> It should be obvious that we adopt strategies and act SK> _them_ out and not _necessarily_ always let our inner selves be SK> visible to others. LW> True. But Swedenborg seems to claim that men don't have the LW> _capacity_ to perform women's roles, and vice versa. He says that LW> if women take jobs that require deep judgment to fulfill, they will LW> have to consult LW> wise men because they lack that capacity themselves. I wonder what LW> Sandra Day O'Connor would say to that? She wouldn't like THAT, but Swedenborg didn't say just that. He said that women are constrained to consult with a male influence (a bit metaphorically stated as "consult with men;" I wouldn't take "consult with men" entirely literally). That includes precedent (an important part of jurisprudence), and the general trend of masculine thinking that she might have a feel for from her background and training. Elsewhere, Swedenborg points out that women put masculine wisdom inside themselves, and, although that is hard to interpret, it probably means that they have it in the unconscious mind where it comes out without conscious deliberation and more or less instinctually. So it seems to be theirs, ready for immediate use like an old thought. Then come the really interesting words in n. 175--"and then, if free to act, they choose out of their counsels what favors their own love." That love is, as we've mentioned before, a love of wisdom. That would rely on a well developed feeling for any truly wise choices that might be at hand. The point is not that women are arbitrary when choosing affectionally, or noticeably crippled and then have to hobble over to men to ask their advice, but that they are intuitive. They sense the heart of what's going on. And if they think on a spiritual level, they will sense the answer they want as the most loving or beautiful or even psychic answer--the _good_--since wisdom is supposed to be emotionally or intuitively appealing (or good) as well as more penetrating and insightful. That will often lead to the real (wise) answer anyhow, even if more masculine rational procedures haven't been used. In fact, women seem to be able to tell men whether what they are chasing after in some field is good or not. Men get wrapped up in the fascinating technicalities of things, and women often bring them to a dead stop by pointing out that real good isn't happening here. Jim Lawrence and I have come to a sort of theory about much of this: Men are more in their element when exploring the unknown, and they will produce the developments that move out the walls, or push some frontier further out. Women come in afterwards and civilize the results. They are adept at taking the new systems that men have carved out from scratch and applying them to some kind of overall civilizing and nurturing effort--which traditionally has started in the home, trying to enhance and raise new life. Consequently, you find women often being the best computer programmers, the fastest at learning math and symbolic logic, the best workers at any kind of system that has already been invented. Men, on the other hand, are slow at learning math and algebra in school, find it hard to concentrate on a systematized subject, and are more likely to innovate on it or break out of any system of rules. We like freedom inwardly, in the mind as well as elsewhere, and it seems to be NOT true that we are always systematically logical and rational. Swedenborg's definition of _rational_ has yet to be researched, for it seems to not conform to what we think of as rationality. We have this dryly systematic logic in mind, whereas the best insights actually become very logical only when they have been shaped to fit with our other ideas. At first, they seem wild, illogical, paradoxical. Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Physics, etc., are like this. Logic always seems to come _last_ in the development of ideas. So men are not in this sense logical beings. Women may be. What we men are is something hard to define, using some kind of sense for finding logic in chaotic fields and reducing mystery to some kind of illumination--but starting without logic, without knowing the rules of the game. We somehow produce orderly ideas out of nothing, invent systems for using and understanding the new material, and it is hard even for us to say how it's done. I think Swedenborg has this kind of thing in mind when he talks about inner "judgment" in men. It is not rational so much as insightful, coming from a feel for the mystery in the problem. Women then may sense the good that is moving here and assess its effectiveness, while at the same time taking over the intellectual systems we build up with this judgment. Date: 25 Jan 93 11:55:14 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> What _do_ you think are male and female roles that the opposite sex LW> can't properly perform? SK> I would just go with Swedenborg, since that is the best way I've found SK> so far to make sense of the masculine and the feminine. LW> He was pretty traditional about his views of male and female roles. Is LW> that one of the areas where you think the times in which Swedenborg LW> lived _didn't_ affect his thinking and writing? Reduce his statements to the principles behind them, and you get pretty close to a solid core of ideas we can still use. Date: 28 Jan 93 00:48:54 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: yin yang and feminism Hi Lee! Yes, apparently my words were eaten by the black hole of telecommunications; I'll try to make these words a little sweeter, in case I have to eat them myself. I can't find the message to reply to, but the question was feminism- why not? Personally, feminism seems divisive and unnecessary to me. I believe in individual rights- for all individuals. I see no point in breaking things down into women's rights or rights for other "minorities". I see no point in quibbling about whether "men" (as in all are created equal) includes wo-men or brown men or little green men. Feminism only serves to create a distinction where none need exist- I mean sure, this has been a male-dominated society, where women were downtrodden and felt forced into traditional roles and blah blah blah... But this is 1993, not 1793- can't we get over it now, quit whining and get on with our lives? If we're as capable as the feminist movement tells us we are, then just what do we need feminism for? Men don't need "masculism" to pave their ways in life. All individuals have a "soft" internal side and a "hard" external side; shadow and light- the trick is to be true to yourself, to be what you are. I am what I am- I don't need feminism to tell me what to be. I think generalizations about men/women are just that, and that there is such a wide range of differences in individuals that gender generalizations cannot be accurate. Such as, men are strong/women are weak; even narrowed down to physical strength, I could easily produce a strong woman and a weak man to refute this one...can you think of any men who make better mothers than some women you know? So that's why I don't think of myself as a feminist; although I must admit that clothes that fasten up the back annoy me (you'll never find a man's shirt with buttons up the back!) ;^) -LL Date: 30 Jan 93 15:44:43 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> That if, as Swedenborg claims, there are jobs appropriate to men and LW> jobs appropriate to women, and they cannot rightly perform each LW> other's jobs, we should be able to notice some performance difference LW> between men and women in these jobs. Otherwise what meaning could SK> Not unless the inner lack of judgment (on the part of women in a man's SK> role) or the lack of affection and emotional sensitivity (on the part SK> of a man in a woman's role) showed through. That depends on your interpretation of Swedenborg's phrase "cannot rightly perform." If you think it means "cannot perform well," then there should be a noticeable performance difference. But if you think it means "not supposed to perform," then you would be right. However, you're once again getting into the area of prescriptive laws, and you have to justify _why_ men shouldn't do "women's work" and vice versa if there is no real difference in the performance of each. Perhaps we're starting to go in circles here.... SK> Swedenborg doesn't say that it's improper for the sexes to switch SK> jobs, only that the inner self, the state of feeling or judgment in SK> each sex, will be more appropriate to some jobs than to others. What exactly do you think Swedenborg means by saying they "cannot rightly perform" each other's functions? What harm would come from it? SK> This SK> is basically the reason why the writings of erudite women were examined SK> before them in the spiritual world. Anything examined in the spiritual SK> world is examined for its intentions and for what we here would call SK> its unconscious motivations or its deeper character as it might be SK> analyzed by depth psychology. It is not analyzed for things on the SK> surface. But if women "consulted with men," couldn't they, even in Swedenborg's view, produce truly scholarly works? And don't women have an inner kind of wisdom that men don't have? Why couldn't they write from that and produce books that have a kind of inner wisdom that men's books don't have? LW> True. But Swedenborg seems to claim that men don't have the LW> _capacity_ to perform women's roles, and vice versa. He says that LW> if women take jobs that require deep judgment to fulfill, they will LW> have to consult LW> wise men because they lack that capacity themselves. I wonder what LW> Sandra Day O'Connor would say to that? SK> SK> She wouldn't like THAT, but Swedenborg didn't say just that. He said SK> that women are constrained to consult with a male influence (a bit SK> metaphorically stated as "consult with men;" I wouldn't take "consult SK> with men" entirely literally). I suppose you could start taking Swedenborg metaphorically if you wanted. But then how much of what he said about male/female roles can you take literally at all? He didn't _state_ this metaphorically. He said: Therefore, in matters of judgment, women who have been initiated into the offices of men are constrained to consult men; and then, if they are in the enjoyment of their own right, they choose from their counsels what favors their own love. (Marital Love #175) This does, though, lead back to my question of how much of Swedenborg we can take at face value and how much we must re-interpret to account for the social and spiritual changes that have taken place over the 200+ years since he wrote his books. SK> That includes precedent (an important SK> part of jurisprudence), and the general trend of masculine thinking SK> that she might have a feel for from her background and training. SK> Elsewhere, Swedenborg points out that women put masculine wisdom inside SK> themselves, and, although that is hard to interpret, it probably means SK> that they have it in the unconscious mind where it comes out without SK> conscious deliberation and more or less instinctually. So it seems to SK> be theirs, ready for immediate use like an old thought. In a sense this is almost a truism, since men have had most of the scholarly and authoritative positions in our society for so long that they are practically the only ones to refer back to. It's sort of like women taking on their mother's maiden name, which means they have their mother's father's name instead of their own father's name. Apparently Swedenborg says there's more to it than that--it's because of the basic nature of men and women that their occupations have turned out the way they did. I'm not really opposed to that idea, though I do think there has been some distortion due to the various shortcomings of the human beings in our culture. SK> Then come the really interesting words in n. 175--"and then, if free SK> to act, they choose out of their counsels what favors their own love." SK> That love is, as we've mentioned before, a love of wisdom. That would SK> rely on a well developed feeling for any truly wise choices that might SK> be at hand. So we have a happy ending: it's okay for women to be judges after all! Date: 30 Jan 93 18:24:37 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: yin yang and feminism LL> Yes, apparently my words were eaten by the black hole of LL> telecommunications; I'll try to make these words a little sweeter, in LL> case I have to eat them myself. Heehee! LL> I can't find the message to reply to, It should be back on Jack's BBS. He forgot to ask me to rescan the Swedenborg echo for him after the crash, but I have now done that. Anyway, without quoting all of your long and passionate message, here's my response. LL> but the question was feminism- why not? Personally, feminism seems LL> divisive and unnecessary to me. I believe in individual rights- for LL> all individuals. I certainly agree with you and the individual rights. It is one thing that keeps me coming back to Christianity and Swedenborg in particular, because in the Swedenborgian view, each person is responsible for his or her own life, both in the material world and in the spiritual world. When God looks at you, your age, sex, race, and so on don't make nearly as much difference as what is in your heart and your head. You don't get off easy because you're a woman or a black, neither do you get harsher treatment if you're a white male. LL> I mean sure, this has been a LL> male-dominated society, where women were downtrodden and felt forced LL> into traditional roles and blah blah blah. For all the rejection by liberal Swedenborgians of Swedenborg's view of gender roles, he actually thought that women had a lot of power over men. However, it was not the blatant, physically enforced type of power that men use over women, but a more subtle, psychological