Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10

Notes 1-11 | Note 12 | Notes 13-25

1. p. 212: "And nowhere has boomeritis flourished more than in cultural studies."

     Mark Jefferson continued (from Kim's notes):

      "Notice again that most of these 'Others of reason' are really the 'Others of myth'--the others of the mythic-agrarian structure (ethnocentric, mythic-membership, with an intensely ascending spirituality), which therefore tended to devalue nature, body, and woman. I am not denying these three Others. In fact, Up from Eden, written by one of our colleagues here at IC, was one of the first books to uncover these three others and their similar suppression (from Up from Eden, chap. 13: 'The point is that the oppression, repression, and/or exploitation of nature, body, and woman all occurred for the same reasons; nature, body, and woman were viewed as one entity, an entity to be suppressed. Put differently, all three were substitute sacrifices of and by the male ego--the same substitute sacrifice'). Unfortunately, this repression has been misunderstood by the various schools of feminism to date--all of which are first-tier schools. We believe that only an integral, second-tier feminism can accurately address the 'cause' and 'cure' of this particular Otherness (it turns out not to be due to repression proper, but to lack of emergence, as we will discuss later; see especially lecture/chapter 7 and its notes). The point is simply that, in any event, these three others are largely the Others of myth, not reason. In fact, it was only with the coming of worldcentric, postconventional, orange, formal rationality (which, incidentally, was patriarchal) that these Others could start to be derepressed, a derepression that advances with postformality. Ascribing this particular repression to Descartes's monological gaze is absolutely ridiculous. (See Sidebar E: 'The Genius Descartes Gets a Postmodern Drubbing.')"

      Kim's margin notes say, "See note 9 for lecture 4, and note 4 for this lecture. See also Up from Eden; Sex, Ecology, Spirituality; A Brief History of Everything; and Wilber, subheading 'The Relation of the Three "Others" (Body, Nature, Woman) to the Great Traditions,' in the chapter 'Paths Beyond Ego in the Coming Decades,' in Walsh and Vaughan (eds.), Paths Beyond Ego."

2. p. 213/14: "To its credit... this version of postmodernism was attempting to undo the universal formalist accounts that had harshly imposed one privileged scheme on all of history."

     Mark Jefferson added (from Kim's notes): "This does not mean that history follows no schemes, only that multiple perspectives, multiple contexts, and second-tier constructions are more likely to disclose them (i.e., postformal is more adequate than formal to capture the holonic and contextual nature of history's fluid schemes). Feudal mythology (blue) and modernist rationality (orange) both imposed their own schemes on history's flow--as, of course, did the pluralistic green meme, nowhere more so that in claiming that it wasn't. Second-tier integral constructions also make their own impositions, but more delicately and self-consciously, and most of all they do not deny that history's multiple patterns (both subjective and objective) are somehow there, even though second-tier's own interpretations also add to those given patterns in ways not always found in the patterns themselves. Integral historiography takes all of that into account, even in its own movements. See Sidebar A : 'Integral Historiography.'"

3. p. 215: "For example, without exception, every single societal type... had some degree of slavery."

     Kim's margin notes: "Lenski, Nolan, and Lenski, Human Societies."

4. p. 216: "But as 'bad' as formal rationality can be... prerational cognition supports only egocentric and ethnocentric perspectives."

     Mark Jefferson continued (from Kim's notes):

      "As Dr. Fuentes pointed out in lecture [chapter] 4, rationality, both ontogenetically and phylogenetically, can repress prerational/preformal impulses, feelings, and emotions (for more about these repressions, oppressions, and resultant pathologies, individually and socially, see Up from Eden, Transformations of Consciousness, The Eye of Spirit, Integral Psychology).

