ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

This is a topic that parents, potential and eventual parents have talked about quite a bit.

I don't believe colours are assigned by anyone, for a specific gender. Cynics can argue that business use colours to market to our children, in a manipulative fashion, go down the girl's isle and see all the soft pinks then the boy's isle and see the stark greens, blues, black and orange. I would argue that they know something about gender preference.

But having had raised, and still raising kids, there is definitely a gender link to colour preference. Girls in general do prefer softer, pastel colours while boys in general do prefer the bolder colours for their toys. It doesn't stop there. Having worked in construction, men, in general still prefer their tools to be, if any colour, one that is bold and distinguishable.

Controversially, I'm sure the following will be, for it's not P.C., is that colour preference is not only linked to your gender, but your race and culture as well. I have worked on hundreds of homes. The colours, tints and tones of choices made by my customers were usually in a definitive class, peculiar to their gender and race.

In my experience, even my customers, be that they were black, white, brown or other, they would, occasionally talk of this distinction of preference by there own race.

These race based preferences are real. Ask any major advertiser for the big name products, who have spent millions of dollars on researching this, so they can market more affectively, effecting sales to those actual preferences.

When I was about to become a parent, I had my doubts about the colour tagging based on gender. It didn't take long for me to be convinced otherwise while my little one's proved to me over and over again that indeed there is a link.

By the way Evan, When is the baby due?

Dana, you continue to be so valuable to me for your experience and insights!!
i still find that i'm concerned over that point where preference blurs into socially-mandated color labels. little baby girls seldom have the opportunity to express preference anymore because by the time their cognition reaches that level they've spent so much time bathed in pink that of COURSE it feels normal and comfortable. and by contrast little boys are being explicitly TOLD that "pink is for girls" (followed, i fear, by "here, play with this army man")

the baby is "due" on July 21...only six weeks to go! i'm painting the room this week. it's blue like the SKY, green like GRASS, and white like CLOUDS.

the question might be what is the fate of a baby? is the spirit being sent it to the public school system to be raised as a soldier, in which case we will likely wish to encase that intended robot in the mindset of color and caste programming? from the timing and circumstances of the conception, we will already know the humanoid's sex.

or are we home-schooling our child, without the racist and peasant dogma enrollment? in which case we understand that sex is not gender (personality), and there are thousands and millions and billions of colors and genders which will be revealed in the blend of this offspring of our love.

assuming there is purpose in bringing a child into the world, we can expect that there are decades of gifts of color and wisdom and culture and experience that we anticipate for their and our journey of co-evolution.

I too had the same concerns as well of the blurring of what is actually a preference against what in affect is conditioning. Do you rush out and buy the colours that are recognized by most as a girl's scheme, only to have conditioned her to like this scheme over what she might actually otherwise take hold of.

Personally I like your approach to the bedroom colour and scape. But I wouldn't be overly concerned with being neutral in your approach on the gender colour schematic be it in the room, in dress, or in toys. One thing about parenting, as we do our best to protect, direct our little ones, our efforts will from time to time bear unintended consequences. To foresee such, by definition is impossible. Look for those pearls of wisdom held by others, typically older ones who have been there, done that.

But by all means, expose, expose, expose your child to the varieties out there, in colour, in activity such as music and reading to them. In fact, if you and your baby's Mother haven't started yet, start reading to the baby now. That baby can hear you now. By reading to her/him, you will go along way in the bonding between all of you.

Parenting is an inexact science. There are general rules all should go by, but each family is unique and queer unto itself. In other words, somethings can work in every family, but other things that work for one family will not for another. Families are personality driven, thus exhibit their unique traits. If both parents are on the same track, life will be so much easier to deal with, and your child will be rich in meaningful nurturing.

When parents divide on an issue, it can spell friction and disquiet discourse. If egos get involved, and they will, hell can break loose, and all lose.