form of power. In effect, according to Swedenborg, women use their relational skills and their ability to see through men better than men can see through women to dominate men psychologically--which can be just as real a dominance as physical dominance. One time I was talking to my mother (a strong Swedenborgian) about feminism and male oppression of women, and she said, "Why do the feminists always ignore the way women dominate men?" LL> All individuals have a "soft" internal side LL> and a "hard" external side; shadow and light- Kind of like the calluses on the hands of those who do physical labor. Where you touch the outside world, you have to be a little tougher than other parts of yourself are. LL> the trick is to be true to yourself, to be what you are. Swedenborg might call that "serving your use." He thought of society as a place where different people had different useful talents, and when you put them all together, preferably lubricated with love, you get an active, happy, useful society. LL> I think generalizations about men/women LL> are just that, and that there is such a wide range of differences in LL> individuals that gender generalizations cannot be accurate. Have you been following the discussion of gender differences between Steve and me? Do you have any reactions to our "generalizations"? LL> Such as, LL> men are strong/women are weak; even narrowed down to physical LL> strength, I could easily produce a strong woman and a weak man to LL> refute this one... Of course there are more things that are common to men and women than are different. We're both human beings, both have two arms, two legs, bones, muscles, hearts, brains, and so on that function almost the same. So when it comes to strong man/weak woman types of things, yes, it is a continuum. But when you get to the reproductive realm, there are discrete differences. No man has a uterus, and no woman has a penis. We know that there are areas where men and women are on a continuum with each other psychologically. Are there areas where there are discrete psychological differences between men and women corresponding to the areas of discrete physical difference? LL> can you think of any men who make better mothers LL> than some women you know? Maybe once the baby is born. But even then, men seem to have trouble nursing the baby. LL> So that's why I don't think of myself as a LL> feminist; although I must admit that clothes that fasten up the back LL> annoy me (you'll never find a man's shirt with buttons up the back!) LL> ;^) -LL You've got a point there! When it came to dressing Heidi, I almost needed a graduate program in women's clothing--and she was just a toddler! I was always putting stuff on the wrong way and having Patty laugh about it. It was almost like _I_ was a little kid who couldn't get his shoes on the right feet. I suppose some feminists would say that women's clothing fastens in the back to maintain her dependent position on men (gotta get your husband to fasten you up). I think it has more to do with women wanting to show off their female attributes to best effect. Date: 01 Feb 93 10:07:28 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Not unless the inner lack of judgment (on the part of women in a man's SK> role) or the lack of affection and emotional sensitivity (on the part SK> of a man in a woman's role) showed through. LW> That depends on your interpretation of Swedenborg's phrase "cannot LW> rightly perform." If you think it means "cannot perform well," then LW> there should be a noticeable performance difference. But if you think LW> it means "not supposed to perform," then you would be right. However, LW> you're once again getting into the area of prescriptive laws, and you LW> have to justify _why_ men shouldn't do "women's work" and vice versa LW> if there is no real difference in the performance of each. LW> Perhaps we're starting to go in circles here.... Maybe not. The core sentence in Swedenborg's discussion is, "It is believed by many that women can perform the duties of men if only they are initiated into them [from early childhood]; into the exercise of them they can indeed be initiated, but not into the judgment on which the right performance of the duties inwardly depends." Here Swedenborg makes the central point of the whole section. One can perform, so that outwardly one does a good job at the other sex's duties (the _exercise_ of them), but one cannot master the inner state that produces a more natural flow of actions from their most appropriate motivations. His emphasis is on how well the inner _and_ the outer work together, not on what you mean by "performance." What Swedenborg means by "performance" is the whole act from deep inside and on out. His concept of an action is throughout his writings typically the motive plus the outer action. Not the outer action alone. "Performance" gets a similar spin here; it's inclusive. So from that viewpoint, he can say that improper performance happens when men and women get into each other's duties. But in the mere outer "exercise" of these duties, both sexes may still do well. We can only infer a certain inner discomfort at trying to do it too long. And we can expect that eventually some breakdown of outer exercise will happen, if we do try too hard too long. LW> But then how much of what he said about male/female roles can LW> you take literally at all? He didn't _state_ this metaphorically. He LW> said: LW> LW> Therefore, in matters of judgment, women who have been initiated LW> into the offices of men are constrained to consult men; and then, LW> if they are in the enjoyment of their own right, they choose from LW> their counsels what favors their own love. (Marital Love #175) LW> LW> This does, though, lead back to my question of how much of Swedenborg LW> we can take at face value and how much we must re-interpret to account LW> for the social and spiritual changes that have taken place over the LW> 200+ years since he wrote his books. We tend to overestimate the amount of reinterpretation needed, I think. What I'm finding out as I read and think about this more is that Swedenborg did present what we would consider to be outmoded practices of his time, but our need here is to find the principles that come through these examples and reapply them to our situation. We would present different examples, but the principles behind them seem to be very compelling. We also must relate these things more to his general teaching as it is found in his other books--his hierarchical psychology, topped by a "ruling love," as opposed to the more simple one-level psychologies that are used to explain men and women today; it actually gives him more flexibility in explaining diverse actions in any individual, whereas the more two-dimensional ideas we pass around today can achieve that only by mixing the sexes with fuzzy results in the same person. That makes us look very ambiguous and uncertain about our sexual identity, and modern liberalism tends to deal with it only by saying that it's a good thing. But as Wittgenstein put it, a clear picture of a fuzzy thing is a fuzzy picture. We don't really clarify our lives this way, and the two bell curves are a good example of that kind of fuzzy thinking. And there is just the basic fact that the sexes are powerfully pulled toward each other. We fascinate each other. The very first thing we become aware of is that we are enormously and even intoxicatingly different from each other; we want to know why, to delve into this more. Otherwise, why get so wrapped up in each other? Why such happiness when things go well, or such suffering when they don't? Then, looking rightfully for equally compelling ideas about what causes this, we are given fuzzy notions of people who are only on average masculine or feminine, and inwardly both. The explanations don't match what we are really looking for, the secret to the power of sexuality in all of its varied and magical forms. The romance of the subject gets drained out of it, and we become superficially external about one of the more substantial experiences we have. We still don't get answers to what moves and attracts us to the opposite sex. Swedenborg is the only one I've come across who actually promises to do something about that, and he starts out where he should, taking a very high new look at men and women, starting at Square One. No one else is doing this that I know of. SK> Elsewhere, Swedenborg points out that women put masculine wisdom inside SK> themselves, and, although that is hard to interpret, it probably means SK> that they have it in the unconscious mind where it comes out without SK> conscious deliberation and more or less instinctually. So it seems to SK> be theirs, ready for immediate use like an old thought. LW> In a sense this is almost a truism, since men have had most of the LW> scholarly and authoritative positions in our society for so long that LW> they are practically the only ones to refer back to. It's sort of like LW> women taking on their mother's maiden name, which means they have LW> their mother's father's name instead of their own father's name. Good point. It has been argued, though, by a woman looking rather askance on feminist claims, that if women were so dominated by men, they would not have stayed within the traditional order for so long. Modern feminism is much too late to give credence to its most critical ideas. If women have been so downtrodden, their revolution is way overdue, and that raises the question of whether there hasn't been some value, some truthfulness, in the traditional way of regulating things, as if women did find themselves quite at home in much of it. I think she's right, but that we still have some important things to straighten out. The danger is that we may adopt too much of a black-and-white picture of history and miss the reality in between. And men also have women in their own unconscious, providing old feelings, if not old thoughts, with an instinctual tie to the approval of the loved one. A man gets involved in trying to please her, to gain and hold her love, passing over what sustained him when he was single, his love of himself. Swedenborg provides for each sex to sink unconscious psychological roots into the other. LW> So we have a happy ending: it's okay for women to be judges after all! Of course. The wisdom men use on the bench isn't the only kind that our courts need (similar case: women in the pulpit). Date: 03 Feb 93 10:12:12 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: yin yang and feminism Lee- LW> Anyway, without quoting all of your long and passionate message, Well, you know how hopelessly emotional us women are. ;^) LW> of gender roles, he actually thought that women had a lot of power LW> over men. However, it was not the blatant, physically enforced type of LW> power that men use over women, but a more subtle, psychological form LW> of power. In effect, according to Swedenborg, women use their LW> relational skills and their ability to see through men better than men LW> can see through women to dominate men psychologically--which can be LW> just as real a dominance as physical dominance. LW> One time I was talking to my mother (a strong Swedenborgian) about LW> feminism and male oppression of women, and she said, "Why do the LW> feminists always ignore the way women dominate men?" Because of the physical way we are built, men and women depend on each other. Without both, neither can survive. I believe that in the best relationships, there is no dominance, but a mutual cooperation and concern for the other. The psychological domination of which you speak is real- and I think it is employed by both sexes. Speaking historically, I'm certain that "behind every great man is a great woman"; I'm not so sure that these women were always so subtle in wielding their powers. LW> Kind of like the calluses on the hands of those who do physical labor. LW> Where you touch the outside world, you have to be a little tougher LW> than other parts of yourself are. This is a good analogy. I think the difference today is that darn near everybody, many from infanthood, are exposed to the outside world most of the time. Perhaps the reason that men have been traditionally viewed as tougher than women is because they were the only ones traditionally exposed to all those callousing influences. Now, regardless of gender, you've got to be pretty tough by the time you're 2 or 3, or you'll never live through nursery school. In the comfort and protection of a loving home, one can afford to keep some softness. LW> Have you been following the discussion of gender differences between LW> Steve and me? Do you have any reactions to our "generalizations"? Yes, I've been reading your thread on gender- have you arrived at any concrete generalizations? List them for me, and I'll be glad to refute them. ;^) LW> But when you get to the reproductive realm, there are discrete LW> differences. No man has a uterus, and no woman has a penis. LW> We know that there are areas where men and women are on a continuum LW> with each other psychologically. Are there areas where there are LW> discrete psychological differences between men and women corresponding LW> to the areas of discrete physical difference? Let's talk hormones. Men and women both have them, and they are made to affect behavior. Women's hormonal cycles are usually accompanied by some physical manifestation(s) which make it easy to generalize- pregnant women are overemotional, women are bitchy during their periods, etc. I have personally noticed emotional changes in men which are undoubtedly hormonal- but without physical manifestations to support the idea, no one pays any attention or bothers to generalize. My point here is that both men and women must deal with psychological occurrences that are due to physical reality. Women have traditionally been "taught" to