The Kaiser imagined that war would unite his loyal subjects. On the very eve of war - the morning of 4 August 1914 - he announced that from that moment he recognised no political divisions, no political parties. "From this day on, I recognise only Germans," he said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25635311 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25635311
Buck wrote: Aside from the discussion of uni-sex dress-code, Asymmetric dress-code certainly are used to help generate group cohesion and employed too as fealty tests in hazing to winnow group memberships. The TM movement wore suits and ties or schoolmarm when most everybody else was in bell-bottom jean and tie-dye. Want to be involved, cut your hair. Think pictures and video presently of TM-Raja in parliament. Or that German Raja on stage in Berlin with Bevan, David Lynch and John Hagelin. It was more than a million bucks that got and keeps those Raja seated in the hall. Group organization is also always about fealty to some degree metered by some who can to make a group. Groups are always ultimately more important than the individuals they serve or groups fail. In Nature as an altruistic evolutionary skillset it is up to the individual as to whether they want to be involved in groups or do groups at all; such is Darwin-ism always at work. Some people and even some groups depending on individuals obviously are better at doing groups than others. Say what you will Maharishi has master-minded a transition of his movement after him. Asymmetric dress-code was but one aspect of securing the organization of his movement. Jai Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, -Buck in the Dome ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > --- s3raphita wrote: > > > > > > The line "I am a great believer in the uni-sex dress-code" was > > > copied over (by Yahoo not me!) from a post by Jason. I don't > > > advocate any dress > > > codes. Jason can defend that view if he wishes. > > > --- "TurquoiseB" turquoiseb@ wrote: > > > > Just in case you were wondering, I understood that, and so my rap this > > morning was a reply to Jason as much as it was Buck, who tried to > > springboard off of it with more of his "gotta keep the sinners in line > > any way we can" horseshit. > > > > I don't advocate any kind of dress code, but *especially* one that > > tries to make women or men look sexless. I, for one, would love to > > hear Jason defend that idea, and doubt that he could. > > > > I extended my rap to cover the uniforms worn by various religious > > groups and cults. Historically, such "uniforms" (special dress for priests, > > monks, or nuns, or even "recommended dress" for lay people) are about > > mind control more than anything else. The priesthood always needed > > something to *make themselves seem better or "more special," and > > wearing > > certain robes that no one else was able to wear was one way to achieve > > that, and thus achieve the control they wanted to maintain over their > > "flocks." Note that in most cults or religious orders, the > > robes/costumes worn by "lower class monks" are usually different and > > less ornate and "special" than those worn by people higher up in the > > hierarchy. (Think the ludicrous costumes worn by TMO "Rajas") This is > > also about control. > > > > Making the monks and nuns wear costumes, period, is also an aspect of > > control freakdom, because the higher-ups want to remind them at all > > times that they are part of an org that is better and more powerful > > than they are, and to remind them of their "vows," meaning their > > willingness to follow rules laid on them by other people. > > > > One thing I think you'll find if you look into it is that those on > > this > > forum recommending "uniforms" for monks, nuns, and other members of > > religious or spiritual organizations have in most cases never been > > actual *members* of such organizations. In other words, they're trying > > to justify rules they never followed. > > > > Similarly, when people like Jason mouth off about "unisex" clothing, I > > think you'll find that they're always talking about making the women > > look more like men. That was the point of me posting my photo of the > > guy from Rocky Horror wearing a corset, garter belt, stockings, and high > > heels. If ALL men and women dressed like that, that would be "unisex." > > But I think we all know that's not exactly what Jason had in mind. I > > kinda doubt he's going to be the first in line to get his dress and > > high heels and wear them everywhere. :-) > > That is exactly the point. You wouldn't dress like a woman > when you go to work. Your employer just wouldn't accept it. > > My point is that it perpetuates gender related prejudices > and bias on a very subtle level. > > People can dress as they want in their private spaces > (homes). In public spaces, some degree of conservative > uni-dress-code will enable women to break glass ceilings. It > also encourages comradeship and makes them feel that they > are part of the 'family'. > > It's important to make that distinction between private > spaces and public spaces, on this dress-code issue. Bullshit. And furthermore, bullshit written by a man who has no experience being a woman, and probably no experience "breaking through ceilings" in the workplace, glass or otherwise. I, on the other hand, have known a number of women who have not only disproved the "glass ceiling" myth, they have done so while retaining their individuality, their personalities, and their chosen mode of dress. For example, the woman who originally helped to get me my job at ILOG. I had known her before I moved to Paris, back in the Rama trip. From Day One, we managed to ignore many of the tensions and games that existed between the sexes in that org, and just "got along." We continued to do so when I moved to Paris, and so when she suggested I interview at the company she worked for, I did. What she didn't tell me beforehand was that she not only worked at that company, she was the Vice President of Marketing for that company, so her recommendation carried some weight. But now let's look at your argument. She was pretty young (late 30s), attractive, way fit (she ran marathons and was an Olympic-level fencer), and dressed however she bloody well pleased. If she found herself in a room full of men, she was never the least bit intimidated by them, and more important, she never felt she had to emulate them in any way to be considered their equal . She was their equal because she *assumed* that she was their equal. As a result, that's how they treated her. She'd occasionally show up in nice, tailored business suits, and then the next day she'd show up in jeans and a T-shirt. At company parties she'd wear her fanciest gowns and "get down" with her love interest on the dance floor. That was another imaginary "glass ceiling" she overcame by Just Being Herself, BTW, because her love interest was another woman. No one gave a shit, because her attitude made it clear that it *shouldn't* matter. She was also incredibly helpful to other women in the company, enabling and empowering them whenever possible, and helping them to rise to positions of power within the company. I can think of at least five other people -- four women and one other man -- whose careers she helped to advance. Your argument is a common one among men who are (with reason) upset about the discrimination and unfairness that affects women in the workplace. But you've barely scratched the surface. For example, have you ever checked the difference between the price of women's clothing and the price of men's? It takes women almost twice as much money to "look good" in a corporate setting. This discrimination even extends to how much it costs to get those clothes *cleaned* -- dry cleaning a men's suit in Paris cost 10 Euros; it cost $20 Euros to clean a woman's suit. But your solution smacks of sexism of another kind. "We've got to help our poor, oppressed sisters," WE being of course men who've never had to deal with what they deal with. It's like the "white men's burden" attitude that the English colonizers had towards their colonies. And it also misses the point. It's not ABOUT how the women dress; it's ABOUT what they can DO in their jobs. Women don't need oppressive dress codes to be successful. They just need exposure to the kind of mindset that my friend experienced with Rama and in sports and from other important people in her life that taught her to adopt a Nike attitude and Just Do It. *NOT* Just Make Excuses For Not Doing It...Just Do It. She didn't have any fancy degrees, nor a first-rate education. What she had was self-confidence, and the ability to react to ANYONE -- including people like you trying to be "helpful" -- with a hearty laugh, an equally hearty "Fuck you," and then just getting back to business. If you *really* want to try to make your case, here's a homework assignment for you. Go to Google Images and find and post a number of photos of what you would consider "proper" unisex clothing for women (and, one must assume, men) in business. Then see what people here -- especially the women -- think of your idea. Put up or shut up.
