Author Topic: Michael, about that book...  (Read 2896 times)

Portia

  • Guest
Michael, about that book...
« on: May 23, 2007, 08:31:17 AM »
Hi Michael, no need to duck and run, as if!

I had a look for the book you suggested, found some info:

From Barnes & Noble.com
From the Publisher
In this groundbreaking book, Daphne Rose Kingma shows women how to help men get in touch with their feelings and assists both genders in creating the connection they so desperately want.

From The Critics
Publishers Weekly
Not only are men no less emotional and in need of love and support than women, but, according to TV therapist Kingma, they are ``as oppressed by the male role as we have been by women's.'' Here she shows women how they can help the men they love to develop and express themselves. She contends that as a result of the women's liberation movement, men struggle to maintain macho identities by channeling their energies into work, sex, sports or other physical action. Along with a list of ``transformational attitudes'' and behaviors for women designed to help their men achieve a step-by-step emotional awakening, Kingma suggests 22 questions geared towards stimulating greater communication and intimacy between partners. Much of this is familiar self-help advice, and the book mainly serves to reinforce the arguments of the burgeoning men's movements. 35,000 first printing; $50,000 ad/promo; author tour. (June)


Seems a reasonable book to me, fwtiw.

About your words:

SEVERAL THOUGHTS HERE ABOUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN..
one is a book suggestion THE MEN WE NEVER KNEW by daphne rose kingma ...
i might get back to book later here..
but first now about the more aware of visual details that women tend to have...
what can happen then it is harder for women to choose the most important focus...


I agree, from personal experience. edit in: when the most important focus is blindingly obvious - like the fire escape.

but they tend to [without realizing it usually] focus on their own emotional bias as if that is the most important detail...

I can see your point and agree with it, in as much as women might feel they having all the feelings in a relationship! i.e. why do I have to do allll the feeeling here?!

men might realize to some degree that women are not likely to be honest about their own emotional bias
and that women can often outmaneuver them by being more intuitive too of a wider range of energy...


Is anyone likely to be 'honest' in a perfect way? It seems very difficult to me to know when you are being honest about your feelings (motivations?). I think it's possible that many women simply don't believe that men are different in the ways they are, and that somehow men are being different just to be 'difficult' or 'controlling'. You know, when a man tends to mull over a problem before talking about it - women choose to see that as the 'silent treatment' kind of thing. Oh yah. All sorts of misunderstandings. Women outmaneuvering men? Sometimes i guess it's intended, sometimes not. It depends on the woman and the man.

so kind of what i think kingma says in the book...men give up

Mmm, like our fathers did? Retreating into a cold confusion to remain 'manly'?

but feel like they are being asked as if they should join in this emotional playing field as a joy but tend not to want to coz it can be very hard to get a woman to recognize her own emotional biases....

Is it that hard? Really? i guess it depends on the woman, and the man doing the, er, help. :o :D

once again women tend to believe that their focus of what is key and important is superior to men
when it is not necessarily as true as they would like to believe


Some women surely? You mean like the arguments that if women ran the world, we wouldn't have wars? or other exceptionally simplistic arguments like that?

and in the meantime some key point of truer consistency of needs
might be better perceived by men who tend to be in general more logiical and consistent...


In general i agree, in general it seems that men are more logical and consistent. Women are more lateral (literally, brain-wise) and flexible (not sure "consistent" is the best word for what men are, i think 'focused' is more to the point8)).

What do you mean  -  consistency of needs?

