BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Ultraculture Journal One

 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
11:17 / 07.04.07
I found the nature of the comparison of women to men to be of a derogatory nature, such as the tidy housewife to the majority of men being slovenly, the caregiving mother to the deadbeat dad, the amazingly rewired woman to the plain old man.

It'd be just as easy to talk about the gold digging trollop and the hard working joe, but that's not a fair comparison either. Just as there are stay at home parents, there are parents who do the 9-5 grind to make such a lifestyle possible for their spouse and child; it just seems hypocritical to me that the issue at hand is basically about how sexist UC is, and that an arguement for the injustice of this was equally (and probably more purposely) sexist.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:25 / 07.04.07
I read the post as talking about the biological investment made by a female mammal. In this case, nine months of (yes) having your entire system rewired to carry the infant to term, which isn't realy up for debate until science advances sufficiently to let biomen give birth. Can you really debate the fact that most childrearing is still carried out by women? You can argue for Dad to have the right to pitch in a bit more and to have his contribution valued more by society, but you can't really argue that what actually happens is that women do a good deal more of the child-rearing.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:29 / 07.04.07
And no, the issue at hand is not "how sexist UC is." I rather thought I went to some pains not to say or imply that UC was sexist, since I don't believe it is. (Just to be completely, absolutely crystal clear, I'd like to restate once again my sincere enthusiasm for the project.) I think you're wildly misinterpreting what's being written in this thread (probably, y'know, deliberately).
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:36 / 07.04.07
Normally I don't respond to this type of thing but I am tired of this coming up

I think you owe mordant an apology for the aggression of your response. She pointed out the obvious disparity between male and female penned articles in the journal and threw her hands up in frustration, something she had a perfect right to do, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and you reacted to it badly. It doesn't matter if you're tired of it coming up, the plain truth is that more women could be writing and submitting in depth articles about magical practice and they are not. It has already been pointed out that a huge amount of writing penned by females in this area is tantamount to a romantic love story between a temp and a pop star and not exactly encouraging any of us to interesting work. Next time I suggest you don't express how tired you are, it's cheeky and foolish because there's no way you're as tired as the people who grew up with Silver Ravenwolf as their only fucking female magical role model for their entire adolescence.
 
 
Olulabelle
13:03 / 07.04.07
I think it's very difficult for women to say anything about this subject without it being presumed they are directly having a go at the male publishers. That's not the fault of the women, but it's also very easy to take things too personally. In this case I especially think that everyone should try to avoid taking things too personally - BiaS, Mordant's comments were clearly not directed at you, just at the situation. Magically, it's a fact that women are published less. What would be cool would be if we could all start promoting publishing women rather than focusing on introspective post-publishing arguments.
 
 
johnny enigma
13:16 / 07.04.07
So, then...... some more comments on the book's contents please. I haven't read it yet because I'm waiting for the barcode edition.

Does the actual text support the selection of writers?
 
 
Ticker
13:22 / 07.04.07
I sent out calls for submission for Gen Hex and UC1 across the internet months or, in the case of Gen Hex, *years* before publication date. I published the best submissions I was given. The end.

Groovey. Then it makes sense why the rest of you post sounds so extremely pissed off that not everyone was aware of this process. However some folks are *now* being directed to your work and unaware of this process. They're not aware of the months' open door, they don't know where the door is, and flippin' out on them doesn't present your position in the best light. You worked your ass off and deserve thanks for creating such an important and unusual thing. Thank you. Now please don't go atomic on people who may not be informed. Feel free to after they've been informed and still continue to annoy you.


If you are waiting for somebody to come to *you* to write something because you think you're special for whatever reason, you do not have what it takes to be a writer.


Or possibly you're not sure if an editor of a collection wants the subject matter you focus on. This is especially true if it your subject matter is considered problematic. There's a difference between "I'm hot shit, ask me how" and "If you think my work makes sense in the context of what you're trying to accomplish, please let me know."
 
 
Ticker
13:40 / 07.04.07
female magicians are by-and-large out there having kids. If you want to take about Great Work, try raising a child.