If Jessie is as opened as you are, and the focus is the relationship and the nurturing of each other, and caring of the baby, you two are light years ahead of most who start out as parents. Godspeed.

evan,
how much time do you spend staring at your belly-button? day to day.

make dennis leary postie editor!! speaking of d.l., where is he? did he fall off the planet again?

I've worked with a reasonably large number of young children (1 - 9 years old) and have found that most of the boys go through a phase around 3 or 4 where their favorite colors are pink and orange. I haven't seen anything corresponding for girls. During that time, older children (boys and girls) tell these little boys (matter-of-fact or with ridicule) that pink is for girls. It seems sad to me that their early choices should be so soundly stomped out by their peers.

To extrapolate a ways from this observation, the question arises: When we raise our men to believe that their wants and likes are not important, how can we expect them to communicate those things in healthy ways later on in life?

Sacred Cow, I'm getting pretty far out there but somehow I manage to fall back onto the planet. I've been traveling to the outer ring looking for Uncle Timothy, but alas, no luck; he must have tuned out. Thank Godus for gravity. Speaking of Godus and this thread, I'll give my opinion for what it's worth. In our patriarchal culture, men are associated with heaven which is blue; womem are associated with red which is the color of their monthly blood and also the color of the earth's molten lava blood (pink is a euphemism for red because of the patriarchy's being squeamish and secretly envious and distrustful of womem. In my cosmology, womem are the superior sex and very earth centered and blood conscious. Love and life flow with the blood and womem nourish the earth with their moon's blood; however, you have to go back to prepatriarchal times to appreciate that, so brain and money washed are we by the partriarchic lies. You've got to turn all our cultural ideas completely on their head 180 degrees. The blue boy sky gods are an invention of patriarchs in order to subdue red blooded earthly womem. Their mythical god stories have been so successful that womem have internalized them and have been subjugated; hence the name woman, which I change to womam. I am a womam at heart, using this male body. Red is my favorite color, not watered down feminine patriarchic pink. As for blue, it also is a womamly color, standing for womamly water under an expansive yin sky. I could go on for quite awhile about womem and men, and I have in a book I wrote called "The Lover Government." The Lover is a womam Godus, a personification of love and the subject of a new government I (or she) is inventing with the help of the Red Brown and Blue Party. The red color of the party flag has much to do with womem's and earth's red blood. I've had it with the governments and the political parties we have now. As far as I'm concerned, they are either irretrievably corrupt or simply too weak to do much good. I tend to get spaced out so I need a good womam and Ojai is as good as she gets; she grounds me and ties me to this post. I've been also testing the womamly waters on other more international sites, preparing the ground but it feels like home to land here again. The graphic above is too mechanistic and deductive for my tastes, like something out of a textbook. I prefer symbolism like the David and Bathsheba star, the downward pointing womamly triangle superimposed on the upward pointing male one. What we need today to save this God forsaken, Godfather earth is a red Bathsheba, not a spaced out fantasy David. Guess what? David is a made up story. Now Bathsheba, she's something else.

DL
womyn, WOMYN!!! get back on the hooka....

DL - Are you sure that it wasn't Uncle Tom that you were looking for? I suggest that you look within the mirror[introspection]

When someone uses the same label [e.g. patriarchy] over and over and over, it is obvious to me that they have become entranced[fallen asleep] and have lost the ability to be receptive[learn]. You are not in a concrete reality. Your cart[mind] is pulling your horse[body]. Sorry to be the one to tell you but it's supposed to be the other way around. Do not worry though, because you are not alone. This is the American[Xian] way[creed before deed] and [this concept] is tougher for one to see than for a fish to real eyes the ubiquitous water they swim in. I know that your intentions are good but this is not enough[for me at least]. You[I] use your[my] 'good intentions' both as a bludgeon and as a shield and your[my] prowess at this keeps you[me] blind to their actual effects[self-hypnosis and alienating potential allies].

Let me take this a step further and spell out the ongoing paradox that has now become obvious to me. You do not walk your talk. You continually pay lip service to 'receptivity' but all you do is dominate these threads with the same old drivel. Your continual putdown of 'men' has led me to believe that an internal obstacle has frustrated you to the extent that you have given[gave] up on yourself. There actually is no such thing as patriarchy or matriarchy. They do not exist alone and are merely polarity points on the same wheel. Both are needed and healthy animals have access to both.