      "But the point is that those prerational, preconventional structures do not contain postformal pluralism and postconventional perspectives; and thus when it comes to exclusionary practices, those prerational, preconventional structures are much less inclusive, less encompassing, and less caring than rationality in either its formal or postformal capacities. The claim that prerational, preconventional, preformal structures are somehow more encompassing, more caring, more emancipatory, in themselves, than formal structures, is the essence of the pre/post fallacy that characterizes retro-Romanticism and much of cultural studies--and lies at the very heart of boomeritis.

      "Furthermore, much of the repressive/oppressive nature of rationality is not inherent in reason itself, but is the product of reason being hijacked by prerational impulses and stages. Auschwitz is not the product of rationality; Auschwitz is the product of a mythic-ethnocentric worldview commandeering the products of rationality for its own agendas. Once again, many of the 'Others of reason' are really the 'Others of preformality' or the 'Others of myth.'"

5. p. 222: "'Do these feminists really think women are that stupid?' she thundered."

     From my journal, a discussion with Carolyn, Chloe, Scott, Vanessa, Kim:

      "Chloe, I'm serious. Don't you ever feel oppressed by males?" I asked.

      "But in what way? Are males physically stronger than me? Sure. Do they seem more crazy ambitious than me? Much of the time. Are they sexually, or I should say genitally, more insanely driven? Yup. Are they more obsessed with work than relationships? Seems like it. And so if I enter any race that is run according to those values, then I am probably going to lose. And so what? The only way I can feel oppressed or cheated or held down is if I buy those values in the first place, and I don't buy them, so I don't feel oppressed."

      Vanessa had her own reasons for being suspicious. "Radical feminists make a sharp distinction between male and female ways of knowing; they say that they value the feminine modes more than the masculine; but then they claim oppression when they don't have equal access to the masculine modes. But you can't have it both ways. It's self-contradictory, it's just victim chic, and no, I don't buy it. It's degrading to females."

      "That's not what radical feminists are saying," Carolyn objected. "Liberal feminists, or first-wave feminists, say that there are no significant differences between men and women, and therefore everybody should be treated equally. But radical feminists, or second-wave feminists, claim that there are in fact major differences between the sexes, and that the human race is completely screwed up because the male values have dominated to the exclusion of female values--that's the meaning of patriarchy. So they just want the scales to be more balanced, that's all."

      "Yes, but what does that actually mean?" complained Vanessa. "Does that mean that we are supposed to put more women into positions of power? But what if many women don't want to play power games? What are we supposed to do, get rid of positions of power altogether? The only way to do that is to get rid of males. Because according to the radical feminists, males are intrinsically power-driven. So the only other option would be to force males to adopt female values as defined by the radical feminists. Now that would be a real nightmare. All that would do is declare a war on boys, which has in fact already happened." Carolyn had been reading a book by that title, The War on Boys, and while she didn't agree with all of it, she said there was enough credible evidence in it to convince her that, for whatever reasons, the green meme in America had a relentless animus to the Y chromosome.

      "Oh please," said Carolyn. "What it means is that this society would move from a ranking society to a linking or a partnership society, with males and females working together."

      "That is just more of your own green-meme power drives," said Scott. "You're just trying to ram your green values down everybody's throat, and you have the nerve to call that 'peaceful partnership.' You won't let red be red, you won't let blue be blue, you won't yet orange be orange--you want all of them to be green, just like you. Talk about swallowing your parents' boomeritis! I mean, forget it."

      "That's not it, either," Carolyn protested. "You guys are so unfair, you won't even listen. Radical feminists are saying that male values have already crushed the female values, particularly those of body, earth, nature, relationships. And the entire society and the planet is suffering horribly for it. So we are just asking that the playing field be leveled and that these values be balanced and honored."

      "No, you still don't get it," Scott heatedly replied. " Who is going to level the playing field? The very desire to do so is a type of male intervention, a dominating, engineering of society--it's just male values hidden in female rhetoric."

      "But why can't women have equal access to male values?"

