Throughout my articles on this blog, I have been bluntly forward about my private life.
Sometimes this has led me to delete the articles when the absence of privacy such a confession has caused not guilt or shame but regret of the candidness. Other times my candidness also leads to that feeling that surpasses embarrassment and shame to the point of almost losing psychological stability.
This makes me doubt the validity of psychoanalysis which played a role in the untimely death of Marilyn Monroe.
Possibly psychotherapy may have led to the suicide of Margeaux Hemingway, a great actress whose life was cut short because anorexia, drink and drugs were becoming addictions that was leading her to behave irrationally before her death.
I do not believe in psychoanalysis because there are secret bests left between a person and his higher power, be it his priest, a lover or even an imaginary friend who is often more reliable than our friends and family when it comes to the main affliction of people nowadays. YMMV
Yes, I believe that lack of healthy mental hygiene may lead to people either thinking of themselves as a god or worse come to hate religion as a superstition that is outdated and out of fashion.
Even worse is when a person may think that the spiritual life is a fearsome prospect, based on biases and prejudices against such a life, due to much the same biases that a few of the humanists tend to share with the spiritually-inclined.
For everyone is a human being first.
Having said all this, let me get to the point in my life that changed me: as a five year old I spend three weeks at the old St Mary's Hospital on Royal Avenue in New Westminster, BC — a hospital that I was born in a cold November day in 1958.
Prior to my time there, I suffered the absence of my parents and the indignity of being hooked up to a catheter all due to a genetic condition called hypospadia, a medical condition in which my plumbing was leaky at birth and got fixed but still leaked a little, which was fixed in 1991.
However I am sure the trauma of having my naughty bits repaired is enough to lead to the inability to have an orgasm during sex. It is not the equipment since my masturbation sessions in the past have been successful and complete.
Rather, I have a sexual hangup which makes it almost impossible to have an orgasm during sexual intercourse. Most likely, it is due to the "audience" which would be all my former girlfriends and lovers.
All I can say is, I am pretty sure that the normal response of a lover to just lay back and let me do the work does not lead to joy for me. She better be prepared to wiggle in ecstasy to her favorite love-making song for such joy.
I am sure that no single woman at my church even has a clue to what I expect from them during the post-marital sex. Though it is likely they have a better idea than what the LDS higher priesthood expect. ;)
Anyway, the reason why I refer to those three weeks in the hospital as traumatic is because I felt at the time that my parents had abandoned me forever. Sadly though, that hospital is no more — and all my good memories of my time as a five year old boy are all that's left of the event.
Today I am thankful to the boy from the tonsilectomy ward for befriending me. The uro-genital ward was a room filled girls and boys who could only use their inability to comprehend the fact that their naughty bits were not correctly made to invent stories like washing at the kitchen sink and accidently having a knife mutilate it.
Today as adults we will not even form adult psychotherapy groups to deal with how we were treated, because my guess is, we were intersex children being assigned as girls and boys by surgery in order to fulfill the unreality that people can only be male or female, but nothing in between — without the appropriate counseling, thanks to being born in Canada where children are deemed unfit for psychotherapy in 1963.
Today, it is likely a girl with sexual dysmorphic disorder can get counseling and even be assigned to a sex change from female to male, complete with hormone therapy and surgery.
We even accept the prospect of transgendered children being accepted as normal by their parents, despite the prejudice by feminists towards transgendered males who behave like women but are deemed to be men due to their chromosomes.
Such a reaction from feminists is a sure sign of sexism by cis-females who may be homosexual or heterosexual, yet practice a misandry that makes such feminists female chauvinistic boors.
Oh, the irony of feminists who claim all men are misogynists yet practice a hatred of anyone whose chromosomes are the wrong kind!
I have nothing against feminists, but too often they let their emotions hijack their reasoning skills. Even the religionists they despise are much better people overall because most spiritually-inclined people may be more accepting of others than the socialist propaganda claims.
As for this trauma of my past, I am all over it. Hopefully I can teach a willing mate how to dance in bed one day.
UPDATE: 20150107
When I was around 12, I read a book written by John Money called "Man & Woman, Boy & Girl: Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity". This book changed my life.
In it, I learned that I had a variant of hypospadia, which only consisted of a large fistula (opening) from urethra at the base of my penis.
http://books.google.ca/books/about/Man_Woman_Boy_Girl.html?id=qvRqAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
It is important to develop sensitivity towards the intersex community and to accept myself as I am than and quietly blog about it.