Actually a lot of us are extremely tired of people of various genders and backgrounds placing the seat of our magical potential in our uteruses. While yes birthing and raising are all important honorable actions that deserve more appreciation in our culture lauding those approaches as *the Great Work* is sure to push buttons.

Many of us may never use our reproductive process as magical therefore the positioning of Motherhood as the archtypal female magical act does not make sense for us. It excludes us and many of us feel, reduces us. It is great, but we as people are greater and have a wider range of actions.

Not every person who has a child views that act as their most profound magical accomplishment let alone those of us who will never have children.

I understand you are not trying to demote women as magical practitioners I would just like you to see how your stance is being read by some of the people you are talking about.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:47 / 07.04.07
I think the points being made here are important and should have been addressed, but I'm concerned that this thread not veer too far from its stated topic: the discussion of UC1.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
15:41 / 07.04.07
I wasn't referring to issue of UC sexism in the sense of a devaluation of contribution because of gender, though I do see that occuring in the comments made about child rearing, but rather the discusson about UC and modern magic publications showing a distinct bias against women, and the following suggestion that this was due to traditional stereotypical gender roles.

In regards to debating child-rearing, it depends on what definiton of rearing is being used and what consitutes a contribution; narrow it to post conception but pre birth and purely biological, than clearly women do the majority of the work, but widen it from conception to adulthood and include all inputs, then society as a whole can take credit.

The post did indeed speak of the biological investment, however there were other issues raised.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
15:48 / 07.04.07
I'm really curious about why it's taken so long for a publication to be put out that's based on the contributions of Barbelith's temple members; there's a lot of good stuff archieved here and it seems like some of the best bits could have been edited into a book or pdf, and it just seems that something like UC1 is a natural progression that would have happened sooner - maybe even as a special edition to the Invisbles, to show what it had spawned.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:43 / 07.04.07
It would be difficult to get permission for some of the stuff in the archive. Temple has shed a lot of people over the last five or six years. One person would also have to compile it I suppose and perhaps no one has ever felt the urge to do it.
 
 
Boy in a Suitcase
17:21 / 07.04.07
UC Journal is not based on Barbelith.

>It doesn't matter if you're tired of it coming up, the plain truth is that more women could be writing and submitting in depth articles about magical practice and they are not.

Uh, yeah. Like I said before. Send it to me, and if it's good I'll publish it if there's another journal in a year.

To clarify, only a small amount of that post addressed Mordant, who wrote an excellent article that I am happy to promote. I can see how it can be seen as one diatribe at her. Sorry, no. It is one diatribe at this thread and similarly uninformed ones that happened in the wake of Gen Hex.

If you send good material to me that fits a project I'm doing, I will publish it. How does this make me or Ultraculture sexist? It doesn't. To be clear again, if you're pissed about the inequality of voice, GO USE YOUR VOICE. Getting your shit in print is easy at our present moment in history. I can even help you.
 
 
Epop Bastart the Justified, I
17:36 / 07.04.07
All, thanks for your comments.

Look, here's the problem. Magic is trainspotting. It's painting lead miniatures. It's amateur geology. It's Magic The Gathering.

All of these are male-dominated pursuits because they are, outside of a relatively small community and occasional pragmatic areas of application, complete wastes of time.

Hams don't love ham radio because it's useful, they love it Because It Is Ham Radio. And this is, genuinely, a Guy Thing. Men have a great propensity to take up seemingly meaningless arcane hobbies, obsessively collect Plot Points in those games, and generally geek out.

And most of magic is like that. Yes, there are fewer women than men. It's like that for most nerdly pursuits. And that's not because of men or women, in the individual sense, but because of the average differences in adhesion to the Nerdly across the genders.

You know? Men, in the general case, are stronger. And nerdier. Women, in the general case, spend more of their lifetimes taking care of children and running households. On average, this is how it is, and communities like Barb are large enough for these averages to become statistically significant in how they color the place and its ways.

Magic, for most of you, is a hobby. You know when you're getting into the real stuff because you start almost dying, and it continues for a long, long time. Then, if you're lucky, you find a safe little corner, hole up, and raise the next generation of wizards as either an initiator or a parent or, for the particularly unlucky few, as both.

