GENIUS FORUMS

.

The problem is not the pink.
The problem is the fear.


.

Carl G wrote:I've heard that in Victorian times in America it was the style to paint a baby boy's room pink and the girl's room blue. Now of course it is the opposite. The reasoning then was that pink is a more active color, and blue more subdued, making them appropriate for the intended gender.

According to Wikipedia, although today pink is associated with females and blue with males, the generally accepted rule in 1918 was that pink was for boys and blue was for girls, for the reasons Carl stated. article
Therefore it seems to me that anyone today insisting that pink is highly feminine is simply being herdly.

I do have a theory about how the gender association with colors got changed.

Parakeets, or budgerigars, have been bred in captivity since the 1850s Of course they were not common pets at very first, but as time went by they were more and more common as domesticated pets. The way to determine if the bird is male or female is if the cele, or skin above the beak, is blue, it is a male bird, and if it is pink, it is a female bird. I have also noticed that the male bird's feet tend to be blue, while the female bird's feet tend to be pink. Therefore I suggest that it was some bird-brained person who decided that pink is for females and blue is for males.

David Quinn wrote:I had assumed that the feminine association with pink was to do with flowers. Flowers are decorative. They present an alluring appearance and passively wait for the insect to be attracted to it - which is very similar to how female humans operate with respect to males.

A guy wearing pink thus looks strange because he seems to be playing a feminine, passive role - e.g. trying to look alluring and cute.

Although some flowers are pink, many more are yellow, red, violet - pretty much any color that there is, there is a flower of that color.

Other things in nature that are pink include earthworms and rat's tails. What sexual organ most resembles an earthworm or a rat's tail? That does not seem very feminine to me.

The sky during sunset or sunrise is pink, and the ancient consideration was "Mother Earth and Father Sky" - so here, the masculine would be pink or blue, and feminine would be green, grey, or brown.

Sorry Elizabeth I referenced you without fully articulating why. The way I stated it before made it seem that I didn’t consider you genuine. That is not the case I just consider you an anomaly. I wonder why (as a woman) you don’t render their half assed attempts at discrediting femininity (and women) as bogus. In fact it appears to me that you mostly agree. As if balance and diversity are not necessary elements of existence and the totality. I have many friends who are women but prefer the company of men and generally detest other women – do you fit in this category? Or maybe I just don’t know enough about your history on this forum and I am misunderstood.

Adam,

Yes, it would be fair to say that most of my friends have been males, and most of my female friends didn't usually get along with other females. It was only after I got married that I gained an appreciation for females, and it was only close to the end of my marriage that I started gaining a fear and distrust of males in general. Despite that I had experienced ugliness from many more males than just my ex, it didn't really start to sink in until then - and didn't deeply sink in until an incident of sexual harrassment at my last job, which ultimatly turned out to be unproscecutable due to the protection the guy gets from female members of management. Although I am open about my life, I don't really let anyone of either gender get too close to me now. Those who are the closest though are males, and they had to earn every inch they got.

In September I did battle their discrediting of femininity, and from time to time there are still aspects that I disagree with and battle as they come up - but I battle with logic and an appreciation of Reality - which are their tools as well, so I have respect for that. At first I thought that I could at least prove my point by being an example of a reasonable, logical female. That didn't make much of a point because they did not consider all females to be what they call "woman." Although I still consider their vocabulary regarding woman and femininity to be unfortunate at best, and some of their concepts illogical, they have also made some valid points and expanded my views on some issues (not all of which they intended to teach me, as it was from this board that I gained a much deeper distrust of males) - so because of the increasing awareness available from being here, I'm still here.
.

Elizabeth wrote:

According to Wikipedia, although today pink is associated with females and blue with males, the generally accepted rule in 1918 was that pink was for boys and blue was for girls, for the reasons Carl stated. article

Therefore it seems to me that anyone today insisting that pink is highly feminine is simply being herdly.

It is simply recognizing a social reality. Pink is definitely associated with the feminine nowadays.

The way pink is associated with femininity nowadays is similar to the way blue was associated with femininity back in 1918. According to the Wikipedia article, blue was thought of as being "more delicate and dainty", which is similar to the way pink is thought of today. The colours, as symbols, might have changed, but the meaning these symbols convey hasn't.

I do have a theory about how the gender association with colors got changed.

Parakeets, or budgerigars, have been bred in captivity since the 1850s Of course they were not common pets at very first, but as time went by they were more and more common as domesticated pets. The way to determine if the bird is male or female is if the cele, or skin above the beak, is blue, it is a male bird, and if it is pink, it is a female bird. I have also noticed that the male bird's feet tend to be blue, while the female bird's feet tend to be pink. Therefore I suggest that it was some bird-brained person who decided that pink is for females and blue is for males.