Today I have experienced being a male who was determined to be heterosexual almost 25 years. I accept the counterargument that the subtle heteronormative pressures of society may have led to this decision.
As a result of that decision, I know that I will hardly ever pass as bisexual or gay. Indeed, it is more likely that expressions of my sexuality will remain heterosexual in nature. However, I would rather remain celibate at my age.
Most of the time, I maintain an indifference to sexual expression. For it distracts me from my pastime of computers, reading, and journal writing. I know that most of this blog entry might be a symptom of depression caused by the change in seasons from summer to winter.
What I am working on is to improve sleep hygiene since insomnia sometimes precipitates expressions of sexual behavior which are seen as healthy when expressed privately but is unhealthy when expressed publicly.
It is a lot more healthy to express myself through journal writing, since I consider writing to be due to the creative energy of the libido sublimated into non-sexual self expression.
Thus, my whole journal may be seen as a healthy form of self expression where libido is sublimated into journal writing, especially in articles that are not about sex.
Becoming politically moderate is a part of my primary goal at this phase in my life. From 1990 to 2010, I was primarily a Buddhist meditator. However, the little Zen that I know of and practiced was more intellectual in nature.
From meditation, I borrowed the breathing technique and meditation posture (erect the back and just sit) to help develop my concentration. To an outsider, it looks like I have fallen asleep but from my perspective, I am aware of my surroundings but ignore any stimuli unless physically confronted. Usually that rarely happens because I stay at home a lot.
Regarding the title of this blog entry, I have taken "ownership" of the traumatic event where my parents left me in the hospital when I was five. Having toughed out that experience, I can handle almost anything.
Additionally, my experiences as a security guard have led me to understand that the non-confrontative approach to life helped me make it to this point in my life. Indeed, I am thankful that the most significant work experience occurred around 3 AM in the morning of July 19, 2004, when I got beat up at work and survived. It helped me to realize that life is too short to spend risking my life unnecessarily.
This was the second traumatic event in my life, and it strengthened my resolve to remain independent. I also have matured over the past ten years, and have developed an appreciation for the calmness of mind and fearlessness that I recovered since then.
For libido does not have to be expressed sexually. Self expression also occurs when the individual is willing to fill the void that materialism often creates with a fuller and meaning form of sublimation such as the great appreciation of the spiritual aspect of human nature.
I knew this to be true in 2006 when I realized after an encounter with the hospital's spiritual counselor that, if a person believes in God, then on death, the soul returns to the Godhead since behavioral and mental negativities cannot taint its original purity. However, I have written more about this in a previous blog entry.
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
20140805
Objectifying Gender and Social Conditioning (satire)
First of all, interested parties may want to Google "gylanic" and look for the feminist criticism of it, as well as research the role the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother and crone. Otherwise, we'll be working out of ignorance of what role feminists, Riane Eisler, and those archetypes play in daily life.
IMHO it's a joint effort. How it gets done requires that men refrain from doing their thinking with the little head, and that women remember that the male ego is a myth.
Otherwise it may become a battle of wills if either side has an axe to grind.
In order get beyond the objectifying of women, both sides have to acknowledge the role that the patriarchal roots of human society plays in it.
Likewise, the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother, and crone also play a role in women-only views of patriarchy and also need to be addressed to help sensitize the men to what women want to help both sides overcome this age-old problem.
Yet it is more than an age-old problem, it is also a challenge for both men and women due to social conditioning.
That is why I suggested that we make use of the extensive research that shows that objectifying women (and men) is due to social conditioning. The only thing that is "hardwired" into the brain is the sex drive.
As well, the terms "man", "woman", "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are artifacts of that social conditioning. The first two terms are genders rigidly defined by patriarchal society, and the latter two are forms of sexuality (sexual expression).
However, I am not suggesting that we try to undo all of our social conditioning. Rather, the focus is on objectifying women (and men).
When a person listens to a story of general interest written by another person without knowing the person's gender, it is impossible to know whether a man or woman wrote it.
Before the 1920s, after which time the genders were rigidly enforced and homosexuality was criminalized, a person's sexuality was nobody's business and homosexuality was condoned, provided that both parties remained discreet.
Once upon a time, transgender people were not subject to rigidly enforced surgical and often psychotherapeutic intervention, depending on the person's socio-economic background.
In other cultures, the third sex is accepted but within context of social rules sometimes being eroded by patriarchal values imposed by first-world nations, much as nationalism was imposed on peoples living in societies prior to the rising of nations both in Europe and in the Americas as well as Asia.