But, frankly, I'd have chucked it all in over and over again because - hello good news - the lives of most real magicians are shit. No security, constant risk, constant crisis, struggle and intervention from higher powers who do not give a shit about the human levels of your life and have lost touch with the human condition or simply don't believe in it.

Anybody here know what I mean?

So, yeah. More men than women, and mostly it's a hobby - a Victorian tinkering with the edges of the consensus reality. If that's what you're doing, I think magic is a very nice hobby.

And, for anybody who knows that it's fucking life or death struggle for years at a time? What the fuck are you doing encouraging people to get involved in this mess?

Jesus christ, have some compassion.

PS: No, I'm not *entirely* sure how serious about this, and yes, it's an exaggeration and a rant, and sorry if it offends. Widely.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:40 / 07.04.07
Look, here's the problem. Magic is trainspotting. It's painting lead miniatures. It's amateur geology. It's Magic The Gathering.

I thought that was the kind of bollocks we were supposed to be remedying with work like UC.

What the fuck are you doing encouraging people to get involved in this mess?

Sometimes "this mess" just lands on you. If you're ever going to become one of the years-at-a-time people, it lands on you. Not talking about it won't help. Not writing about it won't help. It'll come and get you. You're already fucked.
 
 
Boy in a Suitcase
18:57 / 07.04.07
>Sometimes "this mess" just lands on you. If you're ever going to become one of the years-at-a-time people, it lands on you. Not talking about it won't help. Not writing about it won't help. It'll come and get you. You're already fucked.

Ahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahha

Yes! Much respect to this response.
 
 
Epop Bastart the Justified, I
18:58 / 07.04.07
True, on all counts. Well said, well said, and sounds like the voice of experience.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:11 / 07.04.07
To be clear again, if you're pissed about the inequality of voice, GO USE YOUR VOICE. Getting your shit in print is easy at our present moment in history. I can even help you.

BiaS: I'm sorry if anything I wrote here has offended you or come off sounding critical. I know you worked hard to create this project and I think it's an important thing you've done here.

Speaking personally, I'm not "pissed about the inequality of voice" so much as I am very very curious about it. Like I've said upthread, those male/female numbers on the Contents page must reflect the ratio in the manuscripts hitting your desk when you were putting the journal together.

It's just that I'm seeing a similar sort of pattern elsewhere and I'm curious as to how this state of affairs has come about. If women are practicing at the modern end of magic(K) as opposed to the more conventional and Llewellyn-friendly trads, why aren't they writing about it? (And if they're not practicing, what are they up to? Can't all be casting lovespells out of To Ride a Silver Gravytrain. I hope.) The answer isn't necessarily to give editors an earbashing; it might well be to shake up female magickos a bit and get them punting stuff out there.

Epop: I'm unconvinced that the explanation is "magic = nerdy = blokes do it more than chicks." For one thing, this seems a bit sexist, anti-male as well as anti-female--I know loads of non-nerdy men and loads of women who could out-nerd Kevin Smith. Sure, the kinds of occupation you've described above are stereotypically blokey, but I could rattle off a list of stereotypically feminine hobbies that are equally small and foolish if one takes the long view. Scrapbooking. Doll-collecting. Whatever.

I (still) haven't read the entire journal but there didn't seem to be a great deal in there from the Citadel Miniatures end of modern magical practice. Not good enough, I'm afraid.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:15 / 07.04.07
Not a good enough explanation, I mean. Not that I want to read more Ciadel Miniatures magic.
 
 
Papess
19:18 / 07.04.07
Epop, where do you get your ideas from? How did you sum up that most of us Magick is a hobby? Or this one:

Anybody here know what I mean?

What? About a magician's path being wrought with peril? Do you not read about what other people in this forum are doing? You might want to apprise yourself of that before asking such absurd questions.

At the risk of being inflammatory and shouty, I am going to end this here, except to say:

Congratulations on a job well done Mordant, and also to BiaS. I shall pick one up and look forward to reading your work MC.
 
 
Epop Bastart the Justified, I
19:25 / 07.04.07
The Journal is mostly two things: travelogues and Neo-Nath Tantra.

And while the Naths might *do* magic they don't talk about it very much because if you have to be told you probably don't want to know.
 