      "They can," Vanessa stepped in, "but then you must stop claiming that women inherently have different values. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. That's the real problem with the radical feminist approach, however well-intentioned. One the on hand, the claim is that men and women intrinsically have different ways of knowing (abstract vs. immediate), different modes of being (agentic vs. communal), different types of identity (dissociated vs. embodied), a different mode of self (separative vs. permeable), and, in general, speak in a different voice (autonomous vs. relational)--and so, for example, males have an intrinsic advantage in analytic, agentic, autonomous endeavors, while women have an intrinsic advantage in relational, communal, embodied endeavors.

      "Now all of that may be true. But, on the other hand, the claim is then made that women should have equal access to the realms that tend to be heavily populated by males due to the intrinsic male advantage in the values that govern those realms. That is, virtually all human activities should be populated by 50% women. But the only way to do that is to actually cripple the males in those fields, because according to the first tenet of radical feminism, males on average have an intrinsic advantage in those values (e.g., in calculative analytic thinking, which is crucially important in fields from engineering to being CEO of a corporation). In other words, women want access to their intrinsic values, AND equal access to male values--a complete self-contradiction and a prescription for social engineering of the worst imaginable sort.

      "When that insurmountable problem is pointed out, many radical feminists revert to liberal feminism: they say that the differences between male and female are all socially constructed and learned, and therefore we can teach entirely new role models, so that both men and women can have equal access to each other's values. But since some of the sexual differences between males and females are biological and not merely cultural (e.g., men universally have a Y chromosome, women universally do not), then this form of liberal feminism is forced to see every sexual asymmetry as being created merely by oppression and marginalization, and once that elemental error has occurred, then you can only proceed by attacking and attempting to hobble male values in general--the social equivalent of biologically castrating males. Most sane men and women intuitively realize that disaster for what it is."

      "There might be a way out," Kim suggested.

      "Yes?"

      "Fuentes and her colleagues are working on an entirely new approach that brings together all of the schools of feminism--they call it Integral Feminism."

      "You'd never know it from her sarcastic tone," said Carolyn.

      "Well, look whose sensitive little green self is showing," Scott declaimed.

      "Here's the simple fact that you won't acknowledge, Scott, a fact that drives most feminist consciousness. Males have power over females. That's it. And in any sort of democratic society, that is radically unfair. You keep ignoring this simplest, most unavoidable fact, and you get all involved in rhetorical arguments that don't mean anything. Males have power over females, and we are trying to redress that inequality, period."

      "Oh really? What kind of power, for instance?"

      "Many feminists feel that the ultimate power is the power of rape. Or in general, the power of physical assault. Women live in constant threat of physical assault."

      "So do we," said Scott. "Most of us males, especially us skinny intellectuals, live in constant threat of having the crap beat out of us. My entire high school years were lived in terror of Marcus Damien, the big prick. He beat me up twice, really bad. I used to come to school an hour early to get to class first so I could avoid him. Tell me, Carolyn, how many times were you physically assaulted in high school?"

      Carolyn stared at him silently.

      "Right. None, zero. You see, you again make it out like your complaints are somehow suffered only by women. Physical assault is not a gender issue."

      "But men assault women much more than women assault men, and that is the whole problem! Why can't you see the obvious?" Carolyn groaned.

      "Actually," Kim interjected, "it's the other way around. Have you seen 'Eight Myths about Men' [note 8 below]? It's by Warren Farrell, the only man elected three times to the National Organization of Women. He's a member of IC. I have a copy here, I'll read this: 'More than 50 studies of domestic violence have asked both sexes about the degree to which they experienced everything from being slapped to being stabbed. Each study independently came to one of two conclusions: either that women and men batter each other about equally; or women batter men slightly more than men batter women.  Women are the more likely initiators at every level of severity of violence.'"

      "Okay, see, Carolyn," Scott retorted angrily, "your whole argument falls apart."

      Kim again stepped in. "I think that Integral Feminism will save the day. According to integral feminists, there are indeed differences between the 'voices' of men and women. Men do tend to be more agentic, analytic, abstract, and women more embodied, communal, and relational. But both men and women develop through the entire Spiral of development, so that there are male and female versions of red values, male and female versions of blue values, and orange values, and green, and so on.