THUS THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES MAYBE

AND FINALLY THIS...
MICHAEL DOES THE TRULY WISE THING
DUCKS AND RUNS :p


Portia looks up to see figure heading for the horizon: Michael, come back! I have a thread for you!

what did you say next?....
« Last Edit: May 23, 2007, 09:12:36 AM by Portia »

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2007, 08:44:53 AM »
this is next

A KIND OF FOLLOW UP TO MY PREVIOUS EMAIL..I THINK..
why narcissistic or maybe more psychopathic men are so irritating to women


You mean irritating in that women have a lot of trouble trying to change or understand Ns and psychopaths? Instead of just dumping them, as logic would dictate?

that they in some form pick up on doubts and flaws in womens assumptions about their own true goodness that is a bit too self serving

Oooo, i can see where this is going! Game on!  :D

..in fact maybe it is a key way they play women...

Yes, "you only think about yourself all the time! You're so busy thinking that I'm the problem, you can't see your problems!" (says the guy, poor thing).

but the way a narcissistic man would play a woman might well be quite different than the way a malignant narcissist aka to me psychopath ...would play a woman..

Maybe. A wee small N might actually be 'involved' in some way, a bit like a parasite, he might 'need' her. etc. A psycho is much more ruthless: she's an object to be used and nothing more. His emotional reactions to her are much more limited?

too...i think women tend more towards the narcissistic end of the spectrum
and men towards the psychopathic end


I don't know. There are too many variables i think to make that kind of judgement? And are Nism and psychopathy two ends, as such? Not sure about that idea really.

sigh hopefully most by now have some sense of the spectrum between narciissist and psychopath..
mixing to your saidist and antisocial of course too


I might need some more educating!

Thanks Michael. P

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2007, 08:54:09 AM »
Hope you don't mind if i bring this here too....too late...here it goes....

HI PORTIA,
i might have already said this about in a sense
an aspect of owning oneself...
if not it hopefully bears repeating ...
to  truly own self one need own one's relationship to the whole of beiing and the creator and one's place in the whole..


I see the point, i understand it.

any putting self as essenitally better than others disturbs one true and full understanding of self and the whole..

Agreed. A bit pointless too. What would be the objective?

indeed to own oneself and one's relationship to the whole and to the creator
requires considering the needs of others before one's own


Very difficult, unless the others are your loved ones, i would think. Also knowing the needs of others is not an easy thing to do. How do you know what others need? Who decides?

and the first one of the adamic line , not to just teach that but do that,
under all the trials of the flesh was jesus
and thus as hebrews says in the new testament,
by what he suffered in that spirit for others sake,
he earned the unique right to offer salvation to all,
as said in revelation first chapter  as the first begotten of the dead....


I don't think i understand salvation, i really don't. What is it and why should i want it? this is a serious question, in as much as I'd enjoy trying to understand what it means to you (because I like to try, just for the curiosity of it, hope that makes sense....)

P

michael

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2007, 10:14:26 AM »
PORTIA,
YOU INQUIRED SOME ABOUT GETTIN WHAT SALVATION IS ABOUT....
as i hope you have noted
i feel i am very bible based..
hmm it might yank somes chain but i think adam was an incarnation of jesus...

hmmm does that distract some sufficiently
and the gall that i leave that for now and onto some aspects of salvation..
a good book in the bible on that is romans methinks
i am pretty sure paul believed in reincarnation but it was not made obvious
in the books that are in the bible now
not that i think that the bible needs any texts that might have been deleted
around the time of justinian...
it is sufficient and divinely inspired to activate the holy spirit salvation...

OKAY DOWN TO MORE BRASS TACKS ON SALVATION MAYBE
IN ROMANS 5TH CHAPTER WHEN it speaks of thru one man's sin
death passed to all
BECAUSE ALL HAD SINNED...
for me that is coz the souls death had passed to had already rebelled in spirit and were in a state of sin
and that death came as a kind of grace to help the salvation process....

thus all of the adamic line fall short
a few might have before jesus overcome their old sinful nature even
but if they did they knew that one would come
who would not just overcome his old sin nature but
in a way that would better enable salvation for all..
removing the karma of the old law
and making access for all by way of the law of grace
by way of that the messiah just did not overcome his own karma
BUT HE SUFFERED IN ALL WAYS OF THE FLESH
AND REMAINED WITHOUT SIN...
you might look at the 2nd or 3rd chapter of zechariah on this
in terms of the high priest then was an incarnation of jesus
and it is foretold there in his next incarnation he would come as the messiah...