 
Boy in a Suitcase
19:33 / 07.04.07
>Do you not read about what other people in this forum are doing?

AHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHH
HHHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAH

oh wait wait

AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
 
 
Papess
19:42 / 07.04.07
What is that about BiaS?
 
 
Ticker
20:38 / 07.04.07
All of these are male-dominated pursuits because they are, outside of a relatively small community and occasional pragmatic areas of application, complete wastes of time.

Well I'm a bit uncomfortble with any activity being assumed to be gendered. Sure in certain cultures it maybe more acceptable for a certain sets of individulas to pursue an interest but I resist the idea that the activity itself is only interesting to one half of the species.


Hams don't love ham radio because it's useful, they love it Because It Is Ham Radio. And this is, genuinely, a Guy Thing. Men have a great propensity to take up seemingly meaningless arcane hobbies, obsessively collect Plot Points in those games, and generally geek out.


Can you base this in anything besides your opinion. 'A guy thing' is a fairly unhelpful term. In neither roots the interest in a cultural reasons nor explains why another gender would not be interested. It is as far as I can tell another assumption.


And most of magic is like that. Yes, there are fewer women than men. It's like that for most nerdly pursuits. And that's not because of men or women, in the individual sense, but because of the average differences in adhesion to the Nerdly across the genders.


Ok right here is the reason so many of us are concerned about the m/f ratio in journals like UC. Are you getting the idea there are less women involved because you *see* less women's published pieces? Because you encounter less women in group events? Where is this coming from? If you'd like I'm happy to provide stats on female gamers, female, programmers, and female magicians. There's a lot more than you seem to be aware of. Why is this? Where are you looking for an informed representation? This representation is the reason we are concerned with exploring who gets published where.


You know? Men, in the general case, are stronger. And nerdier. Women, in the general case, spend more of their lifetimes taking care of children and running households. On average, this is how it is, and communities like Barb are large enough for these averages to become statistically significant in how they color the place and its ways.


Again, I can only read this as your opinion. These are stereotypes and as someone involved in magical processes and communities, I urge you to explore and discard viewpoints which you've inherited and not examined in relation to the real world. I especially draw your attention to the repeated categorizing of magic as nerdy. By doing this you are exluding an entire range of traditions, many of which are in fact female centric. Why are those traditions not included in your world view on magic?


Magic, for most of you, is a hobby. You know when you're getting into the real stuff because you start almost dying, and it continues for a long, long time. Then, if you're lucky, you find a safe little corner, hole up, and raise the next generation of wizards as either an initiator or a parent or, for the particularly unlucky few, as both.


Again I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that 1. many of us view magic as a hobby 2. reproducing/parenting is a core human experience we all share in.


But, frankly, I'd have chucked it all in over and over again because - hello good news - the lives of most real magicians are shit. No security, constant risk, constant crisis, struggle and intervention from higher powers who do not give a shit about the human levels of your life and have lost touch with the human condition or simply don't believe in it.


What you describe in no way reflects my magical life. Does this mean from your view point I don't have one?


Anybody here know what I mean?

So, yeah. More men than women, and mostly it's a hobby - a Victorian tinkering with the edges of the consensus reality. If that's what you're doing, I think magic is a very nice hobby.


Again, no the numbers seem to indicate that a large chunk of humanity is engaged in magical work, it maybe outside of your definitions however.


And, for anybody who knows that it's fucking life or death struggle for years at a time? What the fuck are you doing encouraging people to get involved in this mess?

Jesus christ, have some compassion.

PS: No, I'm not *entirely* sure how serious about this, and yes, it's an exaggeration and a rant, and sorry if it offends. Widely.



I want to be clear that I'm not ranting at you. What I hope I'm doing is pointing out that our viewpoints are radically different. I see magic being practiced in many forms by many people of many genders. I do see that many sources of representation do *not* reflect this experience. That may or not be about who is the publisher. It may very well be about who feels empowered to participate in the discussion. The discussion of magic is a very different thing than the practice of magic.

