What constitutes Misogyny?

[Plutonia]

While we're waiting for the men to bare their souls, I'd like to ask you...

In your readings on Women's issues, who in the literature if anyone attends to the relative evolutionary bottleneck in the birth canal and its possible ramifications on notions of masculinity and femininity and et cetera.

Are you talking about Grof?

Or that because of our large heads, we are all born pre-maturely, and therefore dependent on culture to survive?

Or the psychological aspect of the mother-child bond, the mother as an external, mediating organ for the child, and how that effects how we relate to others?

[Canadian_watcher]

or maybe that all fetuses start off as girls but then mutate into boys?

or perhaps that men can't have babies and that's a whole can of worms in itself?

or the medicalization of the process of reproduction?

could be so many things....

[charlie meadows]

While we're waiting for the men to bare their souls, I'd like to ask you...

In your readings on Women's issues, who in the literature if anyone attends to the relative evolutionary bottleneck in the birth canal and its possible ramifications on notions of masculinity and femininity and et cetera.

Are you talking about Grof?

Or that because of our large heads, we are all born pre-maturely, and therefore dependent on culture to survive?

Or the psychological aspect of the mother-child bond, the mother as an external, mediating organ for the child, and how that effects how we relate to others?

Thanks for your reply. I'll read up on Grof.

More the first than the second. Also, as we are in a thread on gender issues and misogyny, the effect of relative premature birth on the mother/child/father relationship and notions of masculinity and femininity.

edit: C_W: not headed in any of those directions. Thanks.

[Plutonia]

Thanks for that Indigo Girls song, C_W. I'd forgotten how much i loved it.

This is another one that it really great:

[Plutonia]

While we're waiting for the men to bare their souls, I'd like to ask you...

In your readings on Women's issues, who in the literature if anyone attends to the relative evolutionary bottleneck in the birth canal and its possible ramifications on notions of masculinity and femininity and et cetera.

Are you talking about Grof?

Or that because of our large heads, we are all born pre-maturely, and therefore dependent on culture to survive?

Or the psychological aspect of the mother-child bond, the mother as an external, mediating organ for the child, and how that effects how we relate to others?

Thanks for your reply. I'll read up on Grof.

More the first than the second. Also, as we are in a thread on gender issues and misogyny, the effect of relative premature birth on the mother/child/father relationship and notions of masculinity and femininity.

edit: C_W: not headed in any of those directions. Thanks.

Charlie you are saying that it's all down to the size of our brains? I don't get it. Could you be more explicit?

Though i have to bow out for a few hours now. Carry on without me.

[Stephen Morgan]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to disagree with what I said.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

I never said that female organisation is monopolised by organisation for their sex, only that organisation for one's sex is dominated by women. In other words, women may joins organisations for things other than women's issues, but organisation for one sex in dominated by feminism and women's issues and so on. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of female members, you have a list of women's organisations. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of male members you just have a list of organisations. Because women are more likely to organise for their sex than men.

[charlie meadows]

Charlie you are saying that it's all down to the size of our brains? I don't get it.

Must it be all down to any one thing?


http://www.mum.org/sougrof.htm

The process of birth of the human being is deeply traumatic, not only for the mother but also for the child, since in it both inflict great physical suffering upon each other. Concerning these perinatal matrixes of the unconscious, Grof observes that, even if the total spectrum of the experience that occur at this level cannot be reduced to a revival of biological birth, the birth trauma seems to represent an important core of the process. Anyway, what matters the most here is that these psychical contents are clearly associated to some of the first human experiences related to the female genitals ­ the place where all of us, men and women, were conceived and generated.

The possibility that some negative uterine archetypes may originate in these perinatal matrixes described by Grof also acquires special relevance in women's medicine. Nevertheless, considering that this subject concerns mostly modern psychical research, the study of the perinatal matrixes of the unconscious by far transcends the boundaries of gynecology and obstetrics. Here, only the topics directly related to women's medicine will be briefly discussed here.

According to Grof, the perinatal matrixes of the unconscious exhibit a clear correspondence to the clinical stages of parturition. So, let us speak a little on some of these correlations.

The first stage of parturition corresponds to the period in which, under the effect of the uterine contractions, cervical dilation takes place. Nevertheless, when the dilation of the uterine cervix does not complete, not allowing the propulsion of the child and actual birth, the effect of the strong myometrial contractions in a still "closed" uterus may give rise to feelings like a "suffering without resolution," a severe "imprisonment in pain." As to the perinatal matrix related to this phase of childbirth, Grof observes that, symbolically, it comprehends a feeling of "no way-out or hell."* This experiential pattern concerns not only the child but also the mother.