internalize these emotions, while men are "supposed to" externalize them. Both sexes have been kept remarkably ignorant of the way their bodies really work. I think that even with the obvious physical differences, the internal workings of men and women are not all that different- the difference is in how one deals with the resultant feelings. LW> I suppose some feminists would say that women's clothing fastens in LW> the back to maintain her dependent position on men (gotta get your LW> husband to fasten you up). I think it has more to do with women LW> wanting to show off their female attributes to best effect. I think keeping women helpless _was_ the original idea behind clothing that required assistance; but we fooled them! (Most of us can zip a zipper up the back all by ourselves, 'though it does require a certain limberness). -LL Date: 04 Feb 93 20:53:04 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> "Performance" gets a similar spin here; it's inclusive. So from that SK> viewpoint, he can say that improper performance happens when men and SK> women get into each other's duties. Okay. So what are men's and women's duties? Lori as challenging us to produce any such distinction, it seems. SK> But in the mere outer "exercise" of these duties, both sexes may still SK> do well. We can only infer a certain inner discomfort at trying to do SK> it too long. And we can expect that eventually some breakdown of SK> outer exercise will happen, if we do try too hard too long. So do you think that once women have had their fling at the business world they'll go back to raising kids? SK> We also must relate these things more to his general teaching as it is SK> found in his other books--his hierarchical psychology, topped by a SK> "ruling love," as opposed to the more simple one-level psychologies SK> that are used to explain men and women today; What would be an example of a one-level psychology? Freud and Jung had an ego, a superego, and an id, which seems to be three-level. SK> whereas the more two-dimensional ideas we pass around today can achieve SK> that only by mixing the sexes with fuzzy results in the same person. SK> That makes us look very ambiguous and uncertain about our sexual SK> identity, and modern liberalism tends to deal with it only by saying SK> that it's a good thing. There certainly is a lot of fuzziness. I find a great reluctance to admit of _any_ essential differences between men and women. There seems to be a great fear that admitting differences will get us back to the old idea that one is inferior to the other. So there is an attempt to lay all gender differences at the foot of cultural influences. SK> But as Wittgenstein put it, a clear picture of SK> a fuzzy thing is a fuzzy picture. We don't really clarify our lives SK> this way, and the two bell curves are a good example of that kind of SK> fuzzy thinking. Though they do apply to many areas--such as physical strength. As a group, men are stronger than women, but some women stronger than some men. So they are overlapping bell curves in that regard. SK> And there is just the basic fact that the sexes are powerfully pulled SK> toward each other. We fascinate each other. With the possible exception of the 10% or so of the population that is homosexual. This introduces another force in our society that often attempts to downplay the differences between men and women--or at least to deny any essential complementarity between them that would dictate that we be involved in heterosexual relationships. SK> The very first thing we SK> become aware of is that we are enormously and even intoxicatingly SK> different from each other; we want to know why, to delve into this SK> more. Otherwise, why get so wrapped up in each other? Why such SK> happiness when things go well, or such suffering when they don't? SK> Then, looking rightfully for equally compelling ideas about what causes SK> this, we are given fuzzy notions of people who are only on average SK> masculine or feminine, and inwardly both. I tend to agree that our views of masculinity and femininity are too fuzzy and superficial to account for the deep connection that Swedenborg says exists between them. I have read what Swedenborg says on the subject. Now I am trying to find how it shows up in the real world, assuming he is right. SK> Swedenborg is the SK> only one I've come across who actually promises to do something about SK> that, and he starts out where he should, taking a very high new look at SK> men and women, starting at Square One. No one else is doing this that I SK> know of. Yes, he does take a look from the top. It is his presentation of marriage as a spiritual relationship expressed in a physical relationship that I find most valuable in his writings on marriage. That was the prime thing I wanted to get across in the abridged translation for Jim Lawrence. I would have to pay attention to see if I find anyone else talking about that sort of thing in relation to heterosexual relationships. It's a touchy subject, so many authors may not dare to venture in. I _did_ get an interesting magazine offer in the mail the other day, though. It is for a magazine called "Tantra." Among other things, the brochure says it "probes the esoteric physiology of the human being" and "presents ways to increase spiritual intimacy between loving partners." It says "Tantra evokes the sensitive exploration of the relationships between man, woman, and the Divine." I'm thinking of subscribing just to check it out. Tantra seems to be the equivalent in Eastern religions of Swedenborg's view of the spiritual origin and nature of human sexuality. Date: 04 Feb 93 21:06:11 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> It has been argued, though, by a woman looking rather SK> askance on feminist claims, that if women were so dominated by men, SK> they would not have stayed within the traditional order for so long. SK> Modern feminism is much too late to give credence to its most critical SK> ideas. If women have been so downtrodden, their revolution is way SK> overdue, and that raises the question of whether there hasn't been some SK> value, some truthfulness, in the traditional way of regulating things, SK> as if women did find themselves quite at home in much of it. I think SK> she's right, but that we still have some important things to straighten SK> out. Which woman are you referring to? I tend to agree with what she is saying (through you). And of course Swedenborg would say that women have used their own more subtle and psychological arts to dominate men, while men's ways are blunter and more obvious. Another thought of mine is that if women have not been able to throw off "male domination" until now, there is some question as to whether they really are equal to men at all. I suspect women _are_ equal to men, but chose to accomplish their own goals in different ways. And for every way that our society has oppressed women, you can cite instances of how our society has oppressed men as well. SK> The danger is that we may adopt too much of a black-and-white SK> picture of history and miss the reality in between. Do you care to elaborate on this a little more? SK> And men also have women in their own unconscious, providing old SK> feelings, if not old thoughts, with an instinctual tie to the approval SK> of the loved one. A man gets involved in trying to please her, to SK> gain and hold her love, passing over what sustained him when he was SK> single, his love of himself. Although I think that the man is often driven by that very self-love to make some of the changes needed to have a relationship. He wants women to like him for not particularly altruistic reasons, so he attempts to present a lovable personality, thus molding himself in ways that de-emphasize some of his less desirable qualities and emphasize his more positive qualities. This results in some better habits and modes of living. Later on, the better motives may come. A concrete example of this is a man who wants to have sex with his wife but finds that she is not interested unless she feels some kind of connection with him in thoughts and feelings first. So whereas he might of his own accord just jump in bed with her and forget about the rest, he finds he must open himself up and share his thoughts and feelings with his wife to provide an atmosphere in which she begins to warm up and feel emotionally and physically attracted to him. In other words, he has to think of her feelings and open up about his own in order to gain what he may have originally wanted from mostly physical and self-centered desires. SK> Of course. The wisdom men use on the bench isn't the only kind that SK> our courts need (similar case: women in the pulpit). So do you think that women can do practically any job as long as they do it in a "women's way," similar to my Aunt Gertrude (the Rev. Gertrude Tremblay) thinks about women in the ministry? Date: 05 Feb 93 13:02:05 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Males, females, and dominance LW> Anyway, without quoting all of your long and passionate message, LL> Well, you know how hopelessly emotional us women are. ;^) I hope it's not hopeless! ;) LW> One time I was talking to my mother (a strong Swedenborgian) about LW> feminism and male oppression of women, and she said, "Why do the LW> feminists always ignore the way women dominate men?" LL> Because of the physical way we are built, men and women depend on each LL> other. Without both, neither can survive. I believe that in the best LL> relationships, there is no dominance, but a mutual cooperation and LL> concern for the other. I agree! So does Swedenborg. His section in _Marital Love_ about how a struggle for dominance destroys a marriage was one of the few parts of my (abridged) translation of that book that some of the feminist faculty at Fairhaven College really liked. For your pleasure and enjoyment I'll reproduce that section here: 248. Another outward reason for coldness is a struggle for dominance between married partners. What marital love wants most is a sharing of motivations, which gives us the freedom to do what we enjoy. Fighting for dominance eliminates these two things from our marriage. It tears our motivations apart and turns the freedom to do what we want into slavery. As long as this struggle lasts, we have violent thoughts against our partner. We go back and forth between hatred and friendly relations. We hate our partner when we are in the middle of a struggle for dominance, and have friendly relations when we are hoping to dominate our partner, or when we are sexually aroused. After one partner gains the upper hand over the other, the struggle retreats from our outward actions into our inner mind, and hides there restlessly. The submissive partner becomes cold, and so does the dominant one. The dominant one becomes cold because there is no more marital love, and a lack of marital love is coldness. Instead of marital love, the dominant partner has the heat of domination, but this heat is completely different from marital warmth. However, the two may get along outwardly because of the partners' sexual desires. After the partners have reached an unspoken agreement, it seems as if their marital love has turned into friendship. However, marital friendship and submissive friendship are as different as day and night. LL> The psychological domination of which you speak LL> is real- and I think it is employed by both sexes. Speaking LL> historically, I'm certain that "behind every great man is a great LL> woman"; I'm not so sure that these women were always so subtle in LL> wielding their powers. But they often let the man _think_ he was in charge while actually having him wrapped around their finger. My history is a little foggy, but I seem to remember that the Massacre of the Heugenots back a few centuries ago was ordered by the King after he had been wheedled by his wife or sister to do it. He still gave the order, but she was the one who pushed him into it. I agree that men use psychological techniques too. I just think that women are generally better at it. Men tend to be less comfortable and at home in relational situations than women are, and that gives women an advantage in the psychological arena. Lots of times the man never knows what hit him--or at least it takes him quite a while to figure it out, and by that time the pattern is set. Date: 05 Feb 93 13:13:57 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses LW> Kind of like the calluses on the hands of those who do physical labor. LW> Where you touch the outside world, you have to be a little tougher LW> than other parts of yourself are. LL> This is a good analogy. I think the difference today is that darn LL> near everybody, many from infanthood, are exposed to the outside world LL> most of the time. Do you think that's good or bad? This is a genuine question for me: whether it is better to keep young children sheltered from many of the negative aspects of our society and let them find out about them later when they're older, or whether to expose them at an early age. I lean toward the sheltering view in the belief that it is better for them to have mostly positive experiences in their early years so that their basic personality and outlook can be more positive even when they start to meet up with the negative aspects of humanity. LL> Perhaps the reason that men have been traditionally LL> viewed as tougher than women is because they were the only ones LL> traditionally exposed to all those callousing influences. Now, LL> regardless of gender, you've got to be pretty tough by the time you're LL> 2 or 3, or you'll never live through nursery school. In the comfort LL> and protection of a loving home, one can afford to keep some softness. Yeah. It used to be that people were mostly educated at home, or in the context of a small community in which they lived, and