      "So the real problem is not that male values have crushed female values, but that both male AND female values of all of the first-tier memes cause absolute nightmares, each in their own ways. What we need is not more female values--first-tier female values are ultimately just as partial, broken, and fragmented as first-tier male values. What we actually need are more male values and female values at second tier. The problem is not male versus female, but second tier versus first tier--and first-tier female values are every bit as destructive, in their own ways, as first-tier male values. Radical feminists, in promoting first-tier female values, are promoting exactly those values that resulted in the worst problems now facing the planet. All of the schools of feminism to date are first-tier schools, which are actually a big part of the problem, not the cure."

6. p. 223: "Radical feminist Alison Jaggar agrees and notes that any theory of a special 'woman's standpoint' must be able to 'explain why it is itself rejected by the vast majority of women.'"

     Kim's margin notes: " A Nation of Victims, p. 180." Carla Fuentes then said, "From The Beauty Myth to Gyn/Ecology to The Creation of Patriarchy, women have been portrayed by feminists as victims of clever, aggressive, domineering, pathological males. Now Susan Faludi, in Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, brings this line of thinking to its logical conclusion: the men themselves are also victims. Now not one of us--male or female--is responsible, and all of us are victims: the end-game of boomeritis."

7. p. 229: "We call this 'all-quadrant, all-level' feminism... the entire spiral of development."

     Carla Fuentes added, "See The Eye of Spirit, chapter 8, for a discussion of integral feminism. As far as we can tell, this is the first work in history on integral feminism." Kim's margin notes say, "Cool book!"

8. p. 229: "As it is now, the green-meme feminist looks at history... she assumes that these wonderful values were being oppressed, instead of realizing that they simple had not yet emerged."

     Carla Fuentes continued (from Kim's notes): "Let me share with you something from a book written by one of our IC members. His name is Warren Farrell, the book is The Myth of Male Power. As many of you know, Warren is the only man ever elected three times to the Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW), where he initially reflected the party line of the professional bureaucratic feminist. But then he started extensive research on each of the claims of boomeritis feminism and found they simply did not hold up to scrutiny. And he furthered discovered just what I suggested, that professional feminism today is often degrading to women, not just to men. Let me read you only one example from The Myth of Male Power. The question is, are women 'oppressed' in our society?, as constantly claimed by professional feminists. Warren Farrell:

     Men who are heads of households have a net worth much lower than heads of households who are women. No oppressed group has ever had a net worth higher than the oppressor.

      It would be hard to find a single example in history in which a group that cast more than 50% of the vote got away with calling itself the victim. Or an example of an oppressed group which chooses to vote for their "oppressors" more than it chooses to have its own members take responsibility for running. Women are the only minority group that is a majority, the only group that calls itself "oppressed" that is able to control who is elected to every office in virtually every community in the country. Power is not in who holds the office, power is in who chooses who holds the office.

      Women are the only "oppressed" group to share the same parents as the "oppressor"; to be born into the middle class and upper class as frequently as the "oppressor"; to own more of the culture's luxury items than the "oppressor"; the only "oppressed" group whose "unpaid labor" enables them to buy most of the fifty billion dollars worth of cosmetics sold each year; the only "oppressed" group that spends more on high fashion, brand-name clothing than their "oppressors"; the only "oppressed" group that watches TV during every time category more than their "oppressors."

      Feminists often compare marriage to slavery--with the female as slave. It seems like an insult to women's intelligence to suggest that marriage is female slavery when we know it is 25 million American females who read an average of twenty romance novels per month, often with the fantasy of marriage. Are feminists suggesting that 25 million American women have "enslavement" fantasies because they fantasize marriage? Is this the reason Danielle Steele is the best-selling author in the world?