The second stage of parturition begins when the uterine cervix is completely dilated and, consequently, the uterine contractions cause the propulsion of the child through the birth canal. In this phase, voluntary contractions of the woman's abdominal muscles add to the uterine ones. The "no way-out" stage finishes and the one of the "titanic fight" starts (Grof).* At the same time, as the child goes through the narrow pelvic canal under the strength of the powerful uterine contractions, his/her passage traumatizes the mother's tissues, which are violently stretched and squeezed against the lower part of the pelvic bones.

The third stage of parturition corresponds to the actual childbirth. At this moment and at the expense of enormous distention and dilation of the perineal muscles and the vaginal entrance, the child is finally expelled from the maternal body.

Grof observes that the perinatal matrix corresponding to the second stage of childbirth comprehends experiential patterns typical of a "death-rebirth struggle" and may also include sadomasochist components. About the latter, he comments that they reflect a combination of the aggression imposed upon the child by the female genitals and his/her responsive biological rage regarding suffocation, pain and anxiety.* As already said, throughout the final stages of parturition mother and child inflict on each other intense suffering. The mutual violence and pain reaches its peak along the second and third stages of labour, but normally all of this is followed by a great relief and relaxation as soon as childbirth is finished.

[Canadian_watcher]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to disagree with what I said.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

I never said that female organisation is monopolised by organisation for their sex, only that organisation for one's sex is dominated by women. In other words, women may joins organisations for things other than women's issues, but organisation for one sex in dominated by feminism and women's issues and so on. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of female members, you have a list of women's organisations. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of male members you just have a list of organisations. Because women are more likely to organise for their sex than men.

dude, that is so not what you said.

[Stephen Morgan]

and Wintler just gave us Answer 3 ^^.

I believe that this whole area of inquiry is really important. keep talking, guys.

Harumph. I'm not a machine, you know. I'm not just here to perform on demand to satisfy your need for emotional discourse.

[barracuda]

We interrupt this thread for an important message from the admin:

WakeUpandLive and tru3magic have shockingly turned out to be the same poster. Both usernames have been banned.

We now continue with our previously scheduled discussion already in progress. Thank you for your patience.

[Stephen Morgan]

Men do have places of gathering. Every thursday (except for the first thursday of the month which is mixed), my father goes to a stag meeting for a 12 step program. I think the major difference though is not the venue or the participants, but the material that is discussed. I personally don't feel there are many places for males to discuss their oppression (which is mainly emotional), or at least there are not as many as there are for women to discuss their oppression (which is both emotional and physical). I don't know the statistics, but I can imagine that some of this is due to the fact that women are more often put in these situations of oppression, so naturally more peer help has become available.

Having greater opportunity to join together into mutual organisations for collective benefit is not generally considered a sign of oppression.

[Stephen Morgan]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to disagree with what I said.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

I never said that female organisation is monopolised by organisation for their sex, only that organisation for one's sex is dominated by women. In other words, women may joins organisations for things other than women's issues, but organisation for one sex in dominated by feminism and women's issues and so on. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of female members, you have a list of women's organisations. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of male members you just have a list of organisations. Because women are more likely to organise for their sex than men.

dude, that is so not what you said.

Look, there is this thing called "collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex", is what I said, which "women tend to monopolise", and which are something other than "trade unions for mutual economic activity", which are traditionally dominated by men.

I was writing in response to:
a) C_w: and the big one, I think, is that women knew early on that there would be no power unless they got together. Like with unions only for non-economic (as well as economic) reasons
b) tru3magic: Men were the first to gather for the pooling of resources to enhance power (we see how well that has gone and where it has got us).

I think tru3magic(/WUaL) was implying that men had banded together in cooperation to create the patriarchy, but he could have been alluding to trade unions, it wasn't entirely clear. Anyway, I was saying that men had banded together, as tru2magic said, but in trade unions in pursuit of mutual economic advantage and collective action against the powerful, not to pursue the interests of their sex against women, whereas women have organised more recently into organisations aimed at the advancement of women as a class while men haven't done similar. Men still predominate in the membership of trade unions and mutual economic organisations generally, without that organisational ethic transferring into agitation for the betterment of the position of men, or into any sort of class-consciousness for men-as-a-class, rather than workers-as-a-class or the gender consciousness now common amongst women.

[Canadian_watcher]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to disagree with what I said.