I'd also very much like for you to contemplate how operating with unexamined stereotypes impacts your interaction with other people. I'm not saying you're wrong I am asking you to consider that other people's experience is not the same and using absolutes in language shuts them out of the exchange.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:29 / 07.04.07
Actually a lot of us are extremely tired of people of various genders and backgrounds placing the seat of our magical potential in our uteruses. While yes birthing and raising are all important honorable actions that deserve more appreciation in our culture lauding those approaches as *the Great Work* is sure to push buttons.

Far, far off topic, but for women who have chosen other paths than the birth/raise one, knocking the women who have chosen it is really seperatist.
 
 
Princess
21:40 / 07.04.07
Apologies if it's somewhere obvious and my tired sleep-needing eyes ahve missed it, but where do you see that happening Lula?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:42 / 07.04.07
I don't think it happened in that specific post, but it totally happens, dude. Waaay more than it should.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:48 / 07.04.07
t felt a bit like that in XK's post to me. Sorry if it isn't there but I'm sensitive to it. Women do it all the time, it's like, well some women are all about babies, but not me. I'm a real woman. Id Entity said something somewhere about it once I think. Almost like pointing out something specific to women and then mocking them for it or distancing themself from it.

'I'm a woman, but'. We've seen it happen here on Barbelith before, women trying to distance themself from their sex in order to prove what cool women they are.
 
 
Epop Bastart the Justified, I
21:50 / 07.04.07
XK - you say you have numbers? Ok, show me your numbers.

Let's start with Ham Radio operators, and miniature war games. I'm *quite* well aware that there are a lot of females playing MMOs, for example, but seriously, I think that you are putting your own observations of life aside to discuss your models of the world: these fields are, by and large, almost devoid of women because, by and large, chicks simply do not dig it.

Yes: chicks.

Now, don't confuse this with somebody who was never exposed to "feminism" or gender equivalence thinking. I'm a Post-Feminist, if you like. In my experience the retarded approach which has been taking to dealing with the issues of gender in our culture, particularly in the academic world, are not only completely unhelpful, but their stupidity and lack of observational reality simply beggars the imagination?

You know why women are a lot harder, on average, to get into bed than men? Start counting calories for reproduction. Take a really hard look at evolutionary biology.

I'm an animal. So are you. No amount of whining about fairness changes the fact that rape is the *core* of a good deal of female behavior not only in the human world, but right across the mammal and other animal kingdom. If you don't think that darwinian factors largely maul, kill and eat cultural considerations, why is it that **REGARDLESS** of "cultural" factors, roughly 10% of children were fathered by somebody other than the person who is called their father?

The reason it's the same across the entire human race is because it's too damn important to be left to the forebrain: 10% of kids are "garden variety" because it's something that apparently works in evolutionary terms. Same with homosexuality - whatever the payoff there is, it's clearly important enough to be replicated in all kinds of mammalian species. Maybe it's like sickle cell anemia, maybe it's something vastly more profound, but queer is everywhere.

Let me push this harder: men earn 1/3rd more than women. This is useful because women are *biologically* *attracted* to men with money, in the same way that men are *biologically* *attracted* to women with strong physical symmetry and a 1/3 waist/hip ratio. These things are hardwired and culture and personality are forces which act upon this substrate, not replace it.

As for whether magic is a hobby for you or a serious profession, I can't speak to your experience, but you don't *sound* like somebody who's seen the same kind of territory I'm discussing, and - from many years of experience - if you haven't started having brushes with anhilation, you're probably in the foot hills.

And, equally importantly, there's nothing at the top of the mountain. You go there because you must, and for no other reason.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh or unfeeling, but I think it's very very important to really put some things in perspective here. Magic is fun right up until you realize that there is no law to watch your back, and that you're involved in schemes that go back six, eight, ten thousand years straight. If you haven't met the beings I'm talking about when I say "don't give a shit about your humanity" and so forth be very, very glad. Try to keep it that way.

On this Nath stuff? Go back and read about Gorakshnath and Maccsyendranath on the Island of Women. Now in the version I know of that story, Gorakshnath realizes that Maccsyendranath has become confused and deluded by the material world, so he kill and skins both of Maccsynedranath's sons and hangs the skins up for Maccsyendranath to see to wake him out of the dream he's fallen into.

And those are the good guys.