However, objectifying women (and sometimes men) is due to social conditioning. It is patriarchal in nature, and neither gender nor sexuality are immune to its effects. One of many ways to reduce the effects of such social conditioning is to sensitize oneself to the way such social conditioning plays on our relationship with others.
Alone, one does not objectify others, apart from treating oneself to be of sole importance to oneself and considering trusted others to be essential to one's well-being. Thus, one trusts first family and then friends.
Then how does objectifying others work? Objectifying implies that one is presenting the objectified as an object and thus depersonalizing the other. In contract, personalizing then implies that the other becomes known as a person, and subsequently respecting his or her rights as an individual, thus individualizing that person. As well, in language, personal pronouns tend to personalize a person while depersonalizing a person happens when s/he is described as an object to fulfilled the material needs of a person in power. Thus, there is a dominator-submissive dichotomy in the power structure associated with objectifying women.
Thus, maintaining an impersonal idea of a person without careful consideration of that person as a unique individual with the same rights as you or I is also a factor in objectifying other people.
Even so, the system of objectifying a person is not called objectification, which refers to the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing and is the concrete representation of an abstract idea or thing. While people are not abstractions nor are they an abstract idea or thing, our ideas about other people are abstractions when we do not know them personally.
The only term which defines the process of objectifying is depersonalization, which has both personal (from the point of view of the self) and social (from the point of view of the other within the context of self). Thus, other people cannot be objects without feeling depersonalized on learning that they have been objectified. Likewise, the person doing the objectifying may be unaware of the effect that such depersonalization is having on himself/herself.
Depersonalization has detrimental effects on both the objectified person and the person doing the objectifying. It is morally irresponsible for the latter to deny such effects or to blame the objectified for them.
However, objectifying a woman (or a man) is another case of situational ethics in that within the auspices of a loving relationship, the tendency to objectify each other is reduced by getting to know each other as people. Instead, by making it personal and a shared experience, such a relationship can reduces the tendency to objectify each other. Thus, objectifying another person denies a personal and shared experience.
As well, what defines a personal and shared experience requires communication between both parties on an equal level. Proponents of the view that prostitution is an objectified relationship deny that the prostitute and the customer are on an equal level, despite the fact that in some cases, as the customer gets to know the prostitute that he has chosen as a regular customer, they both may cross from a depersonalized relationship into a deeply personal and loving one.
Even the language used in prostitution depersonalizes each party: a customer is called a "john" and a prostitute is called many kinds of name, including the neutral term "professional".
Returning to the objectifying of women, this is a matter that may be remedied by social interaction both on a public and a private level. It cannot be done informally without facing the risks that depersonalization entails. Nor can it be done by people who are not familiar with the terms I have introduced here.
This is why I have introduced most of the concepts which face each and every person, men and women, as well as heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Originally posted on December 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Reference:
Social conditioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning
Transgender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Depersonalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization
IMHO it's a joint effort. How it gets done requires that men refrain from doing their thinking with the little head, and that women remember that the male ego is a myth.
Otherwise it may become a battle of wills if either side has an axe to grind.
In order get beyond the objectifying of women, both sides have to acknowledge the role that the patriarchal roots of human society plays in it.
Likewise, the matriarchal archetypes of virgin, mother, and crone also play a role in women-only views of patriarchy and also need to be addressed to help sensitize the men to what women want to help both sides overcome this age-old problem.
Yet it is more than an age-old problem, it is also a challenge for both men and women due to social conditioning.
That is why I suggested that we make use of the extensive research that shows that objectifying women (and men) is due to social conditioning. The only thing that is "hardwired" into the brain is the sex drive.
As well, the terms "man", "woman", "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are artifacts of that social conditioning. The first two terms are genders rigidly defined by patriarchal society, and the latter two are forms of sexuality (sexual expression).
However, I am not suggesting that we try to undo all of our social conditioning. Rather, the focus is on objectifying women (and men).
When a person listens to a story of general interest written by another person without knowing the person's gender, it is impossible to know whether a man or woman wrote it.
Before the 1920s, after which time the genders were rigidly enforced and homosexuality was criminalized, a person's sexuality was nobody's business and homosexuality was condoned, provided that both parties remained discreet.
Once upon a time, transgender people were not subject to rigidly enforced surgical and often psychotherapeutic intervention, depending on the person's socio-economic background.
In other cultures, the third sex is accepted but within context of social rules sometimes being eroded by patriarchal values imposed by first-world nations, much as nationalism was imposed on peoples living in societies prior to the rising of nations both in Europe and in the Americas as well as Asia.
