On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:40 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: >>> --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: >>>> >>>> The question REALLY is: why do they continue on MD if >>>> they obviously are not happy with it? Isn't that just >>>> mood-making at its finest? >>> >>> With all due respect, you really *haven't* spent >>> much time with women in a tight, hierarchical group, >>> have you? >> >> Well, personally I think Spare's hit the nail on the head-- >> I've spent a lot of time with women in hierarchical situations, >> and I don't get it either. I would say either they (the >> unhappy ones) are *real* good moodmakers, or just aren't too >> bright and can't imagine any other life at this point, or >> they're masochists, or all 3. There's really very few other >> explanations for remaining in an unhappy situation, much less >> desperately unhappy, when one, at least theoretically, doesn't >> have to. > > I have to bow to your experience as a woman within > the TM movement.
Well, that was a long time ago, and as far as MD went, always from afar. The stories I tended to hear to hear didn't lend themselves to wanting to get any closer. Seemed like a pretty weird trip even back then. > My impressions are based on being > a man who has been in a number of spiritual groups, > and who tended to form my strongest friendships with > the strong women in those groups. So I've watched, > and heard about, some of the things they go through. > > One of those things involves (IMO, and that of my > friends) the deep-seated desire/compulsion to seek > attention. Most of the strong women I've known in > spiritual contexts -- the ones you noticed within > seconds of entering a room they were in -- were > *also* pretty skilled with having the same effect > in rooms outside of a spiritual context. They took > your breath away, and had spent most of their > lifetimes being *used* to taking a roomful of > people's breath away, any time they wanted to. > > Then they found themselves in a spiritual organ- > ization, and if it was a fairly happening organ- > ization, one in which people had regular epiphanies > and felt as if they were making strong, steady > spiritual experience, they found that it wasn't > quite as easy to capture people's attention as it > had been. Some of these women dealt with that > transition well, and stopped trying. Others tried > to scope out who *was* getting the attention in > the group, and then set about becoming one of > those people. In some groups, it was the ones who > wore saris and did the best bhaktidance towards > the teacher. In others, it was the ones who had > the biggest set of balls, and made the most money > consulting in a man's world. In some groups, it > was the ones who spent the most time with the > teacher. In others it was the ones who spent the > most...uh...quality time with the teacher; that > is, the ones who shared his bed. Different strokes > for different traditions and groups. Well, all I can say is if MMY had relationships with any of the women on MD, he must have been desperate. Most of them looked and acted like frumpy old maids, and about as 'happy' as anyone could be in that situation. Same thing for the guys--like uptight nerds. I always wondered, when I would see those groups, "Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?" At that point most of us were in our 20s-30s, not anywhere near the age when dressing like that would have occurred to someone, except maybe on Halloween. It doesn't really occur to too many people now. > But the one thing that remained constant in my > experience was that if there was an "attention > hierarchy" to be climbed, some women were driven > to climb it, even if doing so made them miserable > on a day-to-day basis, and cut them off from > cordial company with the other women. Yep, there's those types in all groups, the only thing that changes is the criterion. In MD I would guess whoever's got the most dough gets the most attention. > > Have you ever been stuck in a relationship that, > for all intents and purposes, was over, deceased, > a dead parrot? And have you ever, in such a > situation, stayed in the relationship because > you hoped that it could regain the magic it once > held for you? I don't know if it was for that reason or simple apathy--maybe a combination. > > That, in my opinion, is why women stay in a very > visible position that requires them to be models > of blissninnydom, when they're feeling not the > least blissy. Same thing for the men who persist > in paths that make them less than happy. Most of > them, in my opinion, are just pushing the rela- > tionship past its time. But one never realizes > that one is doing that until one does, whether > it's a spiritual relationship or an amatory one. > > People do weird shit. There's really no figuring > it out sometimes... That's for sure. And paying large sums, to the tune of thousands a year, to be essentially unhappy, is about as weird as you can get. Freud would have a field day with those two groups. Sal To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