It probably has more to do with 1950's culture, the stay-at-home wife, potpourri, roses, etc.

Although some flowers are pink, many more are yellow, red, violet - pretty much any color that there is, there is a flower of that color.

Other things in nature that are pink include earthworms and rat's tails. What sexual organ most resembles an earthworm or a rat's tail? That does not seem very feminine to me.

The sky during sunset or sunrise is pink, and the ancient consideration was "Mother Earth and Father Sky" - so here, the masculine would be pink or blue, and feminine would be green, grey, or brown.

None of this matters. Pink is merely a symbol, and a symbol can be made to mean anything. If the symbol becomes associated in people's minds with flowers, passivity, decoration, delicacy, allure, etc, than it is only a hairs breadth away from being associated with women and femininity.

-

Alyosha wrote:

I wonder why (as a woman) you don’t render their half assed attempts at discrediting femininity (and women) as bogus.

What's an example of one of these "half-assed attempts"? From my point of view, whatever discreditation of the feminine I have engaged in has been fully thought-out.

As if balance and diversity are not necessary elements of existence and the totality.

Does this mean you want evil to flourish, for the sake of violence and diversity?

When you analyze it, the word "balance" doesn't really mean anything. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. What one person thinks is "balanced", another thinks is all askew, and vice versa. As such, it is a thoroughly useless concept.

As for diversity, the Universe will always remain incredibly diverse, even if the feminine were to be entirely limited. It won't be missed.

If cancer was to be eliminated from the world no one will miss it, and the Universe will be just as diverse as it ever was. The same is true of the mental cancer, which is femininity.

-

David Quinn wrote:It is simply recognizing a social reality. Pink is definitely associated with the feminine nowadays.

How is this different from recognizing the social reality that females who do not wear makeup are considered unprofessional looking?

Elizabeth, I would say the difference lies in extent, not in type.

At the lowest level, one recognizes the symbols the herd uses; next, one accepts the symbols as valid and uses them when necessary; and finally, one bases his life around them.

Alternatively, one can reject the symbol, but this can be dangerous if the symbol is accepted widely.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:At the lowest level, one recognizes the symbols the herd uses; next, one accepts the symbols as valid and uses them when necessary; and finally, one bases his life around them.

Nick Treklis wrote:The only reason anyone would wear the color pink is to look cute, it's so obvious.

"bases his life around them" - So, if one needed a new shirt, and the one that was in the right make and size was pink, what? Or if someone gave him a pink shirt for his birthday, wouldn't treating the pink shirt differently from any other color shirt be "basing his life around them" to a degree? Certainly as mush to a degree as a female putting on makeup before going to work.

David Quinn wrote:A guy wearing pink thus looks strange because he seems to be playing a feminine, passive role - e.g. trying to look alluring and cute.

He can't look like he was trying to get dressed that morning?

I seem to recall you writing that a sage would be unfashionable. Have you changed your mind?

How many loads of laundry does a sage do? Does he sort his laundry? If he is not concerned with fashion anyway, wouldn't it make sense to just do laundry whenever there is a load of clothes - whatever color the clothes may be?

What happens if the red clothes leak onto some lighter colored clothes, and now he has lots of pink clothes? What is a sage to do?

Eliza,

Or if someone gave him a pink shirt for his birthday, wouldn't treating the pink shirt differently from any other color shirt be "basing his life around them" to a degree?

Yes, he would be.

The degree that he treats the pink shirt differently is identical to the degree that he is basing his life around the colour. The three levels that I suggested were all degrees of the same thing: namely, being affected by the colour, or the makeup, or whatever the symbol is. Someone who is ignorant of the symbol (a blind man, for instance) is the one least affected.

Certainly as mush to a degree as a female putting on makeup before going to work.

Then again, tossing aside an unappealing shirt is less hassle than putting on eyeshadow. The issue, as far as I can tell, is to what degree worn aesthetic symbols change one's life: that is to say, how much time and energy is spent becoming presentable (and, also, how much time and energy is spent interpreting/judging others based on these symbols).

Elizabeth: Yes, I admit I too have found some logic and usefulness from the
"pro-masculine" vantage point of this forum. And I do remember you posting an interesting thread in the past discrediting their argument. I thank you for being personal, although this is a philosophy heavy forum and empirical evidence is not always deemed the most valuable source – it is for me. I need to imagine the human being behind the gender, behind the logic, behind the philosophy in order to fully comprehend what they are trying to communicate and why they are trying to communicate it.