I suggest you begin to learn to love your masculinity and femininity as polar aspects of the same energy. Try this: When you have a judgment such as: "men are bad" as soon as possible follow it up with "men are good". When you are able to reduce the interval[timelag] to 0 you will then access a third point of awareness and you may begin to go beyond duality.

'I am a woman at heart using this male body'. This sounds an awful lot like a twisted reincarnation of original sin. The art of a beautiful personality is the ability to dominate and submit - effortlessly slipping back and forth and not getting attached to either.

So much mush about the evil patriarchy and the amazing matriarchy. The advent of agriculture created surplus and with it hierarchal class systems, towns, cities, wars etc. Agriculture is a matriarchal invention (see: Escape from the Nineteenth Century by Peter Lamborn Wilson) We are where we are because of human interaction with this particular g class planet.

In conclusion: If you can recognize how difficult it is for you to be 'receptive' you may gain insight into how hard it is for the rest of us[both men and women have this prob by the way]. Having found the inherent contradiction within the flotsam of your unedited, unpolished diatribes[yeah, there's a few exceptions which prove the rule], I can now go to sleep.

These are some concepts I've been 'playing with’ over the years. You are a perfect lab rat and I thank you for being honest with your contradictions and [maybe too]generous with your words. Hope you don't mind. Happy Patriarch Day!

I was feeling tired and about to hit the hay when I opened this thread. It woke me up enough to respond now rather waiting until the morning.

1. I use the word "womam," not "womyn" with a clear purpose in doing so.

2. To imply that I am looking for Uncle Tom as a method of introspection is an unwarranted assumption. I am not a black man trying to pass as white. I am not a white man trying to pass as something I am not.

3. Because I use a label like patriarchy does not mean that the label is useless. It may in fact unlock loads of truth. If someone labels me as a labeler, that person may be using a label to avoid facing truth.

4. To say I have "fallen asleep" or have lost "ability to learn" is another prejudicial false assumption.

5. To say I am not in "concrete reality" assumes that reality is concrete which I disagree with. Nothing is set in concrete. Reality is multidimensional, physicality being only a very thin slice.

6. To disbelieve that "your mind is pulling your body," and that it is "supposed to be the other way around" is a particular belief but not one that I share. Such a belief is materialistic and reductionist to the physical in the extreme.

7. To discredit "creed before deed" is another horse of the same color. See number 6.

8. Mike, you correctly assume that my intentions are good but to say I use them as a "bludgeon" is a false assertion without any supporting evidence.

9. Your assertion that I do not "walk my talk" is contradicted by my walk and my talk. I walk and I talk. I ran for council. I speak truth to power at council. I gather signatures. I write here and elsewhere. I love people especially when I tell them things they would rather not hear.

10. You assume things which are simply not true. You claim I "dominate these threads with the same old drivel." I am not even an author so how can I dominate? I respond to what others bring up. As for drivel, one's person's drivel is another's dinner. It's a matter of taste and you are welcome to yours.

11. As for my supposed "putdown of men": when a class of people acts in ways that warrant the term "putdown," it is justified. Take war as just one example. With some exceptions, men have been warriors and have caused untold pain to non combatants, especially womem and children. On the other hand, men are mostly wimps who refuse to say anything about the cruelty that other men cause out of fear of retaliation. To assume that I have "given up on myself" or am not a man is unjustified psychologizing.

12. The biggest defense that patriarchy uses is denial that it even exists. This denial is contradicted by a vast accumulation of evidence to the contrary. The statement that "There is no such thing as patriarchy or matriarchy" illustrates my point. It may be true that they are "polarity points on the same wheel," but to deny that the wheel is completely out of balance is blind denial of the facts. Furthermore, if they don't exist, how can they be polarity points?

