CJ Morgan

You are one big fish I have landed here :-)

What a wonderful informative and interesting post. Anthropology is a subject close to my heart - sometimes wish I'd taken that at Uni instead of Landscape Architecture. But I digress.

The background in your post has given me a clearer picture of the man behind CJ Morgan and I thank you for that. I agree with your summations of the formation of religions throughout the world, I hardly need to reiterate that it is the human desire for explanation that first lead us to creating myths, then religion and finally with the explosion of knowledge, as we developed greater understanding of the world, to science as we know it today.

Could we have developed science without these myths? I doubt it. A part of human nature is quixotic, hence the development of art throughout the ages. Art and science are frequent companions for the brilliant, Leonardo da Vinci springs to mind here.

When I have been truly absorbed in a creative task, such as painting or writing or design, time has altered...hours may pass in this state, and when I have stopped I have been amazed because I felt as if I was only working for an hour or so. This is a type of meditative consciousness - one I experience less of these days. I must find ways back to this. Creativity is a truly spiritual process. While meditation helps a bit, I am neglecting the creative side. I am seeking better integration of myself and still have a long way to go. Hmmm, I guess I have just been spouting stream of consciousness I hope it makes a kind of sense.

Celivia

Nothing irritates me more than those people who insist that you smile all the effing time - a little misery can be very inspirational and besides how would you know if you are happy if you hadn't experienced unhappiness?

'Where do you get this idea that the discussion about our emotional response to the world in which we live is specifically feminine?'

I never said that.

'We (humans) have all qualities of so-called 'male' and 'female' to a greater and lesser extent.'

Yes, and the 'female' qualities are considered the ideal, and the 'male' ones discouraged as disfunction, as you are illustrating below...

'you are not exactly functioning on your ideal capacity.'

Why, because I don't bang on about my life in a self obsessed melo-dramatic way to total strangers? It seems like you are running a 'deepness' contest. If so I suspect it's an illustration of irony.

'If you reject anything regarding wonder, happiness and affection as 'too feminine' for the likes of you'

Just where have I rejected any wonder, hapiness or affection? I only reject the fluffy, overblown expression of it being encouraged as the ideal or norm, or more so the stigmatisation of more traditionally male forms of interraction. What's wrong with a stoic nod of respect rather than a screaming hands in the air hug and how are you, oh you look wonderful! What's wrong with considered understatement, or communication of love through actions rather than words more common to the pre-snag age of men? I reject this over-emoting and compulsory navel gazing like I reject the superficial, sensationalist public mass grieving ala Steve Irwin's death.

'I can only conclude that you have some major issues to sort out.'

Thanks Dr Phil. It must be wonderful playing amatuer psychologist and feeling you are so superior as to question the emotional soundness of complete strangers.

Whitty

If you don't like this discussion thread, then why do you spend so much of your time here?

Makes me think of people carping on about TV shows they don't approve of; why they can't go and read a book or change channels is beyond my ability to understand. Of course, there are those who simply enjoy a good whinge.

Perhaps you could start a discussion of your very own. No-one is forcing you to contribute here.

Whitty, I think they were referring to this thread, rather than OLO in general.
Whilst I tend to disagree with you on most points, I concede for the most part that they're well argued - rational debate is what's needed on these boards, regardless of which side they're championing, so I'd hope you stick around.

That being said - I can see a valid point being made here. You say that males are pressured into this touchy-feely image and it's fair enough for the stoic sorts to object. I sometimes think that way as well.

But on the other hand, whilst I think it's fair for blokes to not want to get on the sensitivity bandwagon, those that do shouldn't be hammered either, and your posts here do come across as a tad dismissive of those that do.

Dear CJ,

Thank you for sharing so much of your life with us on this thread...

Wow! is all I can say.

Dear TRTL,

Why are Australian men perfectly happy to have a regular beer or ten, laugh, play, get pissed, womanise and spend considerable leisure time with their mates, but, faced with a personal or family crisis, are unwilling or unable to share or show their grief to mates or to give or take comfort from each other?

Foxy -

For starters, the 'getting pissed and womanising' is a bit of a stereotype, but I guess it's a reasonably accurate one in most cases.

Your question carries all kinds of assumptions. Firstly, there's the assumption that keeping your problems to yourself is wrong.

If indeed the problem is too great to handle alone, then yes, perhaps that's the case.
Many problems however, aren't this extreme, and perhaps simply taking the situation in stride isn't as much of a handicap as its made out to be.

Different people handle things differently. That's just the way it is - some men won't want to talk to others and if that's the way they are, I don't think they should be pressured to.

I don't in any way agree with the idea that they should have to keep it in, but perhaps these kinds of issues are more likely to be shared with female friends. I know the matters I discuss with male friends and female tend to be quite different, but that's just the nature of things. I don't always wish to discuss my problems, sometimes I just go ahead and solve them myself.

I guess it comes back to gender roles - take the stereotyped 1950s style woman. I'd not a criticise a woman who indeed just wanted to stay home and bake and be pretty and all those outdated gender expectations. I probably wouldn't find such a woman very interesting, but that's my problem, not hers. I'd no more have a problem with her, than a modern woman with some feminist beliefs, who trailblazes a place at the top of the corporate ladder.

The same goes for men. The laconic sort who'd rather keep his problems to himself may be a bit of an outdated stereotype, but if he can indeed handle those problems and he's happy with who he is, well, that's his business.
He should feel that he can open up to his mates, but I think he's justified in rebuffing those that tell him he 'should' do so, rather than he 'can'.