Pink:
I dislike pink simply from an aesthetic perspective; it has nothing to do with gender. Really there is no motivation behind why I don’t wear pink other than a conscious selection of the color palate for the enhancement of my personal aesthetic.
As far as passivity is concerned I find that the true “masters” (as in physically, philosophically, or spiritually superior individuals) are often on the surface very gentle, passive, and patient. For instance I know a Taoist priest who is a Ph D in psychology and a grandmaster at various forms of martial arts (kung fu in particular). He is a true master by my definition because he has mastered many arts, many disciplines, and has made numerous highly impressive tangible contributions along with intangible philosophical contributions. On the outside he is a very passive, gentle, jovial, and receptive individual. But when action is required he can effortlessly dominate someone both physically (he is a badass in the truest form) and mentally (his acute sense of psychology allows him to easily assess a person and his philosophical foundation allows him to deliver logic like a death blow). His manifold superiority gives him the confidence to be passive and recessive (also it is much easier to assess a person by being passive). Overtly aggressive individuals (by my empirical evidence) are usually compensating for a lack of foundation in some aspect of themselves.

“What's an example of one of these "half-assed attempts"? From my point of view, whatever discreditation of the feminine I have engaged in has been fully thought-out.”

I was being aggressive when I made that statement, but certain discreditations I do consider largely opinion-based and not logic-based. Of course the overt “half-assed” examples more referred to statements about the color pink symbolizing the vagina trying to consume our world – which you didn’t say. I think you have some very insightful –well-thought opinions on the topic, but at times I also think you go overboard into a realm that to me is almost comical. That is the byproduct of extreme one-sidedness and the byproduct of being a unique individual as opposed to a universal one. I respect opinions when they are acknowledged as opinions and I respect truths when they are piercing and undeniable. But to me opinions are merely half-assed truths.

I don’t believe in evil so that doesn’t apply but the examples you provided ie cancer or the likes of Hitler is most definitely incomparable to femininity. Everything has its opposite; cancer and Hitler are on the extreme side of the spectrum so they are inherently caustic elements. But masculinity and femininity are mild and equally beneficial opposites. So I value them equally. Just as I value both night and day, rain and sunshine, sweet and sour, hot and warm, none of these elements are superior to the other.
Nature seeks balance, positively or negatively charged ions will actively pursue their opposite in an attempt to balance their charge. Miserable people are either incredibly driven people or they are defeatists, but their misery comes from a lack of foundation and a lack of balance. Whenever you try to eliminate something ie a terrorist, a virus or bacteria, a crop threatening whatever, in most cases something worse will take its place. To me the act of fighting against or elimination is an unbalanced act and creates an even more unstable reaction. So in my opinion, the best way is to neutralize the caustic agent by balancing the caustic agent until it is has a manageable charge. Another way is to strengthen your own foundation so it is balanced enough to resist the caustic charge of the undesirable. Balance is a foundation.

I'm sorry I said, "hot and warm" but I meant hot and cold. I was thinking of that passage in the bible "...because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." What a curious statement that is. But I have to admit I like it for some reason.

.

Trevor writes:

At the lowest level, one recognizes the symbols the herd uses; next, one accepts the symbols as valid and uses them when necessary; and finally, one bases his life around them.

Trevor, care to explain this so-called progression as a process of intelligence and not one of indoctrination, which is what it sounds like to me?


.

AlyOshA wrote:I'm sorry I said, "hot and warm" but I meant hot and cold. I was thinking of that passage in the bible "...because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." What a curious statement that is. But I have to admit I like it for some reason.

We like things for what they tell us about ourselves.

There is a famous teaching in Zen:

"When hot, be throughly hot. When cold, be throughly cold."

Steven:
Yes I do think it is telling of my personality. I am rarely ever luke warm about anything, I am either hot or cold depending on the circumstance. But ironically enough (considering your quote) there is this strange practice that I have seen Zen practitioners doing, they mix equal parts hot water with cold water and drink it (I think they think it contains energy). Here is a quote from Zen Master Wu Bong:

In science class in elementary school, one learns what happens if we connect two containers, one full of hot water, and another one full of cold water. When the containers are joined and the water can freely mix, very soon, even without stirring, the temperature will be uniform. The hot one becomes cooler, and the cold one becomes warmer. The hot water has more thermal energy. This energy seeks a level where it is equalized, seeks a kind of balance.

Zen Master Wu Bong continues:

We observe that everywhere in nature. At the forum some people said that this world is unbalanced. But, the world is always balanced. All of the environmental problems result in death, sickness, hunger. This is only correct. This is part of the balance equation. This is human beings' bad energy dispersing throughout our world container. That is also Buddha's teaching. Buddha taught us balance - in our life, how to make correct balance; in our mind, how to make correct balance; in our dealings with our family, with our friends, with the whole world, with the animals, the trees, the air, how to make correct balance.