      Never has there been a slave class that has spent so much time dreaming about being a slave and purchasing books and magazines that told them "How to Get a Slavemaster to Commit." Either marriage is something different from slavery for women or feminists are suggesting that women are not very intelligent. (p. 40)

     Carla Fuentes continued: "Well, that is exactly what the professional feminist is suggesting, yes? That most women are stupid sheep. Needless to say, I disagree entirely with these bureaucratic feminists.

      "Likewise for the males as pigs. Surely you will have noticed that in the humanities departments at most universities nowadays, there is a subtle or not-so-subtle war on males, a quietly pervasive hatred of the Y chromosome. What is so sad about this is how one generation, in this case the Boomers, has foisted its prejudices on its successors, in this case you!

      "We recommend, for example, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; Nancy Etcoff, Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty; Nadine Strossen (president of the American Civil Liberties Union), Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights; Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men; and Rene Denfeld's wonderful The New Victorians: A Young Woman's Challenge to the Old Feminist Order--that is, a young woman's challenge to the aggressive dominance of Boomer (i.e., boomeritis) feminism, a book that concludes, 'For women of my generation, feminism has become as confining as what it pretends to combat'--exactly the point of my lecture today.

     "Now, of course, none of the those particular books are yet integral, so we are not endorsing entirely their points of view. But they help clear the ground by deconstructing some of the many forms of boomeritis feminism so dominant today. For the sad fact is, feminism in the hands of boomeritis became a real piece of work. The many good tenets of feminism were taken up and injected with a dose of narcissism that, attempting to account for its own lack of triumph in the world, decided it was the world's fault. And the world was the world of males, period. Latching onto the panoply of boomeritis tools--from social constructivism to Foucauldian genealogy to deconstruction--boomeritis feminism produced treatise after treatise on the sheepification of women and the pigification of men, thus ascribing to all females the lack of intelligence and lack of strength with which emotional narcissism greets the world, and ascribing to all males the lack of care and lack of love that resides in every narcissist's heart."

      Carla Fuentes paced the stage. "As for a truly integral feminism, we recommend Lesa Powell's book: Fifteen Feminist Fairly Tales: How Boomeritis Feminism Fucked Females. And Carla Fuentes: Kissing the Old Order Good-Bye: When Integral Feminism Can Be Heard. Also the first theoretical outline of integral feminism, The Eye of Spirit. Also watch out for material by Willow Pearson, Karin Swann, Jenny Wade, Joyce Nielsen. These are all works by members of Integral Center.

      "Finally, I mentioned Warren Farrell's books. Warren, a member of IC, recently gave a lecture here entitled 'Eight Myths about Men Perpetrated by Boomer Feminists.' Here is a handout summarizing his talk, with references to the books of his which pursue each point in more detail:

Eight Myths about Men
by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

Myth 1--Historically, men have been first-class citizens; women have been second-class citizens

     It is true that women have been classified as property in many cultures, which would seem to imply second class citizenship; it is also true that men were expected to die before their property was hurt, which would seem to imply third class citizenship. People expected to die in war were more likely to be poor than privileged; more likely to be men than women. People expected to die at work were more likely to be poor than privileged; more likely to be men than women. Similarly, in the 18th and 19th centuries, if his wife was insulted, a man was expected to challenge the man who insulted her to a duel, thus warning the world that protecting a woman from an insult was worth a man's life. Obviously, it is not the normal definition of second class citizenship to have a first class citizen available to kill anyone who should insult you.

     Historically speaking, neither sex had rights except insofar as the rights were related to responsibilities. If a wife spent more money than the man brought in, the husband went to debtors' prison; he had the right to try to prohibit her from spending, but the responsibility to possibly die of pneumonia in prison should she overspend. Historically, neither sex had power, both sexes had roles, and both sexes were slaves of sort to the other sex in the area in which they were expected to take responsibility.  Mothers enforced those roles within the home; fathers outside the home. The oppressor was no one--it was the need to survive. Rights were foreign to both our moms and dads--their life was about obligation and responsibility, not rights and options. Their goal was to make their children's life better than theirs, not be preoccupied with themselves, which is why hundreds of thousands of men indentured themselves for most of their lives--or gave their lives in the process--to bring their wives and children to America.