13. I never said that "men are bad." Men by and large are patriarchal which is a systemic disease that threatens the survival of the planet. To deny it is to infected with this disease. Please distinguish between men as individuals and the system of patriarchy.

14. I have no idea of what you are referring to by a "twisted reincarnation of original sin."

15. I never mentioned "amazing matriarchy" which in your use has sarcastic vibes but I do know much about patriarchy, and in almost all respects it deserves the appellation of evil.

16. This is the first I ever heard that "agriculture is a matriarchal invention." (Peter Wilson) As a rule, men were the ones with superior strength to force their will on animals and to work the fields with plows. Womem tended their gardens and gathered food.

Thank you for your thought provoking post. I just happen to disagree with you, especially about patriarchy. Womem and men are destined to live in harmony. If that is ever to happen, we must know the truth of their relationship, not just assume that they are equal when they are not, neither in society as it is nor in ontology. Nothing is absolutely equal in nature; in that regard you are correct about body leading mind in some respects. Nature is our teacher but nature also includes mind. In my post above, I referred to basic natural events like womem's blood and their bodies (occasioned by the pink/blue thread). Based on body and mind, I believe womem are the superior sex, and until patriarchy (which you seem to deny exists) acknowedges that fact of nature and mind, we will never have peace because we are at war with natural existence. We have been living with patriarchal brainwashing for 7000 years so that is all most of us see. But it's not true! I will do my best to penetrate the smoke and mirrors.

Well, I must finally get to bed. I'll sleep on it. Perhaps I'll have more to say on this very interesting subject. Good night to all.

hey didj-

thanx for taking on blowhard #1.

when you find the strength could you do a repeat performance on blowhard #2, the fellow who claims to have invented everything, and seems to live beyond space-time.

you go, bardo-man!!

DL: Thanks for being a good sport and proving my point as well. Your patriarchal style of discourse continues to entertain me. I commend you for considering the possibility of being 'receptive' in the future.

'Whatever you resist, you embody" Dr. Hyatt

Well, live and learn. Yes, I must admit to being a blowhard, having a patriarchal bent and not being very receptive. Thanks for the info. If I'm blowhard #1, who is #2?

Do we have a consensus that patriarchy exists? I googled patriarchy; if wikipedia is to be trusted, patriarchy does exist but matriarchy does not.

Colors are natural facts. Are they used to manipulate? No doubt. Red and blue are based in nature. The question is who is doing the manipulating/programming and why? What is the consciousness behind colors and their use? Is nature herself manipulating us with her colors? Or is it that evil, bad boy patriarchy?

Why did patriarchy assign blue to itself? Did you ever think of that? Notice how I assume that patriarchy exists and it did in fact co-opt blue. Blue is a sky color, which exists above us, so naturally patriarchs would take it as their color. That's the lie you've got to catch. There is no natural basis for assuming that blue is male. That's subtle patriarchic programming which is now internalized in our genes.

However, red (or pink) is naturally associated with womem because of their natural blood flow, in turn associated with the moon. Concepts grounded in nature have a solidity and trustworthiness that patriarchal made up stories/concepts/lies do not. By using nature's logic, I come to interesting conclusions, like womem are superior, a concept no one wants to touch, it's so politically incorrect.

Anyway, I'm trying to mitigate my patriarchal blowhardedness by being more receptive. I'm really trying to hear what others say. The feedback I gather is that I talk too much, don't make sense, am weird, crazy, am boring, am a compulsive attention seeker, missed something in my childhood, etc. Oh, and on the other hand, I do have some who actually read what I write and some even like it. Go figure.

In short, wake up. There are good reasons for pink and blue. Just more cultural programming to overcome or submit to. BTW, I got that maxim about being stuck with what I resist; however, I can't help thinking that if I don't resist, I will also be stuck with it (like patriarchy). How many times have I used that word?

Thanks, evan, and all first and subsequent responders, for introducing this thread. In a couple of days, it'll be gone to archive heaven. This is a great learning forum. Beats sitting in a prison classroom. I'm open to all feedback. I can always learn something. Hey, that sounds receptive, which supposedly is a feminine trait. Damn that patriarchic programming.