in which practically everybody was friendly. Then boys were sent off to school while girls stayed home. Now both boys and girls are sent off to school from the time they are five, or even younger if both parents work (though then it is called "day care"). I don't think this has had a particularly positive effect on kids as they grow up. In my "Men and Identity" class at Fairhaven College, Robert Bly's idea that boys need male mentors to grow up into healthy men has come up several times. It reminds me of Swedenborg's statement that both boys and girls are to be brought up by women until they are about five, but then the boys are to be brought up by their fathers until they are ready to go out on their own, while the girls are still to be brought up by their mothers. Of course, he didn't mean there should be a strict separation--more that fathers would have the primary responsibility for boys' upbringing, and mothers the primary responsibility for girls' upbringing. What do you think of this idea? LL> Yes, I've been reading your thread on gender- have you arrived at any LL> concrete generalizations? List them for me, and I'll be glad to LL> refute them. ;^) Uh oh! We'd better watch out! Well, what about the generalizations I've made in this message and the last one? Are they guilty until proven innocent? :) Date: 05 Feb 93 13:43:03 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: yin yang and feminism LL> Let's talk hormones. Men and women both have them, and they are made LL> to affect behavior. Women's hormonal cycles are usually accompanied LL> by some physical manifestation(s) which make it easy to generalize- LL> pregnant women are overemotional, women are bitchy during their LL> periods, etc. I have personally noticed emotional changes in men LL> which are undoubtedly hormonal- but without physical manifestations to LL> support the idea, no one pays any attention or bothers to generalize. I've heard of some studies that seem to show that men who are in a close relationship with a woman sometimes have hormonal/emotional changes that follow _her_ cycles. Of course, if a man's wife gets grumpy around her period, that could make him a bit grumpy, too. :) LL> My point here is that both men and women must deal with psychological LL> occurrences that are due to physical reality. Women have traditionally LL> been "taught" to internalize these emotions, while men are "supposed LL> to" externalize them. Both sexes have been kept remarkably ignorant of LL> the way their bodies really work. I do think men could gain by becoming more expressive of their emotions. And understanding the workings of our bodies better is always good. But don't you think there are some major parts of our psychological and emotional lives that are _not_ determined by our bodies? Such as when something very good or very bad happens to us, and we have reactions to it? LL> I think that even with the obvious LL> physical differences, the internal workings of men and women are not LL> all that different- the difference is in how one deals with the LL> resultant feelings. For the most part. Everywhere except the reproductive realm, men and women work almost identically. Yet the differences in reproductive function do change the rest of our bodies in subtle and not so subtle ways. Women must have wider hips to accommodate the birth canal. This means the leg bones are attached at the pelvis farther apart in relation to the woman's height, changing the angle at which the thigh meets the lower leg, and so on. During pregnancy, a woman's internal organs get shifted around to accommodate the baby growing inside her. Women's bodies have other differences from men's, such as the extra subcutaneous fat that makes a woman's body smoother, with less prominent tendons and muscles. A trained physiologist could probably go through almost every organ, muscle, and bone in the body and point out differences between those of a man and those of a woman. If there were any part that could not be distinguished, one look at the chromosomes would immediately identify it as male or female. Then there are the social differences that result from the reproductive differences. Whether or not men could theoretically be just as good at raising children as women, the fact that babies grow inside of women and then (in the natural way of doing things) depend on a woman to nurse them for at least a year or two afterwards means that women have historically been the ones who have primarily cared for infants and young children. During some of this time the women are not as strong or fast as they would otherwise be, and might need protection from attack. The man experiences no such long period of gestation nor does he nurse the baby. Basically, he has no _need_ to have anything to do with the baby after conception--though he would have a stake in helping and protecting the baby in order to continue his hereditary line. Even if you don't believe that men and women are made differently from a spiritual origin, wouldn't these differences in their experience over eons of evolution make them psychologically different? Wouldn't women become more nurturing and relational, while men became more independent and even aggressive to protect their women and children if a threat should arise? LW> I suppose some feminists would say that women's clothing fastens in LW> the back to maintain her dependent position on men (gotta get your LW> husband to fasten you up). I think it has more to do with women LW> wanting to show off their female attributes to best effect. LL> I think keeping women helpless _was_ LL> the original idea behind clothing that required assistance; What makes you think that? LL> but we LL> fooled them! (Most of us can zip a zipper up the back all by LL> ourselves, 'though it does require a certain limberness). Perhaps that's the biological reason for women's superior fine-motor coordination. Date: 09 Mar 93 20:51:38 From: Lee Woofenden To: All Subj: Swedenborg on sexual equality * Original Area: NW_WA_CHAT * Original To : Corrinne Sande (1:3401/101) CS> 2. What was Swedenborg's position regarding equality of the sexes? Swedenborg believed that men and women are equal but different. As with racial differences, he thought that the differences between men and women were good because each had qualities that the other lacked, so that together they were more fully human than either one by himself or herself. Also as with his views on the races, Swedenborg lived in a very different era from ours--one which did not have the current sensitivity about gender issues because the organized women's movement was two hundred years in the future. His views on gender have been some of his most controversial even among followers of Swedenborg. Some believe his views are mostly dated by the time in which he lived, others think there are underlying truths which go beyond his own time. In fact, this is one of the ongoing topics of discussion in the Swedenborg echo. The matter is far from settled, just as our own society's views of gender are still very unsettled. Male-female relations is a huge subject, but just to stick to your question about equality between the sexes, I'll quote a relevant piece from Swedenborg's book _Marital Love_. (My apologies to those in the Swedenborg echo who are getting this twice.) Swedenborg is giving various reasons why marriages go cold. 248. Another outward reason for coldness is a struggle for dominance between married partners. What marital love wants most is a sharing of motivations, which gives us the freedom to do what we enjoy. Fighting for dominance eliminates these two things from our marriage. It tears our motivations apart and turns the freedom to do what we want into slavery. As long as this struggle lasts, we have violent thoughts against our partner. We go back and forth between hatred and friendly relations. We hate our partner when we are in the middle of a struggle for dominance, and have friendly relations when we are hoping to dominate our partner, or when we are sexually aroused. After one partner gains the upper hand over the other, the struggle retreats from our outward actions into our inner mind, and hides there restlessly. The submissive partner becomes cold, and so does the dominant one. The dominant one becomes cold because there is no more marital love, and a lack of marital love is coldness. Instead of marital love, the dominant partner has the heat of domination, but this heat is completely different from marital warmth. However, the two may get along outwardly because of the partners' sexual desires. After the partners have reached an unspoken agreement, it seems as if their marital love has turned into friendship. However, marital friendship and submissive friendship are as different as day and night. In other words, Swedenborg believed that a struggle for dominance within a marriage destroys the marriage. By extension, I believe he would say the same thing about a wider societal struggle for dominance between men and women: It would destroy human relations in the society. I'll leave it at that for the moment. I'd be glad to go further into anything about male-female relations that you're particularly interested in. Date: 09 Feb 93 10:17:36 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> Okay. So what are men's and women's duties? Lori as challenging us to LW> produce any such distinction, it seems. "Duties" is a bad word, just to start with. What are men's and women's most natural activities and talents? is better. The bottom line appears to be this--the masculine and the feminine are like two adjacent mountains, each with a peak in the middle and sloping sides that finally meet the common ground plane. The peak is the intensely feminine, or the intensely masculine, the concentrated sexuality we get into. The slopes are a whole set of more graduated states that reach out to the other mountain and finally touch it. Here we become most like the other sex, but we still maintain a central control of what we do and why from the peak. That results in the sympathetic and sensitive man who still knows what he is after, or the wise and ambitious woman who still knows what she feels and why (a Sandra Day O'connor, I guess). From the slopes we emulate each other and reach out with understanding and participate in each other's world. This would include the househusband who is nevertheless able to switch over to a more masculine activity on demand. But he doesn't object to caring for the kids and the home when he is needed there. Or it would be the woman who manages a business, can be a tough negotiator on the Board or with a rival company, but knows very well that she has an essential part of herself at home and is prepared to be a wife and mom when she goes home. This is what it is to be "together" these days. So what's the difference between them? Outwardly not too much. But both are inwardly centered and aren't having problems with their sexual identity. They aren't getting lost in this role-switching. They are aware that they are reaching and stretching their inner core when they participate so intently in the opposite activity. They know how to do a good job, and there are some notable satisfactions; but they feel less comfortable with themselves if they have to do it too long or too intensely. Each sex can do almost anything the other can do. The question is whether each can really "get into" it, feel very natural in it, really live in it without some rebellious feeling beginning to stir underneath after awhile. We are enormously flexible but still have a core self to take care of. The mountain slopes can carry a lot of sympathetic or common activities, whole cities and towns. But the peak that overlooks the whole scene is that maleness or femaleness that has to be in ultimate command of what we do. LW> So do you think that once women have had their fling at the business LW> world they'll go back to raising kids? Recent news is that many of them are. They want to do the home and family bit, but may be trying to do that too late; they've spent too much time in the business world. LW> What would be an example of a one-level psychology? Freud and Jung had LW> an ego, a superego, and an id, which seems to be three-level. That's Freud, not Jung. But I was talking about popular psychology, where we have certain ideas to pass around but which aren't complex enough to answer the better questions. An idea, for example, that men are both masculine and feminine but just mostly masculine, while women are the opposite. That is when it becomes difficult to explain complex situations where a man, for example, does something feminine in character but still uses it comfortably as part of a well organized masculine strategy. That implies a hierarchical psychology with a ruling masculine motive at the top, calling all the shots. But we get from the media and casual thinking the more "flat" psychology that divides the personality into two parts, one masculine and one feminine, and says that we merely switch back and forth between the two. That would suggest androgyny or some kind of split between extremes. SK> But as Wittgenstein put it, a clear picture of SK> a fuzzy thing is a fuzzy picture. We don't really clarify our lives SK> this way, and the two bell curves are a good example of that kind of SK> fuzzy thinking. LW> LW> Though they do apply to many areas--such as physical strength. As a LW> group, men are stronger than women, but some women stronger than some LW> men. So they are overlapping bell curves in that regard. OK, but how meaningful is that? The stronger women still, it seems to me, fall in love with the weaker men, and vice-versa. It's basically character, the soul, that runs the show. Date: 09 Feb 93 09:10:14 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> It has been argued, though, by a woman looking rather