However, objectifying women (and sometimes men) is due to social conditioning. It is patriarchal in nature, and neither gender nor sexuality are immune to its effects. One of many ways to reduce the effects of such social conditioning is to sensitize oneself to the way such social conditioning plays on our relationship with others.
Alone, one does not objectify others, apart from treating oneself to be of sole importance to oneself and considering trusted others to be essential to one's well-being. Thus, one trusts first family and then friends.
Then how does objectifying others work? Objectifying implies that one is presenting the objectified as an object and thus depersonalizing the other. In contract, personalizing then implies that the other becomes known as a person, and subsequently respecting his or her rights as an individual, thus individualizing that person. As well, in language, personal pronouns tend to personalize a person while depersonalizing a person happens when s/he is described as an object to fulfilled the material needs of a person in power. Thus, there is a dominator-submissive dichotomy in the power structure associated with objectifying women.
Thus, maintaining an impersonal idea of a person without careful consideration of that person as a unique individual with the same rights as you or I is also a factor in objectifying other people.
Even so, the system of objectifying a person is not called objectification, which refers to the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing and is the concrete representation of an abstract idea or thing. While people are not abstractions nor are they an abstract idea or thing, our ideas about other people are abstractions when we do not know them personally.
The only term which defines the process of objectifying is depersonalization, which has both personal (from the point of view of the self) and social (from the point of view of the other within the context of self). Thus, other people cannot be objects without feeling depersonalized on learning that they have been objectified. Likewise, the person doing the objectifying may be unaware of the effect that such depersonalization is having on himself/herself.
Depersonalization has detrimental effects on both the objectified person and the person doing the objectifying. It is morally irresponsible for the latter to deny such effects or to blame the objectified for them.
However, objectifying a woman (or a man) is another case of situational ethics in that within the auspices of a loving relationship, the tendency to objectify each other is reduced by getting to know each other as people. Instead, by making it personal and a shared experience, such a relationship can reduces the tendency to objectify each other. Thus, objectifying another person denies a personal and shared experience.
As well, what defines a personal and shared experience requires communication between both parties on an equal level. Proponents of the view that prostitution is an objectified relationship deny that the prostitute and the customer are on an equal level, despite the fact that in some cases, as the customer gets to know the prostitute that he has chosen as a regular customer, they both may cross from a depersonalized relationship into a deeply personal and loving one.
Even the language used in prostitution depersonalizes each party: a customer is called a "john" and a prostitute is called many kinds of name, including the neutral term "professional".
Returning to the objectifying of women, this is a matter that may be remedied by social interaction both on a public and a private level. It cannot be done informally without facing the risks that depersonalization entails. Nor can it be done by people who are not familiar with the terms I have introduced here.
This is why I have introduced most of the concepts which face each and every person, men and women, as well as heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Originally posted on December 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Reference:
Social conditioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning
Transgender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Depersonalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization
20131128
Steam Madness (poem)
Gender-baiting due to
the hypocrisy of polarized politics -
left versus right ad nauseum -
of which religion is a subset...
Carry on with the insomnia.
Don't worry about the mania.
Just win at Steam
Whilst undergoing euphoria.
I see these insults
as terms of endearment
or morbid estrangement -
take your pick -for you kids.
Carry on with the insomnia.
Don't worry about the mania.
Just win at Steam
Whilst undergoing euphoria.
I am waiting for you to win
your stupid game once again tonight,
all the while burning patience
like joss sticks on the altar of devotion.
Carry on with the insomnia.
Don't worry about the mania.
Just win at Steam
Whilst undergoing euphoria.
the hypocrisy of polarized politics -
left versus right ad nauseum -
of which religion is a subset...
Carry on with the insomnia.
Don't worry about the mania.
Just win at Steam
Whilst undergoing euphoria.
I see these insults
as terms of endearment
or morbid estrangement -
take your pick -for you kids.
Carry on with the insomnia.
Don't worry about the mania.
Just win at Steam
Whilst undergoing euphoria.
I am waiting for you to win
your stupid game once again tonight,
all the while burning patience
like joss sticks on the altar of devotion.
Carry on with the insomnia.
Don't worry about the mania.
Just win at Steam
Whilst undergoing euphoria.
20121222
My Hope for the Future
Overall, reduction of oppression of women of color.This may be done by egalitarian means.
Elimination of child neglect and child abuse.