Sorry, I got carried away. It's hard for an old dog to learn new tricks. I still want to know who is blowhard #2. There is some comfort in being #1. Peace, sisters and brothers.

--Dennis the Menace, Blowhard Patriarch #1

Dennis-
you do amaze me.
so many times i have wanted to bring attention to the notion that you are primarily driven by your need for attention.
and lo and behold, apparently you "sort of" know that about yourself.
so if you can somehow "work" with that, i suspect you will come closer to getting the love i suspect you need and really want.
so good luck

Dennis:

Just so you know, dr. phil is really evan in disguise. evan is projecting his own internal battles onto you. After all, evan is about the most narcissistic person on this post. Omega male internal struggles are often projected onto others as a way of attempting to shed their problems. evan's struggle appears to be manifesting into a breadth of questions relating to gender in society. What does it all mean??
Good luck in your quest!

Thanks for the input. Yes, I do need and want love; so perhaps all this posting is an indirect way to meet that need and want. Which raises the question: what is love and how is it obtained? A noble quest. Indeed.

thanks for sharing your creativity, lower case.
why people post under names that are not their own is a topic unto itself, but i assure you that the "dr phil" post was not mine.

you're right: "Omega male internal struggles are often projected onto others as a way of attempting to shed their problems." i'm sorry YOU think I'M the most narcissistic person on this post. i hope that analysis is free, cuz i ain't payin' for it.

Thanks one and all for the interesting discussion. I must say, though, that this blog, at least in its philosophical posts, is starting to remind me of the reality TV shows I hate where a bunch of strangers are thrown together on an island or a bus or a kitchen or wherever and start out all palsy-walsy and then become critical of others, and begin to take shots at each other until they either self-destruct or eliminate the supposed problem people and achieve some unity and camaraderie with the remnant. More often, though, they fight it out to the last man (or woman) standing. Why would someone want to reveal their most personal philosophical questions and opinions here knowing that anyone, hiding behind an alias, could cut them down with some mean-spirited words? I like to think I have a thick skin and can survive the dangerous ascent into the blogosphere. I'm sure I'll find out sooner or later if I hang out here long enough.

jerry, jerry, jerry...!!!

the patri-farti stinks,
his 'house' erected, reeks

the pants he soiled,
when mother earth despoiled

he hasn't changed in weeks!

"Every arguement is a competition for attention." Dr. Hyatt

'Why would someone want to reveal their most personal philosophical questions and opinions here knowing that anyone, hiding behind an alias, could cut them down with some mean-spirited words?' Lanny

"Sticks and stone can break my bones, but names can never hurt me [unless I let them]." Anonymous children's rhyme

Words actually never 'cut' anything. Who is the one that makes the lawn mean and green?

Good analogy, Mike, about the lawn needing to be cut to grow mean and green. Makes me think of the Commons in Boston and elsewhere during the Revolutionary War days where people gathered in a shared public space, like this blog, and grew a new democracy. I hope we are helping to build a new democratic dialogue here. As long as we keep it civil it should further all our development. BTW, I've never bought into the "names can never hurt me" line. Maybe they can't break our bones but they can still hurt if we're caught with our heart on our sleeve or our skin too thin. I guess that's our own fault if we let it happen. But, hey, bring it on. I enjoy the dialogue. Aun aprendo.

*Yawn!*

Seems like this thread started low and has spiraled downward.

not you Lanny.

may her light continue to refract, refine
. . . in eyes mine
the octaves of her voice ever expand
. . . harmonize with thine
her wind and water ever touch and connect
. . . each of us, divine!

~~~

update on the Mayan Elders Tour -- this weekend Sat & Sun in Sun City if you are free -- else the 30th in Ojai, and July 1st in Santa Barbara ..

http://www.lescarney.com/mayan_calandar.htm

http://www.sacredearthfound.org/events.shtml

http://www.shiftingages.com/about.html