Can anyone quote a Zen, Taoist, or Buddhist master that either speaks against balance or implies that balance is non-existent or unimportant?

Pye,

Trevor, care to explain this so-called progression as a process of intelligence and not one of indoctrination, which is what it sounds like to me?

Pye, it is exactly what it sounded like to you. It was a process of increasing indoctrination. I was agreeing that a reaction to pink clothing is of the same type as a reaction to makeup.

.

Okay, thankyou Trevor.

And so --

Trevor: Alternatively, one can reject the symbol, but this can be dangerous if the symbol is accepted widely.

-- to whom does this danger refer? - the indoctrinated or the clear-thinker? and what exactly do you mean by danger? -- that this is the lot of the iconoclast who is surrounded by those who are absorbed and indoctrinated to the symbolic?


.

Pye,

-- to whom does this danger refer? - the indoctrinated or the clear-thinker? and what exactly do you mean by danger? -- that this is the lot of the iconoclast who is surrounded by those who are absorbed and indoctrinated to the symbolic?

The danger refers to the clear-thinker. In particular, I had Elizabeth's example in mind, in women expected to wear make-up to work. When a woman refuses to wear make-up, she is in danger of losing the respect of her boss, or her job.

I guess this was unclear, especially since it is dangerous (on a spiritual level) to accept every symbol.

.

Yes, but you've cleared it all up for me with your response. I was just unable to make out from what position you had presented the schema.

And, of course, it's a "danger" every clear thinking person might quite cheerfully take on.


.

Alyosha,

Here is a quote from Zen Master Wu Bong:

I've never heard of Zen Master Wu Bong, and what you have posted here doesn't inspire me. It should be remembered that just because a person may be given the title of "Zen Master", it doesn't necessarily mean that he is enlightened and knows what he is talking about.

He may have been given the title simply because, like a lot of gurus out there, he knows how to feed people's egos and support their delusions. People tend to be very grateful towards those who can do that.

Wu Bong: In science class in elementary school, one learns what happens if we connect two containers, one full of hot water, and another one full of cold water. When the containers are joined and the water can freely mix, very soon, even without stirring, the temperature will be uniform. The hot one becomes cooler, and the cold one becomes warmer. The hot water has more thermal energy. This energy seeks a level where it is equalized, seeks a kind of balance.

We observe that everywhere in nature. At the forum some people said that this world is unbalanced. But, the world is always balanced. All of the environmental problems result in death, sickness, hunger. This is only correct. This is part of the balance equation. This is human beings' bad energy dispersing throughout our world container. That is also Buddha's teaching. Buddha taught us balance - in our life, how to make correct balance; in our mind, how to make correct balance; in our dealings with our family, with our friends, with the whole world, with the animals, the trees, the air, how to make correct balance.

Where does the Buddha teach this?

Alyosha: Can anyone quote a Zen, Taoist, or Buddhist master that either speaks against balance or implies that balance is non-existent or unimportant?

I don't recall any genuine sage mentioning the word "balance" in any of their teachings. That is how unimportant it is.

Usually, when a person emphasizes the value of "balance", they are doing it in order to speak against extremism. In effect, they are asserting that all forms of extreme human behaviour are necessarily deluded.

And yet the path to Truth is an extreme one. It involves the extreme option of abandoning all of one's attachments and becoming perfectly truthful. So the person who emphasizes the virtue of balance is actually speaking against the Truth. He is being anti-Truth.

-

David Quinn wrote:I don't recall any genuine sage mentioning the word "balance" in any of their teachings. That is how unimportant it is.

Chuang Tzu:

Life, death, preservation, loss, failure, success, poverty, riches, worthiness, unworthiness, slander, fame, hunger, thirst, cold, heat these are the alternations of the world, the workings of fate. Day and night they change place before us and wisdom cannot spy out their source. Therefore, they should not be enough to destroy your harmony. If you can harmonize and delight in them, master them and never be at a loss for joy, if you can do this day and night without break and make it be spring with everything, mingling with all and creating the moment within your own mind this is what I call being whole in power.

Hakuin also talks about preserving one's "vital elixir" in Wild Ivy. He locates it a few thumb-widths below the navel. Wouldn't that be symbolic of being "grounded" (in a way, balanced?)

Unfortunately i donated the book to the library 18 months ago, and they sold it, so i can't give the words verbatim.

.

Great stuff, xerosaburu.

Full marks, bro; there's a few things I hadn't thought of before. I did something like this a while back (minus the visual aids), but it was spiteful (semi-humourous) and way too nasty.

Not too sure about the sin reference, and I think passion can be used without resorting to sexuality, but these are my only two nitpicks.

Anyway, well done.