Elimination of the glass ceiling for women, or better, women executives competing on the same level of men, due to men's enlightened attitude, throwing off patriarchy's disempowerment of both men and women.
Discovering evidence to counter the effect of religion as disempowering women by making Buddhist practice less of a religion and more of a lifestyle change. For Buddhism has shown that when practiced outside of patriarchies in an egalitarian society, demonstrates that Buddhist women benefit as much as men do.
As well, I believe that less oppression and sexism actually occurs in society than it did 100 years ago.
However, neither men nor women should be the privileged sex, as both feminism and patriarchism promise.
Rather, an egalitarian society without glass ceilings, oppression of women and of men, and safety of boys and girls from harm is the ideal.
As well, it's time to change myself for the better to ensure these hopes are put into action first through speech and followed through with action.
.
Elimination of child neglect and child abuse.
Elimination of the glass ceiling for women, or better, women executives competing on the same level of men, due to men's enlightened attitude, throwing off patriarchy's disempowerment of both men and women.
Discovering evidence to counter the effect of religion as disempowering women by making Buddhist practice less of a religion and more of a lifestyle change. For Buddhism has shown that when practiced outside of patriarchies in an egalitarian society, demonstrates that Buddhist women benefit as much as men do.
As well, I believe that less oppression and sexism actually occurs in society than it did 100 years ago.
However, neither men nor women should be the privileged sex, as both feminism and patriarchism promise.
Rather, an egalitarian society without glass ceilings, oppression of women and of men, and safety of boys and girls from harm is the ideal.
As well, it's time to change myself for the better to ensure these hopes are put into action first through speech and followed through with action.
.
20070615
Overcoming the Patriarchy: a Man's View
"There are many characteristics of traditional masculinity that are positive and beneficial: being strong, courageous, willing to work hard and willing to sacrifice oneself to protect family and society in times of danger. And many masculine characteristics appear to be protective factors that help men to be at reduced risk for developing anxiety and depressive disorders. Most men do not over-focus on feelings. They tend to be more action-oriented, have higher self-esteem and more self-confidence, and do not over-analyze things, thus avoiding the paralysis of analysis. As well, most men appear to be able to compartmentalize well, a skill necessary for keeping things in perspective." -- Aaron White, PhD: ed-op in Visions Vol. 2 Iss. 5 2005
In his editorial, White points out traits of masculinity which could be beneficial not only to men, but also to women. For these are traits of assertiveness.
To reduce the risk of anxiety and depression, a woman could learn not to over-focus on feelings. By being action-oriented, a woman can be pro-active and thus raise her self-esteem and self-confidence as a result. Finally, by not over-analyzing things, she can avoid the paralysis of analysis.
As well, the ability to compartmentalize feelings is a necessary skill which keeps things in perspective for both men and women.
Indeed, a woman can learn a lot from men, just as men have learned from women.
In his editorial, White points out traits of masculinity which could be beneficial not only to men, but also to women. For these are traits of assertiveness.
To reduce the risk of anxiety and depression, a woman could learn not to over-focus on feelings. By being action-oriented, a woman can be pro-active and thus raise her self-esteem and self-confidence as a result. Finally, by not over-analyzing things, she can avoid the paralysis of analysis.
As well, the ability to compartmentalize feelings is a necessary skill which keeps things in perspective for both men and women.
Indeed, a woman can learn a lot from men, just as men have learned from women.
I Am Not My Risk Factors
June 15, 2007: "...Being female is a risk factor for internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression, while being male is a risk factor for suicide completion, for alcohol and drug dependency, and for externalizing disorders such as antisocial personality disorder." -- Aaron White, PhD, Visions Journal Vol. 2 Issue 5, 2005
Given that I've had anxiety and depression in the past, I refute this generalization that gender has risk factors. While I've never committed suicide, there may have been times when I contemplate it but it is just a brief thought not worth examining in detail.
As well, I accept that alcohol and drug dependency is a male risk factor. Yet both addictions are substitutions for socialization, i.e. interpersonal relationships.
While I am not sure if my disorders have an antisocial component to it, it is not a small stretch to consider solitude antisocial if one prefers it over knocking back a beer in a pub and then socializing with friends and complete strangers.
However, it's more likely that I am asocial but consider it to be a behavior disorder since I usually try not to alienate people while out in public.
Overall though, gender risk factors only look at statistics. In the process of doing so, they ignore the unique circumstances of each individual. As a result, I can honestly state that none of these risk factors apply to me.
Update: 20130111.1704 - Looks like it was just a case of nerves. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)