Scientology and Misogyny

Misogyny is described in Wikipedia as follows:

Misogyny /mɪ’sɒdʒɪni/ is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women. Misogyny has been characterised as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.

Misogyny within Scientology has been so prelavent that Wikipedia’s entry on the former includes a section on the latter:

Scientology

See also: Scientology and marriage

L. Ron Hubbard wrote the following passages in his 1965 book Scientology: A New Slant on Life:

“A society in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out.”

“The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs, since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women; it is a statement of bald and basic fact.”

These have been criticised by Alan Scherstuhl of The Village Voice as expressions of hatred towards women. However, Baylor University professor Dr. J. Gordon Melton has written that Hubbard disregarded and abrogated much of his earlier views about women, which Melton views as merely echos of common prejudices at the time. Melton has also stated that the Church of Scientology welcomes both genders equally at all levels from leadership positions to auditing and so on since Scientologists view people as spiritual beings.

Whether misogynist views are implanted along with Scientology indoctrination is an interesting question.  It would seem they are – at least on some level – for those who take the fundamentalist position that Ron is ‘Source’, and it is illegal and punishable to state or infer or consider that anything he uttered or wrote is ‘background’, ‘no longer in use’, or ‘historical’.

Regardless, there is little question that the church of Scientology and its 30-year-tenured supreme leader David Miscavige are so misogynist in practice as to qualify as anachronistic, if not outside of the law and boundaries of common societal mores on the subject of the sexes.  We will shed more light on that subject in the near future.

188 responses to “Scientology and Misogyny

  1. I’ll just repeat here briefly what I said in my facebook response to you Marty. LRH did obviously change his mind from those 1950s passages. In his actual practice, he appointed women to many top positions in Scientology management, including appointing a woman to be the first ED at my home org. I think Ron was pretty much ” gender and age blind” when he evaluated people. Though as I also pointed out, Big League Sales, which was instituted in 1973 into the orgs, had a number of extremely insulting and actually embarrassing passages about women in it.

    • Just a quick clarification: the passages Marty quoted weren’t 1950s, but were from 1965.

      • Actually, that quote is originally from *Science of Survival* 1951, with only slight alterations. (*A New Slant on LIfe* is a compilation of LRH essays and quotes.) Here’s the exact SOS quote:

        “A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out. The historian can peg the point where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women: it is a statement of bald and basic fact.”

        LRH also states the following in SOS, which sheds additional light on his perspective:

        “Even beyond the fathering and bearing and rearing of children,
        a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of theopposite sex. This relationship is the vessel where in is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. If man is to rise to greater heights, then woman must rise with him, or even before him. But she must rise as
        woman and not as today she is being misled into rising — as a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men which men themselves have become. Men are difficult and troublesome creatures — but valuable. The creative care and handling of men is an artful and a beautiful task. Those who would cheat women of their rightful place by making them into men should at last realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but the men and the children as well. This is too great a price to pay for being ‘modern’ or for someone’s petty anger or spite against the female sex.”

        .

        • Thanks for the quote. I find it ironic in view of the fact that in CoS, any woman with rank is addressed as “sir”. It always struck me as odd and sends a message, however subliminal, that in order for a woman to wield power in CoS she must become, to some degree, a man.

          • Thanks for the keen observation.

          • Kim and Marty, I was in the SO for over a decade and I must say that I never once got the feeling that a woman had to be like a man. As for the use of “Sir” for women execs, it was clear to me that the purpose was to give them the same respect accorded men. The word “Sir” just happens to be the one that is used in the military culture, which the SO was patterned after – and even in the general culture – to show respect.

            I think that the *Science of Survival* quote above shows that LRH was influenced by the culture of the 50’s but also shows that he gave credit to the unique qualities of women and wanted to preserve them rather than have women be like men. Just a few years ago, Dee dee Myers, former White House press secretary, also recognized those qualities in her book *Why Women Should Rule the World*.

            “In a video to mark International Women’s Day 2013, political analyst and former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers asks: What if women ruled the world?”

            Here’s the rest of the description of the video:

            “As a huge and growing body of research and experience makes clear, empowering women makes things better. Not perfect. But better. Business is more profitable. Governments are more representative. Families are stronger, and communities are healthier. There is less violence – and more peace, stability and sustainability.

            “Why? Well, it starts with the simple fact that women often experience life differently. And that experience affects the way we see problems – and think about solutions.