unfortunately i know of no study of romans that sees what i see in romans
of the salvation plan...
nope i taint up to writing such a book at ze moment :P

hmm so what are we to be saved from
..our old sin nature where we  as romans says
were all trapped together in a kind of common sin so as to learn from one another
spiritual patience...
and it is in such patience that we come to possess our soul
and receive our glorified soul body in the kingdom of god
which is higher than were manny souls go in between incarnations.. the kingdom of heaven
now methinks some souls go to  hell but that it is not eternal damnation
and eventually they can reincarnate..

another challenging biblical possibility
that humans are meant to judge the angels

and that animal souls are not eternal individual souls as human souls are

that should keep ya busy :) fer awhile:)

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2007, 10:53:58 AM »
Yes i see your point of view Michael. I get an intellectual understanding of the concepts. I just don't have any comparable experience. i guess this isn't really the place for that kind of discussion though.....a forum to discuss your experiences with voicelessness....unless I suppose the topics here were involved in your voicelessness...which is entirely possible I guess.... ?

Yes I've noticed you seem to be very bible-based and although the concepts interest me, I wouldn't say that i am bible-based in the least. If I get into the bible, I'm going to have to read all the sacred texts and, maybe, sometime, but not now. And not here.

Thanks for the reply though and for your time.

michael

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2007, 05:03:17 AM »
this is next

A KIND OF FOLLOW UP TO MY PREVIOUS EMAIL..I THINK..
why narcissistic or maybe more psychopathic men are so irritating to women


You mean irritating in that women have a lot of trouble trying to change or understand Ns and psychopaths? Instead of just dumping them, as logic would dictate?

that they in some form pick up on doubts and flaws in womens assumptions about their own true goodness that is a bit too self serving

Oooo, i can see where this is going! Game on!  :D

..in fact maybe it is a key way they play women...

Yes, "you only think about yourself all the time! You're so busy thinking that I'm the problem, you can't see your problems!" (says the guy, poor thing).

but the way a narcissistic man would play a woman might well be quite different than the way a malignant narcissist aka to me psychopath ...would play a woman..

Maybe. A wee small N might actually be 'involved' in some way, a bit like a parasite, he might 'need' her. etc. A psycho is much more ruthless: she's an object to be used and nothing more. His emotional reactions to her are much more limited?

too...i think women tend more towards the narcissistic end of the spectrum
and men towards the psychopathic end


I don't know. There are too many variables i think to make that kind of judgement? And are Nism and psychopathy two ends, as such? Not sure about that idea really.

sigh hopefully most by now have some sense of the spectrum between narciissist and psychopath..
mixing to your saidist and antisocial of course too


I might need some more educating!

Thanks Michael. P
PORTIA,
the last item above....  the spectrum of aggressive personality disorders according to o'connor
PERSONALITY DISORDERS IN THIS SPECTRUM

Aggressive Style:

PARANOID: Provocative, pre-emptive attack
Superego Development: Defective
Conscience: Retributive, vindicates self
Destructiveness: Vengeful

NARCISSISTIC: Denigrating, demeaning to others
Superego: Immature
Conscience: Normal with Delusions
Destructiveness: Interpersonal Exploitation

ANTISOCIAL: Rebellious, contemptible
Superego: Deviant
Conscience: Distorted
Destructiveness: Interpersonal and Expressive crime

PSYCHOPATHIC: Malicious, Predatory
Superego: Perverse
Conscience: Inverted
Destructiveness: Strategic Conquest and Domination

SADISTIC: Sadism
Superego: Defective and Perverse
Conscience: Inverted
Superego Development: Defective and Perverse
Destructiveness: Proloinged Anguish and Suffering

------------------
oconnors own page on this on the site of the university where he is a professor
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOCONNOR/428/428lect15.htm

and another page pretty much similar to oconnors own page
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/paranoidnarcissismspectrum.html


somewhere has an online page where included are thoughts on saddam and other bullies of the world

michael

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2007, 05:39:44 AM »
Hi Michael, no need to duck and run, as if!