The bad guys are like Stalin or Mao... tens of millions killed in cages by starvation, mostly. Read what the Tibetans say Padmasambhava did to the mountain spirits - boiling their flesh off their bones in lakes of boiling blood, until they would submit to the "dharma" or, at least, his personal version of the Law. Really, read.

Magic of any power is fucked up dangerous shit that destroys your life. You can tell that by reading the biographical accounts of the Golden Dawn as they die in gutters, or the OTO as they go insane, blow themselves to smithereens, or also die in gutters. Why in god's name don't people think this through.

Now, you might point to exceptions - magicians you know who, over all, seem to have The Good Life. They do exist. I suggest you examine them in exquisite detail and try and figure out what makes them different.

I'll tell you that, in my experience, usually it's because they've sold out to things man was not meant to know and are in the same position as that little light on the end of the Anglerfish's stalk.

You might wonder if I walk the talk. The answer is yes: I've put my shit on the line for years, I've got a material life which includes demonstrated and manifest global change in both the environmental and humanitarian domain and I'm kicking quite a lot of ass right now in my own way.

But it is *ferociously* hard and I think that a lot of the reason that we've seen such a decline in the quality of western magical tradition awareness (and, yes, I include chaos, thelema and so on in that bag) is because people have largely forgotten what the role of the magician is.

We are first up against the wall, first over the trenches, and first into the future. And it's like being the teeth on a gigantic species-level circular saw hacking through the toxic realities of the future to try and maintain a world worth living in. Personal transcendence is largely bait.

This stuff does not kick in while you are still working largely with microcosmic energies. The worst thing you can do at those levels is blow up your family's lives. But outside of that, one you plug into the mains, the fun begins and if you have any brains you wish you had simply never started to explore the territory.

I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. I guess it needed to be said. Keep your magic within the microcosmic personal-life domain, or expect, eventually, to hit a level of power and capability where you become useful and the enormous group karmas of trying to maintain life on earth in a suitable, happy form simply storm into your world and take over your life.

It's like having a lot of money: you are suddenly responsible for every person you did not feed. Or being very smart, and piddling it away on some obscure passion that helps nobody while people die in the streets for lack of historical understanding or inspiration. You step up to plate and somebody hands you a bat and you're in and you never get out again.

If you haven't seen this, you could say it does not exist, it is not there. You'd be dreaming.
 
 
Princess
22:02 / 07.04.07
Oh, I don't doubt it happens. People are stupid. I was just wondering if it was somewhere on-board.

Thanks Lula for the clarifcation. I don't think XK would have meant any disrespect to child-rearing ladies, but I'm sorry you feel that role is being mistreated here. Personally I think motherhood would probably be ridiculously hard, character shaking and wonderful all at once. And, as a man, it will always be a mystery to me. If anyone wanted to start a thread about Magic+Mother I'd be all over it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:19 / 07.04.07
Moderators, could we get some actual moderation here? Epop's dating problems reformatted as rapetastic theory of calorific evolution is not only a long way offtopic, but also likely to lead to further offtopicness as various people attempt to demonstrate that they are not weird little wingnuts as a necessary consequence of being interested in magic.

Possible topics for discussion elsewhere include whether female magicians are busy having babies instead of submitting articles, and indeed whether gender expectations can colour editorial choices about what constitutes a worthwhile article. This thread, however, is becoming grotesque.
 
 
Princess
22:21 / 07.04.07
Obviusly a x-post.
Give me a second to work through all that and come up with something resembling a coherent reply. What you are writing has offended me, and I don't doubt others, quite a bit. You have just lit the big neon sign above you saying "interrogate me/yell at me" and unless
you've got some nice, non-circular, non-stupid arguments behind your reasoning I can't see this as going down well. I'm off to have a proper, considered look at your post to see if I can make a useful response to it. In the mean time could you try and

a)work out why people (possibly just me, but I doubt it) in the forum might have been offended
b)try and find evidence for your claims rather than just "it's obvious"
c) back-up with statistics with a reference to show that they aren't just pulled out of the air

and d)try to sound a little less messianical? I'm sure you have indeed trod the grapes of wrath and wandered through the hills of madness, that's great, but the patronising, self-pompous tone of your posts is offensive all on it's own. And, might I add, not that convincing. If I was going to trust my spiritual/magical safety with you or XK I can very safely say it would be with XK. Your magic/lack of means nothing to me and, if it's anything like your writing style suggests, then I can really leave it, thanks. If the "foothills" as you call them involve half as much magic as this woman has spread then I really see no need for mountains.
 