SK> askance on feminist claims, that if women were so dominated by men, SK> they would not have stayed within the traditional order for so long. LW> Which woman are you referring to? I tend to agree with what she is Jim Lawrence told me about her. I think her name is Kathleen Raine. In any case, she is a prominent commentator on matters cultural. LW> Another thought of mine is that if women have not been able to throw LW> off "male domination" until now, there is some question as to whether LW> they really are equal to men at all. I suspect women _are_ equal to LW> men, but chose to accomplish their own goals in different ways. And LW> for every way that our society has oppressed women, you can cite LW> instances of how our society has oppressed men as well. Right. There was a book called "The Hazards of Being Male," which pointed out how much is loaded onto men and increases anxiety and inner crisis. Women _were_ often in positions of enormous power. They could dash a man's self-confidence to smithereens with one careless word, while men had to woo them, ask them out for dates, go out on a limb with no assurance of not having the limb cut off. Woman were the sought-after, the glittering goal of male aspirations, able to reside in their ancient mysteries and dispense judgments without being required to explain them or to be diplomatic. (Wow, how do you like that prose?) SK> The danger is that we may adopt too much of a black-and-white SK> picture of history and miss the reality in between. LW> LW> Do you care to elaborate on this a little more? In what way? I thought I was summing up. LW> So do you think that women can do practically any job as long as they LW> do it in a "women's way," similar to my Aunt Gertrude (the Rev. LW> Gertrude Tremblay) thinks about women in the ministry? Sure. BTW, how did your aunt get to be a minister? Date: 09 Feb 93 21:44:20 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses LW> Do you think that's good or bad? This is a genuine question for me: LW> whether it is better to keep young children sheltered from many of the LW> negative aspects of our society and let them find out about them later LW> when they're older, or whether to expose them at an early age. I lean LW> toward the sheltering view in the belief that it is better for them to LW> have mostly positive experiences in their early years so that their LW> basic personality and outlook can be more positive even when they LW> start to meet up with the negative aspects of humanity. Yeah. I agree. I was somewhat sheltered that way, and I am still thankful that I was not exposed to the grey and often disillusioning world until I had some inner strength. What is most important is that a child has his sense of vision developed. He needs to be able to develop a feeling for the good life, the nobility of the human race at its best, then have it available to fight for in the world afterwards. If he is exposed too early, his expectations are going to be correspondingly low. The catch, of course, is that he must not be led down an unrealistic path and then be unable to cope outside later. It will take delicate handling. Date: 12 Feb 93 17:30:20 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Males, females, and dominance Lee- LW> I agree! So does Swedenborg. His section in _Marital Love_ about how a LW> struggle for dominance destroys a marriage was one of the few parts of LW> my (abridged) translation of that book that some of the feminist LW> What marital love wants most is a sharing of motivations, which LW> gives us the freedom to do what we enjoy. Fighting for dominance LW> eliminates these two things from our marriage. It tears our LW> motivations apart and turns the freedom to do what we want into LW> slavery. LW> For your pleasure and enjoyment I'll reproduce that section here: I _did_ enjoy this, and found it very telling. There's a big difference in attitude between doing things out of love, or doing them because we "have to". LW> But they often let the man _think_ he was in charge while actually LW> having him wrapped around their finger. My history is a little foggy, Of course such instances exist, but I don't think this type of manipulation is employed exclusively by women (there's pretty good evidence that children of both sexes invented this method ;^) ) -LL Date: 12 Feb 93 17:44:54 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses Lee- LW> Do you think that's good or bad? This is a genuine question for me: LW> whether it is better to keep young children sheltered from many of the LW> negative aspects of our society and let them find out about them later LW> when they're older, or whether to expose them at an early age. I lean LW> toward the sheltering view in the belief that it is better for them to LW> have mostly positive experiences in their early years so that their LW> basic personality and outlook can be more positive even when they LW> start to meet up with the negative aspects of humanity. I think it's better for parents to parent their own children than to give that responsibility away at the earliest opportunity; I don't think keeping kids at home equates to sheltering them, however. Mine are 5 and 8 now, and have been exposed to the outside world considerably. The difference is that I'm right there to see what's going on and offer help _at the time_; if they were in a traditional school, I probably wouldn't even hear about most of their bad experiences. When the boys torment the girls in martial arts class, I can observe and advise immediately, because I'm right there. When my girls chose to participate in a local Nutcracker performance, I (or Jack) watched every practice... We participate in a lot of outside activities, and I've observed that most parents (already accustomed to waving good-bye and not worrying about their child for the next 8 hours or so) confine their participation to dropping off and picking up. I think a parent can minimize negative experiences for their child(ren) by choosing carefully to start with, and minimize the damage of negative experiences by _being there_ for their child. LW> up by their mothers. Of course, he didn't mean there should be a LW> strict separation--more that fathers would have the primary LW> responsibility for boys' upbringing, and mothers the primary LW> responsibility for girls' upbringing. What do you think of this idea? I think that any combination of mother/father bringing up sons/daughters is preferable to leaving their upbringing to others! Since I have only daughters, I can't offer much insight on what's good for boys; I think Jack and I share pretty equally in the girls' upbringing (for better or worse!) LW> Well, what about the generalizations I've made in this message and the LW> last one? Are they guilty until proven innocent? :) Gee, I've carried on so about parenting I have no passion left for my thoughts on male vs female - I've been giving the subject a lot of thought, and will bombard you with my personal insight in a future post ;^) -LL Date: 14 Feb 93 20:56:47 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Males, females, and dominance LL> I _did_ enjoy this, and found it very telling. There's a big LL> difference in attitude between doing things out of love, or doing them LL> because we "have to". Perhaps when the manuscript gets into its final form I can put it into an ASCII text file and send it to Jack's system so that you can read the whole thing. LW> But they often let the man _think_ he was in charge while actually LW> having him wrapped around their finger. LL> Of course such instances exist, but I don't LL> think this type of manipulation is employed exclusively by women LL> (there's pretty good evidence that children of both sexes invented LL> this method ;^) ) -LL No, I don't think it's used _exclusively_ by women. But I think women are generally better at it than men. Of course, kids are the masters at it. Date: 14 Feb 93 21:05:37 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses LL> I think it's better for parents to parent their own children than to LL> give that responsibility away at the earliest opportunity; I agree--especially since most parents are going to came more about their own kids than the people at the school are. LL> I don't LL> think keeping kids at home equates to sheltering them, however. Mine LL> are 5 and 8 now, and have been exposed to the outside world LL> considerably. The difference is that I'm right there to see what's LL> going on and offer help _at the time_; Good point. Also, your being there is going to make it less likely that some of the bad things will happen. An almost-all-kid atmosphere such as the one at school is bound to be a somewhat negative one, since the kids have no living guides nearby. But a mixed young kids/older kids/adult atmosphere is much more healthy, because the older kids keep the younger ones in check, while the adults keep both the older kids and the younger kids in check, so that they are nicer to each other. LL> I think that any combination of mother/father bringing up sons/daughters LL> is preferable to leaving their upbringing to others! Since I have LL> only daughters, I can't offer much insight on what's good for boys; I LL> think Jack and I share pretty equally in the girls' upbringing (for LL> better or worse!) How old are your girls? Do you think that you will have more of a special role for them when they reach puberty? LL> Gee, I've carried on so about parenting I have no passion LL> left for my thoughts on male vs female - I've been giving the subject LL> a lot of thought, and will bombard you with my personal insight in a LL> future post ;^) -LL Whew! A reprieve! ;) I'll be interested to hear your thoughts. Date: 15 Feb 93 11:31:32 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: yin yang and feminism Lee- LW> I do think men could gain by becoming more expressive of their LW> emotions. And understanding the workings of our bodies better is A discussion in another area made a little light go off in my head- Traditional school seems to reward the "masculine"- logic, sports ability, out-goingness while it discourages the "feminine"- intuition, introversion, emotion... Maybe we've all been taught to be less feminine. LW> always good. But don't you think there are some major parts of our LW> psychological and emotional lives that are _not_ determined by our LW> bodies? Such as when something very good or very bad happens to us, LW> and we have reactions to it? Of course. Our experiences shape us, and how we react to them is determined in large part by our previous experiences. This is true for both boys and girls. LW> Yet the differences in reproductive LW> function do change the rest of our bodies in subtle and not so subtle LW> ways. Women must have wider hips ... one look at the LW> chromosomes would immediately identify it as male or female. It would be silly to argue that there are no physical differences between males and females; I think the problem arises when one tries to create limitations out of these differences that have no physical basis. For instance, there was a time when female doctors were unusual. My doctor is a woman, and she treats me differently than any male doctor I've ever seen. I can accept that she's capable of being a doctor, _and_ that her being female causes her to doctor in a different way. Of course, here again, there are male doctors who are not condescending and female doctors who are not nurturing or understanding; generalizations are easy to disprove in practice. LW> Even if you don't believe that men and women are made differently from LW> a spiritual origin, wouldn't these differences in their experience LW> over eons of evolution make them psychologically different? Wouldn't LW> women become more nurturing and relational, while men became more LW> independent and even aggressive to protect their women and children if Simplified and spread out over eons, this certainly makes sense; but things don't work like this anymore, and haven't during my lifetime. Most women give birth attended by disinterested doctors and nurses; in many cases the child is surgically removed. The husband (if there is one) goes home and gets on with life while the mom recovers in the hospital- the woman does not have to be protected from wild animals, participate in the birth, or care for the baby if she does not want to. I think women probably still are the primary caregivers, just not for their own children. Many babies get their first feeding from a nurse. IF they're lucky, they'll spend a month or two home with mom. Then it's off to daycare, school, etc. I think the factors that have historically been responsible for the psychological differences between men and women have been obliterated by modern society. Maybe that's why there are so many identity crises out there. LL> I think keeping women helpless _was_ LL> the original idea behind clothing that required assistance; LW> What makes you think that? Well, has men's clothing ever required assistance? What's more attractive about a dress that buttons up the back? -LL Date: 20 Feb 93 21:56:59 From: Steve Koke To: Lori Loranger Subj: yin yang and feminism LL> A discussion in another area made a little light go off in my head- LL> Traditional school seems to reward the "masculine"- logic, sports LL> ability, out-goingness while it discourages the "feminine"- intuition, LL> introversion, emotion... Maybe we've all been taught to be less LL> feminine. I think you're right. The feminist movement itself chases a lot of masculine ideals and then tries to cover over the differences between the sexes, saying that we are basically alike. LL> It would be silly to argue that there are no physical differences LL> between males and females; I think the problem arises when one tries LL> to create limitations out of these differences that have no physical LL> basis. For