            “‘Diversity is absolutely an asset,’ says Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

            “‘With diversity you bring different ways of looking at the world, different ways of analysing issues, different ways of offering solutions. The sheer fact of diversity actually increases the horizon and enriches the thinking process, which is critical.’

            “‘I think it’s fair to say that women are a little more collaborative in their approach overall, and a little less driven to conflict as opposed to driven to working out problems,’ says Janet Napolitano, the US Secretary of Homeland Security.

            “Mary Robinson, President of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice (MRFCJ), says that women also bring an inter-generational perspective to their work. ‘We need to take decisions now that will make for a safer world for our grandchildren and their grandchildren, and I think women are more likely to do that when they come into positions of leadership.’

            • I should add that although women were called “Sir”, their uniforms were different from men’s and were clearly feminine by contrast. Also, women wore jewelry and generally were encouraged to look their best as women. So again, I never felt women were being asked to “become a man” in any obvious or subtle way. There are lots of things to complain about as regards the SO but this isn’t one that I was ever aware of.

              BTW, Marty’s former wife was D/IG (Deputy Inspector General), over all the RTC Reps at Flag and obviously the most senior exec on the base, and yet the way she carried herself came across as very womanly. Even little things, like the way she wore her hair, showed her femininity.

              • Mirildi: I agree appointment to a position was not based on gender. How women dressed or wore there hair is irrelevant. Neither point changes my mind about the use of the masculine in Scientology when addressing women. Sir and Mr. are terms for showing respect to a male. Ma’am and Mrs./Ms./Miss are the terms used to show respect to a woman.

          • Yes, that always bothered the hell out of me when I was in the Sea Org. I think that you have called it exactly right.

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

    • I’ve had the same observation in that some major execs were women in the LRH era. I thought there was some backsliding in the Miscavige era, though.

  2. Whatever Ron’s early views on gender roles, when I got into Scientology in the early 1970’s it was striking how many high-level management positions were filled by women, in sharp contrast to American society in general at that time.

    Of course now, Mr. Short Pope is a complete nut job regarding all aspects of the 2D, hating not just women but children, his own family members and anyone other than himself having a sexual relationship.

    • I imagine Ron’s views on gender posted above likely applied mostly to the wog woman, and not to the Scn woman. The wog woman isn’t under Ron’s control, but always the opportunist, Ron writes as “me too” so as to appear to be in line with the traditional conservative thinking of the day. However, the Scn woman “knows” and so has a greater responsibility and as such Ron will push the Scn to produce for him, male or female, young and old alike.

    • Couldn’t the whole forced abortion problem be “fixed” if women weren’t accepted for the Sea Org unless they had a tubal ligation and men weren’t accepted for the Sea Org unless they had a vasectomy?

      Sure, it would mean people would have to think it through before signing on. Sure it would mean minors couldn’t be recruited into the Sea Org (a change I’m all for, by the way). Sure, it would influence people’s urges to blow the Sea Org. Sure, it would surgically install a fixed, thousand-yard stare.

      But in a few years, there would be no forced abortions. And there would be no women routing out because they’re pregnant, and there would be no men routing out to follow their pregnant wives into the Real World ™.

      Of course, the Int Base would be as rife with STDs as modern retirement homes. But that would be a new problem, requiring harsh ethics and degrading imprisonment. Whoa! A new opportunity for Miscavige to suppress Sea Org members.

    • Nonsense! For example he even helped TC get wives.

      One thing just posted on ESMB is that his personal staff are
      all women. Though one non english name is ambivalent.

      Whats with that?

  3. Id say there is a tremendous degree of misogyny presently because you have forced abortions and disregard for the woman staffs health. Women have different bological needs than men and sometimes just need more rest (even if some dont wish to admit that, for different concepts about being strong vs vulnerable). In staff that doesnt count at all. Women just suffer through their biological issues, menopause, etc. If they are pregnant and not SO they have to show up for muster anyway, even if they have severe morning sickness; If that is not disregard for women then what is?
    This extends to children. If their parents are on staff ( not taking SO into account) they are second place or third or fourth… Ive seen little children running around an Org for years, having improvised nannys here and there, no schedule, sleep deprived and eating crap; just awfull. Such a rich Church and cant even create a decent daycare center for its personnel… Of course thats waaay to much to expect!