I had a look for the book you suggested, found some info:

From Barnes & Noble.com
From the Publisher
In this groundbreaking book, Daphne Rose Kingma shows women how to help men get in touch with their feelings and assists both genders in creating the connection they so desperately want.

From The Critics
Publishers Weekly
Not only are men no less emotional and in need of love and support than women, but, according to TV therapist Kingma, they are ``as oppressed by the male role as we have been by women's.'' Here she shows women how they can help the men they love to develop and express themselves. She contends that as a result of the women's liberation movement, men struggle to maintain macho identities by channeling their energies into work, sex, sports or other physical action. Along with a list of ``transformational attitudes'' and behaviors for women designed to help their men achieve a step-by-step emotional awakening, Kingma suggests 22 questions geared towards stimulating greater communication and intimacy between partners. Much of this is familiar self-help advice, and the book mainly serves to reinforce the arguments of the burgeoning men's movements. 35,000 first printing; $50,000 ad/promo; author tour. (June)


Seems a reasonable book to me, fwtiw.

About your words:

SEVERAL THOUGHTS HERE ABOUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN..
one is a book suggestion THE MEN WE NEVER KNEW by daphne rose kingma ...
i might get back to book later here..
but first now about the more aware of visual details that women tend to have...
what can happen then it is harder for women to choose the most important focus...


I agree, from personal experience. edit in: when the most important focus is blindingly obvious - like the fire escape.

but they tend to [without realizing it usually] focus on their own emotional bias as if that is the most important detail...

I can see your point and agree with it, in as much as women might feel they having all the feelings in a relationship! i.e. why do I have to do allll the feeeling here?!

men might realize to some degree that women are not likely to be honest about their own emotional bias
and that women can often outmaneuver them by being more intuitive too of a wider range of energy...


Is anyone likely to be 'honest' in a perfect way? It seems very difficult to me to know when you are being honest about your feelings (motivations?). I think it's possible that many women simply don't believe that men are different in the ways they are, and that somehow men are being different just to be 'difficult' or 'controlling'. You know, when a man tends to mull over a problem before talking about it - women choose to see that as the 'silent treatment' kind of thing. Oh yah. All sorts of misunderstandings. Women outmaneuvering men? Sometimes i guess it's intended, sometimes not. It depends on the woman and the man.

so kind of what i think kingma says in the book...men give up

Mmm, like our fathers did? Retreating into a cold confusion to remain 'manly'?

but feel like they are being asked as if they should join in this emotional playing field as a joy but tend not to want to coz it can be very hard to get a woman to recognize her own emotional biases....

Is it that hard? Really? i guess it depends on the woman, and the man doing the, er, help. :o :D

once again women tend to believe that their focus of what is key and important is superior to men
when it is not necessarily as true as they would like to believe


Some women surely? You mean like the arguments that if women ran the world, we wouldn't have wars? or other exceptionally simplistic arguments like that?

and in the meantime some key point of truer consistency of needs
might be better perceived by men who tend to be in general more logiical and consistent...


In general i agree, in general it seems that men are more logical and consistent. Women are more lateral (literally, brain-wise) and flexible (not sure "consistent" is the best word for what men are, i think 'focused' is more to the point8)).

What do you mean  -  consistency of needs?

THUS THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES MAYBE

AND FINALLY THIS...
MICHAEL DOES THE TRULY WISE THING
DUCKS AND RUNS :p


Portia looks up to see figure heading for the horizon: Michael, come back! I have a thread for you!

what did you say next?....