instance, there was a time when female doctors were unusual. LL> My doctor is a woman, and she treats me differently than any male LL> doctor I've ever seen. I can accept that she's capable of being a LL> doctor, _and_ that her being female causes her to doctor in a LL> different way. Of course, here again, there are male doctors who are LL> not condescending and female doctors who are not nurturing or LL> understanding; generalizations are easy to disprove in practice. Either sex can goof up. The difference between the sexes would be in what it is that goofs up or is caring in men vs. what goofs up or is caring in women. LL> I think LL> keeping women helpless _was_ the original idea behind clothing LL> that required assistance; LW> What makes you think that? LL> Well, has men's clothing ever required assistance? What's more LL> attractive about a dress that buttons up the back? That's a good one, too. I can only suggest that men often do need assistance when putting on a tux, or a football uniform, or a space suit (or a modern jet pilot's pressure suit). Which is OK, if you believe in the purpose of putting it on. Women don't really need help with buttons up the back. It's only easier if they get it. That's also OK, if they feel good about the feminine image such clothing gives them. I suppose that the purpose of buttons up the back is to keep buttons from being in front, so that a more seamless look is presented in front. Often that enhances a woman's appearance. It just allows a woman to get into the dress through the back. No one is requiring women to wear those clothes, though, and men are not hollering at women for not wearing them. One thing about women's clothes is that women seem to need more options for varying their appearance, and moving the buttons to the back is one. Buttons up the back were probably invented by women in order to produce more variety in their clothes and accessories. Men are more likely to wear the same things nearly all the time, so we ask for fewer options. And we don't even care to go into a women's store, for example, and make requests about the things women should wear. Most men wouldn't be caught dead doing that. It has always been a woman's world in there. Date: 22 Feb 93 10:38:40 From: Lori Loranger To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine Hey guys! SK> "Duties" is a bad word, just to start with. What are men's and women's SK> most natural activities and talents? is better. Good idea- substituting talents for duties, and the mountain analogy was interesting, but... SK> demand. But he doesn't object to caring for the kids and the home when SK> he is needed there. Or it would be the woman who manages a business, SK> can be a tough negotiator on the Board or with a rival company, but SK> knows very well that she has an essential part of herself at home and is SK> prepared to be a wife and mom when she goes home. This is what it is to LW> So do you think that once women have had their fling at the business LW> world they'll go back to raising kids? SK> Recent news is that many of them are. They want to do the home and You guys keep coming back to motherhood as some kind of a basis of femininity- what about women who never have kids? -LL Date: 22 Feb 93 10:45:22 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Males, females, and dominance Lee- LW> Perhaps when the manuscript gets into its final form I can put it into LW> an ASCII text file and send it to Jack's system so that you can read LW> the whole thing. I'd like that- even though it takes me a l-o-n-g time to get around to reading these things! Date: 22 Feb 93 10:47:38 From: Lori Loranger To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses Lee- LW> How old are your girls? Do you think that you will have more of a LW> special role for them when they reach puberty? Amber's 8 1/2 and BreAna just turned 5. While predicting the future is not my forte, I'll try to make some future predictions based on the present trends. Since we're all home together so much of the time, we tend to "split up" parenting according to our interests and the kids' interests. For instance, Jack will work with Amber on programming while Bre and I read; Amber and I will make beads or string them while Jack introduces Bre to a new computer game or program. The girls like to cook, and since Jack and I both serve this function, we alternate helping them with this. There are some things that fall to me strictly because of gender- if we go the the pool together, us girls all go to the girls side, f'rinstance. I think I will take on more of a role as the girls mature only to the degree that they become more interested in things strictly in the feminine realm. (make-up, kissing boys, and other stuff Jack has no experience with ;^) ) Amber is already emotionally adolescent, and I'm sure there will be times when she and I clash so badly that Jack _has_ to take over. -LL Date: 22 Feb 93 11:04:00 From: Lori Loranger To: Steve Koke Subj: yin yang and feminism Steve- SK> I think you're right. The feminist movement itself chases a lot of SK> masculine ideals and then tries to cover over the differences between SK> the sexes, saying that we are basically alike. One thing I've noticed is that many women seem to want it both ways: I hear that women are just the same as men (capable of armed forces combat duty, for example) AND that the world would be a better place if women were in charge (because women are more compassionate). If we are to contend that we are just the same, how can we also insist that we are better? This seems to weaken both positions. SK> Either sex can goof up. The difference between the sexes would be in SK> what it is that goofs up or is caring in men vs. what goofs up or is SK> caring in women. So you think that there is an innate spiritual difference between men and women? Something that transcends the physically-caused differences? SK> That's a good one, too. I can only suggest that men often do need SK> assistance when putting on a tux, or a football uniform, or a space suit SK> (or a modern jet pilot's pressure suit). Which is OK, if you believe in SK> the purpose of putting it on. This is a good point. SK> up the back. It's only easier if they get it. That's also OK, if they SK> feel good about the feminine image such clothing gives them. I suppose I still think it's interesting that both you and Lee seem to think that clothing that fastens up the back is somehow sexier or more feminine. In my knowledge and experience, this is not a view widely held by women. (perhaps some onlooking female will jump in with an opposing view?) SK> One thing about women's clothes is that women seem to need more SK> options for varying their appearance, and moving the buttons to the back SK> is one. Buttons up the back were probably invented by women in order to SK> produce more variety in their clothes and accessories. Men are more SK> likely to wear the same things nearly all the time, so we ask for fewer Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the history of fashion to argue intelligently about who invented buttons up the back. Your assertion that women have more concern for fashion variety than men is a good generalization- as far as generalizations go. ;^) SK> options. And we don't even care to go into a women's store, for SK> example, and make requests about the things women should wear. Most men SK> wouldn't be caught dead doing that. It has always been a woman's world SK> in there. I must admit, I was greatly amused just before Valentine's day when I made a trip to the mall and kept encountering these two young men, who, after checking out the lingerie in every available store, were still empty-handed. -later, LL Date: 23 Feb 93 21:31:32 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses SK> Yeah. I agree. I was somewhat sheltered that way, and I am still SK> thankful that I was not exposed to the grey and often disillusioning SK> world until I had some inner strength. I was also somewhat sheltered--though anyone who goes to the government schools can't be said to be entirely sheltered. However, I had a very good home life--not perfect but good. The more people I meet the more lucky I realize I was to have had the parents and family that I did. I think it has made it a lot easier for me to deal constructively with various problems that life has thrown at me. Of course, I attribute a lot of that to my New Church upbringing as well. Especially my Sunday School class during my teens, which gave me some perspective on human psychological/spiritual development so that I would have some grasp of what I was going through and why. SK> What is most important is that SK> a child has his sense of vision developed. This is what I was just talking about in my last sentence! SK> He needs to be able to SK> develop a feeling for the good life, the nobility of the human race at SK> its best, then have it available to fight for in the world afterwards. Yes. I think it is good to have an ideal to carry with you. Then you always have a direction to go from where you are. The problem with ideals is that if you expect them to be the reality right now, it can become very frustrating and depressing when the real reality doesn't go along. But as long as you can hold them as ideals while still living in the reality, they are very helpful. SK> If he is exposed too early, his expectations are going to be SK> correspondingly low. The catch, of course, is that he must not be led SK> down an unrealistic path and then be unable to cope outside later. It SK> will take delicate handling. This is why when Jim Lawrence asked me to do the abridged translation of _Marital Love_, I suggested that we include some of the material about the causes of coldness, separation, and divorce in the book even though it was going to be targeted at newlyweds. You have to see the possible pitfalls as well as the ideals. Date: 23 Feb 93 22:22:46 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> "Duties" is a bad word, just to start with. What are men's and SK> women's most natural activities and talents? is better. I'll buy that. SK> The bottom line appears to be this--the masculine and the feminine are SK> like two adjacent mountains, each with a peak in the middle and SK> sloping sides that finally meet the common ground plane. The peak is SK> the intensely feminine, or the intensely masculine, the concentrated SK> sexuality we get into. The slopes are a whole set of more graduated SK> states that reach out to the other mountain and finally touch it. So do you think that in the overlapping bell curves that my professor at Fairhaven showed me, a man and a woman each represent one of the entire curves, rather than a point along the curve? So that every man has much that overlaps with every woman, but the peak and the slop away from the other sex's slope are unique to that man or woman? SK> So what's the difference between them? Outwardly not too much. But SK> both are inwardly centered and aren't having problems with their SK> sexual identity. They aren't getting lost in this role-switching. SK> They are aware that they are reaching and stretching their inner core SK> when they participate so intently in the opposite activity. They know SK> how to do a good job, and there are some notable satisfactions; but SK> they feel less comfortable with themselves if they have to do it too SK> long or too intensely. Do you think there are some jobs that are inherently more feminine and some that are inherently more masculine? Or could any job be done by either, but with different styles for each? I would tend toward the belief that some jobs are inherently more masculine and some inherently more feminine just by analogy with the physical differences which give men an edge in some jobs (like jobs that involve heavy lifting) and women an edge in other areas (like nursing kids). But there are other jobs that physically either one can do, and there it gets more murky as to whether there are gender preferences. Why would a woman _want_ to stretch into a masculine job or vice versa? SK> Each sex can do almost anything the other can do. The question is SK> whether each can really "get into" it, feel very natural in it, really SK> live in it without some rebellious feeling beginning to stir SK> underneath after awhile. We are enormously flexible but still have a SK> core self to take care of. The mountain slopes can carry a lot of SK> sympathetic or common activities, whole cities and towns. But the peak SK> that overlooks the whole scene is that maleness or femaleness that has SK> to be in ultimate command of what we do. Do you think this is bound to strike women who take on "men's jobs" and men who take on "women's jobs"? We've all heard stories of women who have a good career and all of a sudden decide they really want to raise kids and be mothers. But any suggestion that this is a general characteristic of women would be met with outrage from committed feminists. How about house husbands? Are they bound to eventually decide they really want outside jobs? Or are some of them well fitted to raising kids even from their "mountain peak"? I guess I've already asked some of these questions, so feel free to not pursue them any farther if you don't wish to. SK> I was talking about popular psychology, SK> where we have certain ideas to pass around but which aren't complex SK> enough to answer the better questions. An idea, for example, that men SK> are both masculine and feminine but just mostly masculine, while women SK> are the opposite. That is when it becomes difficult to explain SK> complex situations where a man, for example, does something feminine in SK> character but still uses it comfortably as part of a well organized SK> masculine strategy. That implies a hierarchical psychology with a SK> ruling masculine motive at the top, calling all the shots. Okay. I think I see what you're driving at here. We do have both masculine and feminine aspects to ourselves, but our inmost self is either masculine or feminine, and that is what drives us, no matter what the outer manifestation, right? SK> But we get SK> from the media and casual thinking the more "flat" psychology that SK> divides the personality into two parts, one masculine and one feminine, SK> and says that we merely switch back and forth between the two. That SK> would suggest androgyny or some kind of split between extremes. I am not comfortable with the New Age "androgynous" view which says we're both male and female, and could develop either one equally well. Why bother having males and females if that is the case? Wouldn't it be a lot less confusing to have a single sex with the characteristics of both genders? But that's not how God made us, and personally, I'm glad he didn't! LW> Though they do apply to many areas--such as physical strength. As a LW> group, men are stronger than women, but some women stronger than some LW> men. So they are overlapping bell curves in that regard. SK> SK> OK, but how meaningful is that? The stronger women still, it seems to SK> me, fall in love with the weaker men, and vice-versa. Do you really think so? I have seen this happen, but I hadn't concluded that it was the usual way. Perhaps if it is it is because neither the men nor the women are really "strong" enough to be with someone who is their equal. That would necessitate a lot of psychological and spiritual growth to keep the relationship going. Date: 23 Feb 93 22:37:08 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine SK> Right. There was a book called "The Hazards of Being Male," which SK> pointed out how much is loaded onto men and increases anxiety and SK> inner crisis. Women _were_ often in positions of enormous power. They SK> could dash a man's self-confidence to smithereens with one careless SK> word, while men had to woo them, ask them out for dates, go out on a SK> limb with no assurance of not having the limb cut off. Woman were the SK> sought-after, the glittering goal of male aspirations, able to reside SK> in their ancient mysteries and dispense judgments without being SK> required to explain them or to be diplomatic. I'm going to have to get a copy of that book. It seems to be one of the central books in the Men's Rights movement. For my Men and Identity class, we read a book which gives an overview of various views of masculinity, and _The Hazards of Being Male_ was a main source book. It was written in 1976 by a guy named Herb Goldberg. LW> So do you think that women can do practically any job as long as they LW> do it in a "women's way," similar to my Aunt Gertrude (the Rev. LW> Gertrude Tremblay) thinks about women in the ministry? SK> SK> Sure. BTW, how did your aunt get to be a minister? It's been a while, but I think she took some classes from Swedenborg School of Religion, took their Comprehensive Exams, and then they ordained her. I assume you've seen her article about Women in the Ministry in one of the early issues of _Studia Swedenborgiana_. Date: 24 Feb 93 03:15:43 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: yin yang and feminism LL> A discussion in another area made a little light go off in my head- LL> Traditional school seems to reward the "masculine"- logic, sports LL> ability, out-goingness while it discourages the "feminine"- intuition, LL> introversion, emotion... Maybe we've all been taught to be less LL> feminine. Including women. I wonder if that is why so many feminists seem to think of liberation as getting into traditional men's roles? LL> It would be silly to argue that there are no physical differences LL> between males and females; I think the problem arises when one tries LL> to create limitations out of these differences that have no physical LL> basis. Yes, and I do think we've done a lot of that. So what I'm interested in finding out is what differences really _do_ exist beyond the purely physical ones. Because I don't think the physical differences are the only differences. LL> Simplified and spread out over eons, this certainly makes sense; but LL> things don't work like this anymore, and haven't during my lifetime. LL> Most women give birth attended by disinterested doctors and nurses; in LL> many cases the child is surgically removed. The husband (if there is LL> one) goes home and gets on with life while the mom recovers in the LL> hospital- the woman does not have to be protected from wild animals, LL> participate in the birth, or care for the baby if she does not want to. But if we're talking in terms of biology making a change in our psychology, the time during which this has been true is a mere blink of an eye compared to the long eons in which our male and female psychology developed. It certainly isn't enough time to change our underlying psychology, though it may add some confusion to the surface. LL> I think the factors that have LL> historically been responsible for the psychological differences LL> between men and women have been obliterated by modern society. Maybe LL> that's why there are so many identity crises out there. Not obliterated, IMHO, but masked and confused. if our psychology is more than skin deep, it can't just radically change within a single generation or even within a few generations. It would take many, many generations to make basic changes in our psychological makeup. Of course, individual people can choose a positive or negative course, but that's different from changing the way people work inside. So the identity crisis may be that we've lost touch with the real self inside, and are floundering around trying to either find it or impose our own ideas of what it should be, and we are often mistaken. LL> I think keeping women helpless _was_ the original idea behind clothing LL> that required assistance; LW> What makes you think that? LL> Well, has men's clothing ever required assistance? What's more LL> attractive about a dress that buttons up the back? -LL There are no buttons to distract the eye away from the woman's pleasing shape--which she presumably wants to show off. Whether or not that _is_ more beautiful, I can see that some women may _think_ it is more beautiful. And if they do, they're gonna buy something made that way, so someone's going to make it for them. Men do often wear clothing without buttons up the front--such as turtlenecks and T-shirts. Beyond that, Steve gave you a pretty good response so I'll shut up now. ;) Date: 24 Feb 93 12:28:36 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Males, females, and dominance LW> Perhaps when the manuscript gets into its final form I can put it into LW> an ASCII text file and send it to Jack's system so that you can read LW> the whole thing. LL> I'd like that- even though it takes me a l-o-n-g time to get around to LL> reading these things! Okay. It may take a while before it gets into final form, though. Perhaps I could send you a current working draft but ask Jack not to post it publicly for now. Date: 24 Feb 93 12:35:06 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Girls, boys, and calluses LL> Amber's 8 1/2 and BreAna just turned 5. While predicting the future LL> is not my forte, I'll try to make some future predictions based on the LL> present trends. Since we're all home together so much of the time, we LL> tend to "split up" parenting according to our interests and the kids' LL> interests. Sounds like "mutual help" to me. LL> I think I will take on more of a role as LL> the girls mature only to the degree that they become more interested LL> in things strictly in the feminine realm. (make-up, kissing boys, and LL> other stuff Jack has no experience with ;^) ) I guess those were the things I was thinking about. It would seem hard for girls to get all the guidance they need in those areas from their fathers or from other men. LL> Amber is already emotionally adolescent, At 8 1/2 yrs? I bet you didn't bargain for it quite that soon.... LL> and I'm sure there will be times when she and LL> I clash so badly that Jack _has_ to take over. Why do you think Jack would have to get involved? Because you would be too emotionally involved in the clash to be an objective parent about it? Or because she just wouldn't listen to you but might listen to him at that point? Or what? Date: 24 Feb 93 12:51:20 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: Masculine and Feminine LL> You guys keep coming back to motherhood as some kind of a basis LL> of femininity- what about women who never have kids? Good question. It's one of the ones I wonder about myself. I think the women as mothers thing keeps coming up because women are physically built to be mothers, and traditionally that's what most have either done or strived to do. But these are different times, and some women decide not to have children. Also, Swedenborg does _not_ say that all women in heaven take care of children, so they must be doing other types of jobs. The thing is, once you get past a woman's capacity to bear children and a man's greater muscularity, most of the potential differences left are psychological, and that's where the controversy starts. I think both Steve and I are suggesting that there are deeper differences between men and women which make them distinct from each other. I think that those differences must correspond (in Swedenborg's use of the term) to the physical differences, and so a woman's childbearing capacity is a physical embodiment of the special abilities she has in her mind and spirit. But it is still not clear in my mind just what those abilities are--though I have some fuzzy ideas about it. Date: 24 Feb 93 13:01:48 From: Lee Woofenden To: Lori Loranger Subj: yin yang and feminism LL> One thing I've noticed is that many women seem to want it both ways: LL> I hear that women are just the same as men (capable of armed forces LL> combat duty, for example) AND that the world would be a better place LL> if women were in charge (because women are more compassionate). If we LL> are to contend that we are just the same, how can we also insist that LL> we are better? This seems to weaken both positions. I think you're right about feminists wanting it both ways. This never made sense to me either. LL> I still think it's interesting that both you and Lee seem to think LL> that clothing that fastens up the back is somehow sexier or more LL> feminine. In my knowledge and experience, this is not a view widely LL> held by women. But do you hang around a lot of women who are especially concerned with being sexy? Maybe you do, but you don't strike me as the sort of person who would hang around that crowd. I think Steve and I are just speculating, and also sticking up for our innocence as men of forcing any particular clothing on women. I sometimes do notice when a woman is wearing something particularly sexy, (and sometimes I'm totally oblivious) but when it gets right down to it I care a lot more about what's in her head and heart than in what her body looks like. LL> (perhaps some onlooking female will jump in with an LL> opposing view?) I'd be glad if an onlooking female jumped with just about _any_ view that remotely relates to the topic of this echo. :-) Date: 24 Feb 93 21:52:36 From: Steve Koke To: Lori Loranger Subj: Masculine and Feminine LL> Hey guys! Yeah! SK> Recent news is that many of them are. They want to do the home and LL> You guys keep coming back to motherhood as some LL> kind of a basis of femininity- what about women who never have kids? I was speaking (writing) in general terms. We have these images of the typical man in an office, the typical woman at home (though this one is becoming passe), and so it's just a manner of speaking. The last lines in answer to Lee's question were from an actual survey that said that many women are now thinking of becoming mothers lest their careers prevent that altogether. Date: 26 Feb 93 01:28:28 From: Steve Koke To: Lori Loranger Subj: yin yang and feminism LL> Steve- SK> I think you're right. The feminist movement itself chases a lot of SK> masculine ideals and then tries to cover over the differences between SK> the sexes, saying that we are basically alike. LL> One thing I've noticed is that many women seem to want it both ways: LL> I hear that women are just the same as men (capable of armed forces LL> combat duty, for example) AND that the world would be a better place LL> if women were in charge (because women are more compassionate). If we LL> are to contend that we are just the same, how can we also insist that LL> we are better? This seems to weaken both positions. Good point. SK> Either sex can goof up. The difference between the sexes would SK> be in what it is SK> that goofs up or is caring in men vs. what goofs up or is caring SK> in women. LL> So you think that there is an innate spiritual difference LL> between men and women? Something that transcends the LL> physically-caused differences? Yep. I think that the physically-caused differences are really spiritually caused--just the other way around. It goes back to the womb when we were formed. The soul or life of the new child forms the body around itself. The spirit does the real work through genes and other physical processes. So we end up with differences between men and women that are clearly reflected in our biology, but not caused by our biology. The inner sexual differences cause the biological sexual differences. And the differences are very finely detailed, going far beyond the obvious differences in reproductive organs. For example, a woman has more doublejointedness in her arms, there are differences in the shape of her mouth, a greater tendency toward slanted eyes, high cheekbones, a longer abdomen in comparison to the rest of the body, etc. Every aspect of a woman's anatomy is feminine and creates the overall impression of a feminine being. All