Myth 2--Men care more about sex than love

     A man does care more about sex than a woman, but that's no contradiction to him also caring at least as much as a woman about love. Men do, however, express their love more by action than by words. Women very rarely marry a man who they believe will always earn less than they will; a man who is in love will marry a woman even if he is expected to support her and support children from another marriage.  Similarly, if his wife is drowning, attacked, or trapped in a burning house, a man is much more likely to be willing to die for the possibility of saving her than vice versa. Giving of his life, either literally or via work, is a man's way of demonstrating love--to men, talk is cheap. Other ways are best explained in The Myth of Male and Why Men Are The Way They Are.

Myth 3--Men care about power, women care about love

     Men have misdefined power as "feeling obligated to earn money someone else spends while they die sooner." Men who didn't earn money, or have property or status did not receive love, respect or sex from women--or respect from men. So one motivation for men earning money or obtaining status was to "earn their way to equality" to women's love. Conversely, since women rarely gave their love to men who did not offer security, a woman's focus on love was also her way of focusing on her security. Thus, for men, reading a business book is also reading a relationship book (there will be no relationship if he doesn't have his business act together); and, for women, reading a relationship book is also reading a business book. In brief, both sexes care about both love and security, but history has taught them to obtain it in different ways. This is best explained in The Myth of Male and Why Men Are the Way They Are.

Myth 4--Women do two jobs, men do one

     Working wives work more hours inside the home than their husbands do, so it seems like they do two jobs to their husband's one job. However, while working women work 11 hours more per week inside the home, men work 16 hours more outside the home.  Beyond the work hours, men commute 2 hours more per week.  Additionally, housework studies are sexist because housework is a term that connotes more of what women do than what men do. For example, a man remodeling a room who is asked how much housework he did last week might say "none." In Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, I identify more than 50 areas of contribution to the home men typically make, almost none of which are measured by housework studies.

Myth 5--Men are more likely to batter a woman than a woman is to batter a man

     Women are much more likely to report domestic violence to police than men are; men who are victims rarely report it to the police. We only discover it from men when we ask men directly.   More than 50 studies of domestic violence have asked both sexes about the degree to which they experienced everything from being slapped to being stabbed. Each study independently came to one of two conclusions: either that women and men batter each other about equally; or women batter men slightly more than men batter women.  Women are the more likely initiators at every level of severity of violence. Even women acknowledge this in most studies, when directly asked.  However, when men hit women with a fist, more damage is done.  Women compensate by being more likely to throw something at a man--from a pot to boiling water--or hit him with an object when he is asleep or drunk.  All 50 of these studies are annotated and discussed in Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say.

Myth 6--Men earn more money than women do for the same work

     Actually, when true cohorts are compared--men and women with equal education, seniority, duties, and hours--women earn as much or more than men.

     In some situations, men do earn more money than women do, but not for the same work (for which men and women are paid essentially the same)--but rather for 25 different behaviors at work and for different choices as to the type of work they do (e.g., construction work, where they suffer some 95% of job-related deaths).  If men in reality earned a dollar for each 76¢ for the same work--a patent but popular myth--then any company that hired all men would soon be put out of business by a company hiring all women.  This is the subject of a book in progress, called 25 Ways to Higher Pay.