 
Princess
22:25 / 07.04.07
Responses to Epop/sexism in magic to go here maybe?
 
 
Epop Bastart the Justified, I
23:29 / 07.04.07
Hm. Well, for starters, let's have Robert Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation."

Seriously, have a read, have a think.

It's not that these arguments can't be backed up by hard science: it's just that the conclusions cut through the new age gender equality bullshit like a sledgehammer. You think the situation between the genders is bad, wait 'till you get a load of the evolutionary biology of parent child conflict and sibling rivalry.

You've got four or five chicks (bird young, this time) in a nest. They're 50% genetically similar. There's a barely sufficient food supply: do their parents try and feed them all equally so they all survive? Sure. Do they try and eat each other's food to be sure of their own personal survival? Sure... up to a point, which can be determined fairly accurately by the math of genetic relatedness. The numbers work in an experimental context.

You spend a little time dealing with lightly built, physical small, extremely sexually attractive women and you pretty soon realize that a quarter inch under the surface is the constant awareness that they are *going to get raped if they are alone with the wrong man at the wrong time.* And, again, the rape statistics rather bear that out. That situation is not new - it's ancient, in all probability. Exquisitely finely tuned survival reflexes about allying with men who can protect such a person from other men. And so on. You do the math and it boils down to chicks dig jerks, and the hotter the chick, the bigger the jerk.

These things may not be terribly pleasant to think about if you cherish the ideas that float around in your relatively newly evolved neocortex, but I guarantee that if you get over painting your thoughts over the world hoping that you can make it into the place you would like it to be, your magic will get better really quickly.

Science is not a joke. The best magical minds of about three generations appear to have colluded to create it (Fludd, Bacon, Newton, the whole damn Royal Society) and really a lot of mojo seems to flow through this vehicle.

It's not about racism (I'm probably what you'd call a racist too in as much as I'm willing to say that some *cultures* are better than other, and that clearly different racial groups evolved under different selective pressures), or about sexism - have I said men or women are "better" than one another? Or only that they are *different* and that pretending they are not does not work?

It's about letting go of "let's pretend the world is how we want it to be" and actually taking some damn responsibility for making changes.

The world is not going to change because you think about it or wave you dick in the air. *YOUR* world might change, possibly even quite a bit, but you need a massively purer (i.e. less idealized and abstracted) contact with what is going on out there, particularly in the region of your pants, before you can get any real leverage.

I look forward to continuing to chat in the other thread.

Aloha!
 
 
This Sunday
23:50 / 07.04.07
I like the assumption that there's one type of 'sexually attractive' woman and she's defined by being 'lightly built' and all. R Crumb would go nuttier in Epop's world.

And, y'know: we're not birds. Even those of us who're self-identifying as chicks, male or female.

'The hotter the chick, the bigger the jerk' is gonna be a little hard to prove scientifically. And puts it on all decent men in sex-relationships with women to play the 'I'm the world's biggest jerk' line, because anything less would just be kinda rude.

Do some very cool women end up with shit guys? Sure. Do some very cool men end up with shit women? Same, men with men, women with women, or random neighbor with their pet. Relationships don't have to imply one party is equal to the other, but so, too, no relationship has to equal another.

And no, I won't buy any 'this is how animal X does it' as an analogy or map for human behaviour or operations. Because we don't have their equipment, their experiences, and we probably never will. I mean, imagine never having a solid ground to touch down to, never being able to close your eyes or wiggle your fingers and giant moons appear through a wobbly ether to dust the world with food every so often. And still, we don't know what being a fish in a bowl would be like. Or a fly living it's couple weeks out beside a dumpster.

And some of us would prefer to work at aspirations other than just hovering about the reeking garbage. With pretty girls and boys with witty things to say, preferably.

That's what magick is; not a control issue, but an issue where there is not control and it still all works out. Aim without directive. And as much fun as you can work out of it, during the process.
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply