Farrell and Wilber = Narrow-minded thinking

I don't remember hearing anything that blamed women in general?

And to fully understand the matter shouldn't we compare both genders?

The liberation of women should not lead to the oppression of men we should liberate together and show each one that the other sex understands the other sex

When I posted this [52+ weeks ago] I did not know my email was going to an old email address so I did not get the comments. Quite frankly, I'm glad I didn't get them. There is so much anger and vitriol in most of these comments that I have not been able to read them all. Like those of you who posted in anger and judgment, this too is a loaded topic for me which means I cannot be objective. If my reaction offended you, I am sorry.

Now, 52 weeks later, I don't remember much of the conversation between Wilber and Farrell except their complete disregard for history. What I do know is I canceled my integralnaked membership because of it.

Furthermore, I have no desire to engage in a dialogue about this topic.

Bren

--

Bren,

I find myself wanting to comment too, for the first time here: I listened with facination to Ken talk with John Gray some weeks ago and felt I was learning new information that might help my personal life,( in some difficulty for a few years now). Then I saw this triple chat with Warren. I had seen Warren already in a clip with Ken talking about related issues and found him intriguing and unusual. Now I understand a little better why he seemed so unusual: the pre/trans problem was yelling at me and telling me how difficult it is to discuss any of these things .

For one thing the language is dynamite: any hint of mis-understanding injustice to women brings much anger. You tread on traditionalist ground! Trying to separate me, a man, from men in history, seems also very difficult: when I was explaining  part of Warren's ideas to a woman neighbour, my explanation brought a reaction that was respectful yet still implied that I was departing from a politically correct way of thinking. PC is partly about shaping or influencing thought but so often it is simply a boundary definer: are you with us? or are you against us.

 I saw as I talked to my neighbour that I didn't have the language to discuss the difference between women's "struggles" in later history (how many suffragettes died?) and earlier times when "upper body strength", much referenced by Ken through Janet Chavitz's studies, created societies where women could not do the heavier work and sustain pregnancy as opposed to times when the "foraging stick" was not a threat to health and reproduction. Indeed I'm still unclear about the validity of these arguments myself and feel a bit suspicious of there not being many women's studies (seemingly) that explore parallel results.

It is very easy to appear traditional or even be labelled "reactionary" when it comes to gender just as it used to be about politics. I speak as someone who had great socialist dreams in my twenties onwards, yet am aware now of a kind of "them and us" war which coloured my discussions and thinking then.

As a result of the telephone chats and after reading a bit more of Warren's writing, I find myself quite challenged and can now see another view of my personal difficulties as well as my developement and potential empowerment as a man. I did find myself quite surprised when Ken seemed to be so angry about what he sees as feminist distortions and maybe there is a little shadow work possible there: yes I can hear that "angry older men" image still in my mind's ear. But even if that's so (only one maybe two moments I recall) that doesn't reduce Ken & Warren's whole contribution. But, wow!, it is an extraordinary thought provoking discussion. Maybe good for many men like myself to begin to see this other image of our possibile empowerment from within, from a feeling world and not allowing the image of "disposable" to creep into particularly later years: or even when challenged by relationship loss or family re-structuring.

Then again "Who Am I?" (Ramana Maharshi? - No!)

Nigel

PS I'm often surprised by the "US mostly" references of these chats being over the pond: and I could just as easily be listening from Asia or India. But then all of Warren's research seems based on US material and sometimes it seems as if the tendency is to think American. I possibly "think" UK or EU but for the most part I don't feel either of those groups although of course I am in them :-)

 Yep. They sound like a couple of irritated old guys, locked into an irritated conversation about their irritated state/stage of manhood. May I suggest this conversation be held, for starters, with four people: two men and two women - and get a balanced dialogue about the subject going. :-)

Were you listening to the same presentation I was?  I found his critique to be much more subtle and nuanced than you're making it out to be.  His critique seemed to be focused on the way society defines gender roles, and how men and women alike need to be liberated from it.  Your short and shallow assessment seems to be the bigger example of narrow-minded thinking.  Unless of course you can offer a more substantive critique. 

Let's not take anything personally. We are not our bodies. But there really is no dialogue going on in the public sphere about the fact that men are the only ones who are supposed to sign up for the draft (selective service) in order to volunteer their lives to die in war, but not women. And men have a 6 times higher rate of suicide rate than women do. 

So there is obviously a lot going on here that needs some exploration. I haven't heard Ken and Warren say that men are better. But feminism sometimes makes it appear that men are definitely less. The male is oppressed and usually doesn't even know it because there is so little being presented about it in the first place. 

I see you were a bit offended, being identified as a woman and thinking this was all an attack on women. But this is categorically incorrect. What they are saying is that these things that are making men have less lifespan and painting men to be disposable, not women, well, this is all needing to be talked about. I found it all very liberating and I feel that we are moving in a very positive direction with these discussions. My women friends would love this talk, because this is the kind of stuff we have talked about. My good friend, Kira Slade, in fact sat up with me the other night and all we talked about was this stuff. 

So, I hope we can just all get along here and realized that there does need to be a men's movement, and then we can join the men's with the feminist movement. And this will happen, for this is obviously where evolution is going. 

--

 Love,     Billy     everyoneisgoingconscious@gmail.com

Wrong, not partial, Bren?

You mean no truth whatsoever in the presentation?

Come on...

--

Durwin Foster

durwinfoster@gmail.com

I just added my commentary to the Farrell blog post, which might be of interest to you. I don't know too many people in Wilber's integral community, but I know a more than a few that also have a hard time with the line of thought and behavior expressed in Farrell's work.

Peace to you,

Raúl Quiñones-Rosado

Dear Bren, I pray that you are more sensitive to your "male professional" clients than you sound in this post. Though, I must be honest in that you have given me a taste of what my sister felt when, as a child, she called me a "male chauvinist piglet" when I could not understand her feelings of being oppressed.

I am a male, professional nurse, and as such am fully aware of the challenges of being one of a minority gender in the academic and professional worlds. And, in my environment, what protections against abuse in its many forms are available to women in other professions, are not (yet?) available to men. Lip service, yes...but not actually. I know from personal experience that a male nurse who claims gender discrimination /abuse is the nurse who is fired, not the perpetrator.

And I can share with you, out of my personal experience, that Farrell and Wilber are not wrong. Every single point they made was fully correct. I have felt, and occasionally suffered, with each form of "oppression" they presented. I thank them, with my whole heart, for bringing these shadows into my purview where they can be healed, enfolded and transcended.

I can accept that the "oppression" women feel should not be compared to the "oppression" to which men are subjected, that there may be a degree or two of magnitude of difference. After 58 years of being considered disposable and trodden underfoot, to be honored, served, cherished, and protected, to be worshipped upon a pedestal, almost sounds good.

Bren,

I am always fascinated by women who are so jealously possessive of their sense of oppression. I have encountered this phenomena many times. Any critique whatsoever of the standard dogma of female oppression is met with the same knee-jerk, absolutist response as the one you offered here. The attitude being expressed is clearly that any questioning of the privileged feminist perspective on the subject is heresy and will not be tolerated....it won't even be entertained. And always, the irony of passing judgment on the other person as being "narrow minded" is lost on them.

Michael

 I sent this message last year to Bren. two years now asking for a loving conversation, (and my hope for us to come to a peaceful understanding and emotional healing still stands with open hands and warm heart): howdy:) a request for authentication Posted February 26th, 2011 by Orrin Pratt  Dear Bren, 51 weeks 2 days ago you posted this:   ["As a counselor and coach of professional men I agree men need to be liberated. However, the presentation and message from Farrell and Wilber is WRONG.Please try again, this time without offending or accusing women and without comparing man's oppression to woman's oppression. This is a soul emergence issue. Men need to buck societal norms to redefine their lives. It has nothing to do with sex and gender."]   preface   I just re-read your comment to make sure my following updated comment was fair. And my analysis of my statements is that much of it was quite harsh and bitter. Which proves my lack of willingness to genuinely be helpful or my lack of capability to do so at least right now. Maybe I shouldn't be up still at 7:04 a.m. here in minneapolis minnesota? So although I'm not going to edit my comment because I'm sleepy and don't have confidence that I could fix the arrogance out of it, that's fine, judge me as you will. But I have to say this first, although I don't mean this in a harmful way, But I should say am still embarrassed for you and by you. I have read some of your other stuff and this comment was really a low mark in your work.Which is fine, this is probably a low mark in mine (at least i hope my other stuff isn't as low as this) and I expect more sensitivity, intellect, wisdom and compassion from you. You are clearly a wonderful caring credentialed and likable being. And yes I have continued to read some of your postings since your posting of the above quoted comment so please don't think I am shunning you or shaming you.   begin new comment    I hadn't thought about this post for nearly a year until I did a google search for my phone number and came across it (my ph. number) on this posting:) Anyway when I re-discovered it (this posting) I remembered why I had left my ph. number on the posting. I had hoped that you would call me help me understand your perspectives.   Well I just took off my ph. number from the posting. And Although I still hold out hope that you will reply to those of us who have without malice asked you to please help us see your point, I must admit my hope has diminished. However I won't hold it against you if you don't help us understand. I have made and ass of myself plenty of times and I know how hard it was and continues to be for me to honestly admit my failures to hold real compassion for those in pain and suffering. Especially if I helped mitigate/create the pain and suffering they were and perhaps still are in. You know, or rather choose no, because I would rather pretend I had no hand in that me has no hand in creating suffering. I think and feel that those of us who really identify with a life that urges ourselves and others to help end suffering are often unwilling to see ourselves as the source of suffering since it can so easily damage our self belief of our own credibility and/or sense of authority. It can be hard to trust ourselves to help others well if we see ourselves as possible oppressors(although I would argue that if we don't see this possibility we are very likely to hurt people perhaps even more so although it would be unlikely that we could recognize this assuming we would be beginning with the assumption that we are not harmful.  As a life coach who charges fees exceeding $120/hr your paycheck requires that you feel secure in your own authority and yes you should feel secure in this way. However requiring your livelihood to self reinforce your internal sense of authority and credibility can evaporate any legitimate call for authenticity when dealing with the kind of, "I am right you are wrong. And i will give no explanation other than you hurt my feelings and the collective feelings of all others with the same sex organs and/or culturally created sense of self as me."response you gave which also hilariously happened to suggest that sex and gender have nothing to to with sex and gender issues… lol I imagine that probably many people who are oppressive to others tell themselves (in delusional periods of life) if or when it gets brought up, "What!? No. I am not oppressive you are just wrong and stupid!" And they wouldn't subjectively be lying. In fact they would believe they are right because we think and feel that we aren't oppressive (we are good people doing our best all the time). But I am oppressive. You are oppressive. it is oppressive. its are oppressive. my thoughts of you are oppressive, certainly these words yours making out men and women to simply be amorphous blobs wafting in your mind as the images and or reality of what we are. (As well as my clearly emotionally driven need to castigate you for them) We aren't always in our best behavior and we aren't always scaffolding our yet to be permeant attributes.  It can be really difficult to see the images we create in our minds as our own subjective and intersubjective creations. And when we aren't operating from an integral level of identification or beyond we don't recognize this lack of integration of the four quadrants. And so when we poorly and inappropriately assign completeness to truth values in only one quadrant the pre integrated awareness cannot see the value of looking past our dis-integrated and fragmented worldviews into integrated or more integrated perspectives. It may help if you ask yourself what you mean when you say that Farrell and Wilber offend women. What women are you referring to? Do you believe that all women are or would be offended by Farrell and Wilber? If so that seems like either you have a pretty solid and conveniently complete comprehension of what all other women think and feel, that Farrell and Wilber have achieved quite an enormous feat of asshole-ness. (funny makes me think of the Stuart Davis song Asshole World Renowned) Also what do you mean by, or rather to what statements or set of statements are you referring that illustrate a world view of "accusing women?" And possibly more importantly what do you perceive them to be accusing women of? Just a guess but unfortunately it seems you are feeling like they are accusing you of being personally responsible for all men's enlightenment and you feel overwhelmingly disappointed that we aren't enlightened. Like somehow it's your fault. Well I'm glad that your self esteem is pretty full but it seems like you are taking your lowercase self a bit to seriously.  I hope that whatever your feelings are that were injured are feeling better now. Not from this comment really sorry to open old wounds if they are or aren't healed but I hope that you have had the time and wisdom to attend it. I hope that even if you still feel injured by oppression that you can resist your previous will to denigrate Farrell and Wilber for making comparisons as well as contrasting statements about various forms of oppression experienced by humans both male and female. How else can vertical enlightenment keep up with horizontal enlightenment than by practice?  Also as a male who has gone throughout life penetrating and being penetrated by both sex(s) and gender(s) (for you pervs out there yes I do mean that physically/sexually, mentally and spiritually) I can tell you from direct experience that I have been witness to oppression as the oppressor and oppressed from many sides and that yes sex and gender do indeed have at least something to do with it. (if not a lot of something to do with it) end new old probably rude comment   begin short request for your sake and those you impact daily please answer this comment. Even if just within and not sharing to me and the rest of us who still hope you will reach out and love us with your wisdom and compassion. :) goodnight:) ~Big Love   -- Orrin S. Pratt