PORTIA,
ON THE ISSUE TOWARDS THE END ABOVE...
CONSISTENCY
some of the material of the psychic readings of edgar cayce
i feel have served me quite well in getting a better grip on a holistic metaphysics of life..
that is consistent :)
having to do with a perfect union of mind and heart thru the eternal principles of life
that comes when one becomes consistent in one's active thoughts and one's actions..
such a choice of conscious consistency
it the basis of salvation..
i.e. changing from one's past inconsistent emotions that persist till one is convicted of one's past sinful old habits
and accepts divine aid in being cleanse of one's old sinful past habit nature...
where those classid freudian id ego superego things  like repression projection etc cloud the focus of the mind...

those old habits persist until one seeks true correction and perfection ...
they keep making one miss the mark of one's trul relationship to the whole of being...

but once one cleanses one's heart past and present work in perfect harmony
by submitting oneself to the higher laws of spiritual will...

NOW LET ME SEE HOW TO APPLY TO THIS HERE FOR YOU
TO HOW MEN TEND TO BE MORE CONSISTENT
AND I MIGHT ADD WOMEN ARE MORE PERSISTENT IN GENERAL...

WELL MAYBE NOT THE BEST POINT BUT IT SHOULD WORK... I HOPE
IN ECCLESIASTES 3RD CHAPTER
IT SAYS IN THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION
11  ¶He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
AND TOO
15  That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
AH NOT I HAVE IT I THINK
ALL OUR EFFORTS ARE BLOCKED BY OUR PAST HABITS OF SELF GLORY AND PERSIST TILL WE FACE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE
AND I THINK ONE OF THE TOOLS OF SALVATION TO EVENTUALLY FACE AND OVERSOME SAID SPIRITUAL REBELLION IS REINCARNATION...

WOMAN TENDS TO BE MORE PERSISTENT AB0UT PAST ISSUES OF HURT
AS WOMAN TOO IS SYMBOLIC OF THE HEART AND OF THE EMOTIONAL PAST STRUCTURES OF SELF
IN BOTH SEXES BUT WOMEN TEND TO BE MORE CAUGHT UP AND IN A SENSE CONSISTENT
ABOUT BEING PERSISTENT OF BRINGING UP PAST ISSUES
NOT ALWAYS IN THE BEST OF WAYS BUT STILL
IN A WAY THAT RELATES TO
15  That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
OVER TIME EVENTUALLY ALL SOULS GO OH DUH ... ALL THESE PROBLEMS
ARE A RESULT OF MY PAST SPIRITUAL REBELLION AND LACK OF TRUE EMOTIONAL RESPONSIVENESS AND RESPONSIBILITE
WHAT THE WOMEN TENDS TO DO THO IS PRESUME MORE IN TERMS OF BEING EMOTIONALLY TRULY RESPONSIVE
THAN SHE REALLY IS.....
AND OFTERN STRANGELY PERSISTENT IN A REATHER ILLOGICAL INCONSISTENT WAY...

THE THING ABOUT INCONSISTENCY
IS THAT IT DEVELOPS PATTERNS OF CONSISTENCY IN ITS INCONSISTENCY
THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH PERSONALITY TYPES....