Myth 7--The seven-year difference between male and female life expectancies is largely biological

     Men in the U.S. in 1920 only lived one year less than women; today they live seven years less. The more industrialized the community, the larger the gap between the male and female life expectancy. Industrialization meant the male role did a better job providing better homes and gardens for women than it did to provide safer coal mines and construction sites for men. Prior to the 20th century, both sexes died of diseases that were contagious; plus women died in childbirth and men in war. Those led to only slightly longer life expectancies among women than men. In the 20th century, men and women's life expectancy was shortened largely by stress. As stress was the greater trigger, men became the first victim. Another factor increasing the life expectancy gap is the women's movement. Feminism has increased women's options--women's ways of feeling needed, respected, and loved. Nothing has done the same for men. As we have focused more on women good, men bad, our sons' suicide rate has increased and our daughters' decreased. Now boys in their early 20s are 6 times as likely to commit suicide as girls. By the age of 85, men are 1350% more likely to commit suicide. Life expectancy is more than biology. This is best explained in The Myth of Male Power.

Myth 8--If there's a divorce, women are more likely to love the children, men are more likely to be deadbeats

     One of the fastest growing demographics in the US is the increase in the last 20 years is the percent of single dads--from 10% to 19% of all single parents. All fathers' rights groups are fighting for the same thing--to be more involved with the children. Most men prefer joint custody should there be a divorce. A man's loss of contact with his children and former wife is so devastating that men are 10 times more likely than women to commit suicide after a divorce. Men become deadbeats mostly when they feel mom has badmouthed them to the children--when they feel they spend most of a weekend with the children overcoming distrust and then, once they've made a dent, the children return to mother again; they become deadbeats mostly when they feel they are valued only for their money--that when they have the children they are expected to babysit and follow mom's values or be found wrong.  Overall, men who have joint custody pay child support at more than the 90% level. When child support payments are awarded, men are twice as likely to pay as women. And we know that worldwide, children raised by single dads do better on every psychological, health and academic level than children raised by single moms. Men's role with children is largely defined by society. If men are deadbeats we must look at ourselves. This is the tip of the iceberg of Father and Child Reunion.

9. p. 229: "We here at IC are attempting instead to forge an integral feminism that acknowledges, includes, and joins all these memes into a rainbow harmony... the complete spiral of development."

     Carla Fuentes continued (from Kim's notes): "As Dr. Morin indicated, in this session we are focusing mostly on the problems, not the solutions, and therefore I have not been elucidating Integral Feminism as much as criticizing the inadequacies of the other schools of feminism. In an endeavor to construct a second-tier integral feminism, it is particularly important to distinguish just what is, and is not, imposed by various power structures--on males and females alike--and to responsibly redress cases of real oppression wherever possible. Many of you are familiar with Janet Chafetz's books, such as Sex and Advantage. She demonstrates that, using any number of quality of life scales, life for males in the patriarchy is worse than it is for females. But my point is straightforward: making assessments like that demands a careful cataloging of the actual needs and desires of males and females-- at each of the waves of consciousness--because male and female values and desires change dramatically from level to level of consciousness. It is ridiculous to make flat assertions of what either sex 'really wants' based on one-level ideology, whether of the blue-meme Right or the green-meme Left. A truly integral feminism is a multi-layered, multi-dimensional--all-quadrants, all-levels, all-lines, all-states, all-types--approach to being gendered at virtually every wave of development, drawing on responsible feminist research wherever possible.

      "We particularly find that the 'four quadrants' are helpful in integrating the many schools of feminism into a truly integral feminism. When we add the levels of development and the lines of development, we start to get a truly integral approach to feminism. For this, please see chapter 8--'Integral Feminism'--in The Eye of Spirit." Kim's margin notes say, "For other recommended reading, see note 8 for this lecture."

10. p. 231: "Newton's laws of gravity... were actually 'Newton's Rape Manual,' as one feminist announced."

     Van Cleef: "Granted monological science can distance, fragment, and disenchant the world, but only if it is viewed as the sole mode of knowing. Its own contributions, true but partial, are profoundly important, and have, for example, contributed immeasurably to the safety, longevity, and well-being of the postmodernists who have so aggressively attacked it."

11. p. 231: "'The falsely accused rapists... Those are good questions.'"

     Kim's margin notes: "Quoted in A Nation of Victims, p. 185."

Notes 1-11 | Note 12 | Notes 13-25