Well, in the modern era men were the first to form trade unions for mutual economic activity, but women tend to monopolise collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex.

wrong.

see: The pickett: Tasmanian mine workers defend their job " Women didn't work in the mine yet women won the thing for the men. And yes, most of them had a financial interest since a lot of the men workers were their husbands, but that makes zero difference because there *is* no difference in the motivation of union activity no matter who is in the union.

see also: Strikes of the 70s and 80s: the Invisible Role of Women Which tells of three miners strikes in the US where women organized for men.

and this more recent one from Jolly Old England (and Wales and Scotland) You must remember or have learned about the mining strikes there, right chum? Miner's Strike 1984-1985

I never said that female organisation is monopolised by organisation for their sex, only that organisation for one's sex is dominated by women. In other words, women may joins organisations for things other than women's issues, but organisation for one sex in dominated by feminism and women's issues and so on. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of female members, you have a list of women's organisations. If you get a list of organisations with the highest proportion of male members you just have a list of organisations. Because women are more likely to organise for their sex than men.

dude, that is so not what you said.

Look, there is this thing called "collective organisation explicitly by sex, as a sex, for that sex", is what I said, which "women tend to monopolise", and which are something other than "trade unions for mutual economic activity", which are traditionally dominated by men.

I was writing in response to:
a) C_w: and the big one, I think, is that women knew early on that there would be no power unless they got together. Like with unions only for non-economic (as well as economic) reasons
b) tru3magic: Men were the first to gather for the pooling of resources to enhance power (we see how well that has gone and where it has got us).

I think tru3magic(/WUaL) was implying that men had banded together in cooperation to create the patriarchy, but he could have been alluding to trade unions, it wasn't entirely clear. Anyway, I was saying that men had banded together, as tru2magic said, but in trade unions in pursuit of mutual economic advantage and collective action against the powerful, not to pursue the interests of their sex against women, whereas women have organised more recently into organisations aimed at the advancement of women as a class while men haven't done similar. Men still predominate in the membership of trade unions and mutual economic organisations generally, without that organisational ethic transferring into agitation for the betterment of the position of men, or into any sort of class-consciousness for men-as-a-class, rather than workers-as-a-class or the gender consciousness now common amongst women.

that is what I had a problem with, and since you're still insisting that it is true in the face of plenty of evidence (which I provided) to the contrary I *still* have a problem with it.

but twist, brother, twist. It's fun.

[Canadian_watcher]

The process of birth of the human being is deeply traumatic, not only for the mother but also for the child, since in it both inflict great physical suffering upon each other. Concerning these perinatal matrixes of the unconscious, Grof observes that, even if the total spectrum of the experience that occur at this level cannot be reduced to a revival of biological birth, the birth trauma seems to represent an important core of the process. Anyway, what matters the most here is that these psychical contents are clearly associated to some of the first human experiences related to the female genitals ­ the place where all of us, men and women, were conceived and generated.

...

The first stage of parturition corresponds to the period in which, under the effect of the uterine contractions, cervical dilation takes place. Nevertheless, when the dilation of the uterine cervix does not complete, not allowing the propulsion of the child and actual birth, the effect of the strong myometrial contractions in a still "closed" uterus may give rise to feelings like a "suffering without resolution," a severe "imprisonment in pain." As to the perinatal matrix related to this phase of childbirth, Grof observes that, symbolically, it comprehends a feeling of "no way-out or hell."* This experiential pattern concerns not only the child but also the mother.

The second stage of parturition begins when the uterine cervix is completely dilated and, consequently, the uterine contractions cause the propulsion of the child through the birth canal. In this phase, voluntary contractions of the woman's abdominal muscles add to the uterine ones. The "no way-out" stage finishes and the one of the "titanic fight" starts (Grof).* At the same time, as the child goes through the narrow pelvic canal under the strength of the powerful uterine contractions, his/her passage traumatizes the mother's tissues, which are violently stretched and squeezed against the lower part of the pelvic bones.

The third stage of parturition corresponds to the actual childbirth. At this moment and at the expense of enormous distention and dilation of the perineal muscles and the vaginal entrance, the child is finally expelled from the maternal body.

Grof observes that the perinatal matrix corresponding to the second stage of childbirth comprehends experiential patterns typical of a "death-rebirth struggle" and may also include sadomasochist components. About the latter, he comments that they reflect a combination of the aggression imposed upon the child by the female genitals and his/her responsive biological rage regarding suffocation, pain and anxiety.* As already said, throughout the final stages of parturition mother and child inflict on each other intense suffering. The mutual violence and pain reaches its peak along the second and third stages of labour, but normally all of this is followed by a great relief and relaxation as soon as childbirth is finished.

If Jerry Bruckheimer were to re-write the birth story, this would be how it would come across.
Ri-dic-u-lous.

[charlie meadows]

If Jerry Bruckheimer were to re-write the birth story, this would be how it would come across.
Ri-dic-u-lous.

I have big problems with it myself. Care to comment more in depth?

Edit: I see that you have in a way through bolding. Grof seems to be a big fan of remote viewing too.