CONSISTENCY COMES FROM WHEN ONE'S PRESENT MENTAL STATE AND ACTIVITY
HONESTLY LOOKS AT ITS PAST AND REALIZES THRU REPENTANCE IT CAN TRANSFORM
THE OLD HEART OF THE PAST INTO A NEW HEART OF PURE DESIRES AND PERFECTION
WHERE MIND AND HEART ARE IN PERFECT AGREEMENT AND
DO NOT CONTRIDICT EACH OTHER
BUT THE GREATER POWER FOR CHANGE IS THE ACTIVE PRESENT CONSCIOUS CHOICES
THAT ADMITS TO THE TRUE NATURE AND RECORD OF WHAT HAS PERSISTED IN ITS SUBCONSCIOUS
TILL  ONE CONSCIOUSLY MAKES THE RIGHT CHOICE
AND THUS TRANSCENDS TIME AND SPACE BY PROPER USE OF THE MIND
AND REDIRECTS THE EGO FROM ITS OLD HABITS
TO A PROPER SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF THE CREATOR...
AND IN SUCH STATE
CAN PROPERLY BE IN THE WORLD BUT NOT OF THE WORLD
TILL ONE RECEIVES ITS GLORIFIED SOUL BODY AND ENTERS THE KINGDOM OF GOD....
BY WAY OF ADOPTING THE CONSISTENCY OF PURE DESIRES THAT IS WILL OF THE CREATOR
FOR ALL TO RETURN TO
AND OVERCOME THE VANITY OF VANITIES OF A FALLEN EGO...
WHERE THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN[SYMBOLIC THERE I THINK OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS]
UNTIL THE LIGHT OF TRUTH SETS ONE FREE FROM ONE'S OWN PAST NATURE
AND ASSUMES A NEW AND CONSISTENT NATURE WHERE MIND AND HEART ARE IN PERFECT AGREEMENT
\
SO TO SPEAK ;)

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2007, 06:56:34 AM »
Righty oh Michael. I think I understood and I got to:

AND THUS TRANSCENDS TIME AND SPACE BY PROPER USE OF THE MIND
AND REDIRECTS THE EGO FROM ITS OLD HABITS
TO A PROPER SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF THE CREATOR...

if i see the creator as death, that sort of makes some sense to me. I feel consistent in thinking about death. The idea of death directs me to an extent.

michael

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2007, 08:27:26 AM »
Righty oh Michael. I think I understood and I got to:

AND THUS TRANSCENDS TIME AND SPACE BY PROPER USE OF THE MIND
AND REDIRECTS THE EGO FROM ITS OLD HABITS
TO A PROPER SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF THE CREATOR...

if i see the creator as death, that sort of makes some sense to me. I feel consistent in thinking about death. The idea of death directs me to an extent.
NOPE DONT MEAN DEATH OF YOUR SOUL
BUT DEATH TO THE POWER OF SIN OVER YOUR SOUL
AND DEATH TO THE OLD NATURE
AND ETERNAL LIFE :)
IN MY BOOK ... A HAPPY ENDING FOR ALL
ALL GET SAVED ..DESPITE THEIR INITIAL RESISTANCE...

UH HMMM
TO BE CONTINUED
ETERNAL JOY :)

Portia

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2007, 09:12:34 AM »
Change is a constant! :D

http://www.holistic.com/holistic/learning.nsf/0/dc9696412bfb6b60872569fa00453eb5

the carrier is not as important as the message i think (just in case the cards offend)

Hope you have a good day Michael. I'm away for a few days. P

Hopalong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13621
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2007, 11:14:27 AM »
Hi Michael,
I'd like to read your posts but when you use all capitals I feel yelled at and it makes me squint.
I can tell you have very interesting ideas so I thought I'd mention that ...

Hops
"That'll do, pig, that'll do."

mich]ael

  • Guest
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2007, 01:10:50 PM »
Hi Michael,
I'd like to read your posts but when you use all capitals I feel yelled at and it makes me squint.
I can tell you have very interesting ideas so I thought I'd mention that ...

Hops

hopalong..
even me ... unuse the subtle forces of captain subtext and other hidden social agendas...

is gonna venture out on a limb here
and as a wild guess
gonna guess
that you did not mean what u said but the opposite..kinda...
social use of sarcasm or something similar if i am
not too mistaken ? :)

Hopalong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13621
Re: Michael, about that book...
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2007, 03:12:20 PM »
Just a gentle tweak, Michael.
Thanks for using the regular case.
It really is easier to read, imo

Hops
"That'll do, pig, that'll do."