these are parallel to equally detailed and telltale aspects of personality. We can see these differences in personality, but the differences in feminine biology aren't influential enough to have caused the personality to take that form. So we can't say that the feminine personality is a product of these physical things. For example, we can see that more doublejointedness in women isn't going to change a woman's personality, yet there may still be something in the feminine personality that expresses itself through having more doublejointedness. One thing that's interesting in all this is that however we choose to look at a woman, we feel that we are looking at a complete person of a particular kind, not just a body. We remind ourselves that we are looking only at a body only when someone makes an issue of it. Otherwise, the body disappears and we see only a person. It is as if the soul has completely expressed itself through the body it has built around itself so that we feel we are looking only at a soul. The same is true of looking at a man, of course. LL> I still think it's interesting that both you and Lee seem to think LL> that clothing that fastens up the back is somehow sexier or more LL> feminine. In my knowledge and experience, this is not a view widely LL> held by women. (perhaps some onlooking female will jump in with an LL> opposing view?) Not from nature. Our culture has gone this way, and we get strong associations with the feminine when we see clothes that button up the back. It's interesting that men have never taken this over, although it's an option open to us. It doesn't reflect any natural difference that only women could wear. In itself, it's just arbitrary. LL> I must admit, I was greatly amused just before Valentine's day when LL> I made a trip to the mall and kept encountering these two young men LL> who, after checking out the lingerie in every available store, were LL> still empty-handed. That's funny. There's a good tagline in there somewhere. Date: 25 Feb 93 00:16:02 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> So do you think that in the overlapping bell curves that my professor LW> at Fairhaven showed me, a man and a woman each represent one of the LW> entire curves, rather than a point along the curve? So that every man LW> has much that overlaps with every woman, but the peak and the slop away LW> from the other sex's slope are unique to that man or woman? Yes. LW> How about house husbands--Are they bound to eventually decide they LW> really want outside jobs? Or are some of them well fitted to raising LW> kids even from their "mountain peak"? No to the first question. They would have to be pushing themselves into a feminine interpretation or style to want to get out eventually (assuming as well that the man has had no real interest in an outside occupation that could distract him independently). A man can raise kids in his own way; that is just what it means to be a father rather than a mother; so the answer is yes to the second question. LW> I guess I've already asked some of these questions, so feel free to LW> not pursue them any farther if you don't wish to. OK. LW> Okay. I think I see what you're driving at here. We do have both LW> masculine and feminine aspects to ourselves, but our inmost self is LW> either masculine or feminine, and that is what drives us, no matter LW> what the outer manifestation, right? Not quite. There is no independent masculine or feminine tinge or character to the lower aspects. The inmost imparts its character to the whole person. SK> OK, but how meaningful is that? The stronger women still, it seems to SK> me, fall in love with the weaker men, and vice-versa. LW> LW> Do you really think so? I have seen this happen, but I hadn't LW> concluded that it was the usual way. Perhaps if it is it is because It may not be the rule as long as there are other choices. My point (too quickly written) was actually that these differences may not be critical if other things are suitable. In the end, I think that chemistry rules. If you have good chemistry with someone, you have as good a chance as anyone to fall in love, even if the other person is not as strongly blessed as you are in something normally strong for that person (I need an editor). For example, notice how many men who are good-looking marry women who are not. Date: 26 Feb 93 11:46:11 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> Okay. I think I see what you're driving at here. We do have both LW> masculine and feminine aspects to ourselves, but our inmost self is LW> either masculine or feminine, and that is what drives us, no matter LW> what the outer manifestation, right? SK> SK> Not quite. There is no independent masculine or feminine tinge or SK> character to the lower aspects. The inmost imparts its character to SK> the whole person. I guess I _don't_ know what you're driving at. Do you mean that the lower aspects are androgynous and only get a masculine or feminine tinge because of the gender of the inmost? I can see that the lower parts were _built_ by the inmost, but to say they have no masculine or feminine tinge seems to be stretching things. It's obviously wrong on the physical level, and seems wrong to me on the psychological level as well. So maybe you can clarify what you mean a bit more. SK> It may not be the rule as long as there are other choices. My point SK> (too quickly written) was actually that these differences may not be SK> critical if other things are suitable. In the end, I think that SK> chemistry rules. If you have good chemistry with someone, you have as SK> good a chance as anyone to fall in love, even if the other person is SK> not as strongly blessed as you are in something normally strong for SK> that person (I need an editor). For example, notice how many men who SK> are good-looking marry women who are not. What do you mean by "chemistry"? If you mean a spark of passion, then I have serious doubts about this. Seems to me that that is a weak bond that will soon break if there is not a deeper connection. To me, the central bond of a healthy marriage is a union of souls, which to me means common loves, interests, and philosophies of life. And that's why good-looking men marry not so good-looking women, and vice versa. They're paying attention to what's inside, not what's outside. Date: 26 Feb 93 12:26:57 From: Lee Woofenden To: Steve Koke Subj: yin yang and feminism SK> The spirit does the real work through genes and other physical SK> processes. So we end up with differences between men and women that SK> are clearly reflected in our biology, but not caused by our biology. SK> The inner sexual differences cause the biological sexual differences. Yes. SK> Every SK> aspect of a woman's anatomy is feminine and creates the overall SK> impression of a feminine being. All these are parallel to equally SK> detailed and telltale aspects of personality. This gets right back to my question of _what those differences are_? And if it is so obvious to us that woman is a woman when we look at her body, and a man is a man when we look at his, why isn't it so obvious that a woman is a woman when we look at her mind, and same for a man? Shouldn't the psychological differences be equally distinct, and the more obvious ones just as obvious as the physical ones--and shouldn't the differences be just as system-wide psychologically as they are physically? Date: 26 Feb 93 22:36:02 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: Masculine and Feminine LW> I guess I _don't_ know what you're driving at. Do you mean that the LW> lower aspects are androgynous and only get a masculine or feminine LW> tinge because of the gender of the inmost? I can see that the lower LW> parts were _built_ by the inmost, but to say they have no masculine or LW> feminine tinge seems to be stretching things. It's obviously wrong on LW> the physical level, and seems wrong to me on the psychological level as LW> well. So maybe you can clarify what you mean a bit more. We are up against a flaw in language, I think. The idea is more that sexuality is a way in which things are organized in the whole self. There aren't separate labels of M or F on each individual trait. For example, aggressiveness is in itself neither masculine nor feminine; it depends on how it interacts with the rest of the personality, what role it plays in the whole. There is aggressiveness of both kinds. The ruling love at the top brings all into its organizational scheme and all act then as one. This is another instance in which all are "distinguishably one." Another way in which this kind of thing is described by Swedenborg is that all below the ruling love is an expression of it, which suggests that it is an extension of the ruling love, or the central motivation. The ruling love shapes itself into instrumental forms and becomes those forms at lower levels. So it's a bit risky to talk of a higher self with separate parts below that have their own separate sexuality, like a pluralistic society surrounding a ruler. In psychology, things blend and are separate entities only when you look at them in a particular way, like light in physics that can look like it is made of particles in some experiments, or like waves in others. SK> It may not be the rule as long as there are other choices. My point SK> (too quickly written) was actually that these differences may not be SK> critical if other things are suitable. In the end, I think that SK> chemistry rules. If you have good chemistry with someone, you have as SK> good a chance as anyone to fall in love, even if the other person is SK> not as strongly blessed as you are in something normally strong for SK> that person (I need an editor). For example, notice how many men who SK> are good-looking marry women who are not. LW> LW> What do you mean by "chemistry"? Lengthy answer: There are people that you normally feel very close to, even though you don't know very much about them. You feel naturally at ease with them, naturally drawn out and friendly, while others may leave you untouched or even cold. That is due to the experience of energy from the other person either fitting in with and reinforcing your energy or not. Sexual energy also is like this, natural and flowing with some people of the opposite sex, or somehow unmoved and unable to get going in spite of a lot of more cultural and intellectual similarities. By itself, good chemistry doesn't recommend marriage. You still need the common tie with compatible ideas and interests. But I've experienced a lot of the latter without the good chemistry to go with it, and it seems inadequate, not really of the soul so much as maybe familial rather than romantic. Good chemistry tells you that IF you can also find the other person has common interests and loves with yours, you have a good romantic prospect. The two play different roles. Good chemistry tells you that passions, loves, feelings, are compatible and can be easily stirred. Common interests and loves and philosophies of life may only tell you that you have found someone who is part of your culture. You may still lack much romantic drive with that person. (In fact, common interests and loves and philosophies probably establish too much similarity. We need stimulating differences, too, in order to feel more attracted.) But romantic drive by itself is not enough either. You may find you have it with someone in a headhunting tribe in Borneo. So the trick is to look first for people of your culture, with broad commonalities in mind and interests and general style, and to hold back on getting involved with someone of very good chemistry with you until you do find your own cultural group. Then look for the good chemistry in that group. What happens then is that you find a good basis for letting the feelings that come with good chemistry have a chance to last and build on solid ground. Without chemistry, just all that intellectual and cultural agreement, you can still be emotionally lethargic, only appreciating a good friendship or companionship without much real romance in it. So "chemistry rules" in the sense that it provides the romantic spark and passion, once it has hit fertile ground, like a seed. Most of the time, though, it is allowed to try to grow among people who are really inner strangers, and then romance goes up like a skyrocket and burns out. But if we choose only on the basis of common interests and loves and philosophies, it may not work either. It can then just be fraternal. Date: 26 Feb 93 23:10:40 From: Steve Koke To: Lee Woofenden Subj: yin yang and feminism LW> shouldn't LW> the differences be just as system-wide psychologically as they are LW> physically? Yep. But apparently, we have to look inside as well as outside. On the outside, we can seem very alike sometimes. But the drift of my thinking as I expressed it in other messages is that the inner betrays the real nature of our actions. We get to see this in each other only when we know each other well--we see past the _persona_, stop seeing it as if it were all that the other person is--and finally see the real person. The body is apparently more honest about it. It is also harder to cover over or to hide. It therefore shows the inner nature more readily, or with fewer obscuring appearances, and doesn't need to wait for real closeness and intimacy before character is read. I guess that is what is meant by the body being the image of the soul. In any public or outer display of personality, we see something put forward that may not represent the soul very well, often on purpose, since the personality is more under our control and can be shaped and aimed to produce a particular impression. We typically have very complex personas, and we put our defenses away only with those who have passed our tests; or we may just find that intimacy is hard to manage except with only one or two other people.