  4. Don’t you love the way Ron wrote….no matter whether it was opinion or not…if he felt strongly about it it was always a “fact”.
    I remember reading that quote early on in Scn. I also remember wanting to believe everything he said.
    Thank God we get wiser as we get older🙂

  5. Being in Scientology pre-1980, I have to report I neither experienced or observed incidences of misogyny. Women were treated as equal to men and definitely did the work of men. The atmosphere was better than in regular society where I experienced more discrimination regarding jobs.

    • I had the same experience as Gail in Scientology pre-1980. As a staff member, I was promoted as far as my abilities would go and the equal treatment was a breath of fresh air in comparison to the society at the time.

  6. Marty,

    That is a good subject.

    I don’t see where the article is in “New Slant”, but I do know that it is in the Science of Survival, end of ch 18, Sexual behavior and attitude towards children, book one, …. page 132 in my 1989 copy.

    And I read the Wikipedia write up sometime ago.

    What Hubbard said is very true. Truer words cannot be said.

    The criticism that Hubbard is misogynistic or the article is misogynistic is a mindless comment by mindless politically correct critics, and non thinking, irresponsible women and men.

    (Political correctness is a form of lying. The truth is not determined by who wins an argument, nor by beliefs and opinions, including public opinion polls. The truth is the truth. It exists independent and uneffected by anything. The truth will exist long after all arguers, believers and opinionators are gone.)

    There is no more important job, or career or responsibility in the world than motherhood and bringing up children right.

    We are all only as good as we have been bred and brought up.

    If you have a problem with a man or woman, a husband or a wife, a father or a mother, you have to go right back to their mother to find the cause of the problem.

    The woman who thinks that being “a stay at home mom” only means being in the kitchen, is a foolish woman. The same goes for any man who thinks the same.

    It is a full time job to bring a child up with it’s head screwed on right, a child who is taught about life, taught a noble character, and taught life skills and all that goes with it.

    Take an honest look at the deterioration of society all around us, all over the world.

    Look at all the people who are so emotionally malnourished and lacking in life skills ( they are empty inside) that they get so angry (that they cannot function in society successfully) that they get machine guns and go on shooting sprees killing many people.

    A society or a civilization is only as sane and stable, and intelligent as it’s mothers.

    I heard an interview on CBC radio many yrs ago, where the host was interviewing a woman from Africa, who wrote a book on this very subject.

    She was a very intelligent woman. She said (something to the effect) that women and mothers have to take responsibility for how her sons and daughters turn out.

    It is the mother’s responsibility to teach her sons how to be good men, good citizens, good husbands and good fathers. She said it is the mother’s responsibility to teach her daughters how to be good women, good citizens, good wives and good mothers.

    A society which fails to understand this is a civilization on it’s way out.

    Women’s liberation is the ultimate genocide.

    Dio

  7. PS. I want to add to my previous post that Hubbard’s words were for the love of women and civilization, the preservation of civilization.
    The critics are thinking backwards.

    His words were supported in “The way to happiness”.

    His words are true, even though, he contradicted them in practice.

    Every datum should be evaluated on it’s own merits.

    Like he said himself, the truth is not determined by authority.

    I add and repeat, that the truth is not determined by beliefs or opinions either.
    The value of a datum is determined by how many problems it solves and how well it solves them.

    Good motherhood will solve all our problems.

    The bible says something to the effect, that if you teach a child in the way he should go, when he gets old he will not depart.

    We are all a product of a conception and an upbringing.

    If you have a problem with the product you have to check the factory for the cause.

    Dio

    • This is what’s wrong, FATHERS have the same resposibilities.

    • I agree with you that good motherhood will solve all of our problems. But anyone you depend upon you become the effect of. Hubbard wrote that too, and that is true.

      In a society where women are not permitted to leave the home or provide, they are placed at the total effect of men and are made totally dependent upon them. So, if you have a man that abuses the dependency, it will not be possible to make for “good motherhood”.

      Little Girls
      Oh the happiness we can feel,
      little girls on scholastic wheels
      making every sentence rhyme
      touching words, keeping time.
      Little girls, they do not not mind
      the debt they carry for our kind,
      a tu tu and some patent leather,
      a uniform for any weather.
      This is the power we possess
      for tomorrow’s holiness.
      Yet, we guess and guess and guess
      – is she holy, or possessed?
      All the future we can know
      lies beneath her dancing toes.
      Any man to cause us harm
      lies hidden in her tiny palm.
      Every wise man who ever lived
      came from her want and whirl…
      If we care to heal the world
      raise men to care for little girls.

      • T.O.

        If you have a problem with a man. you have to check with his mother for the cause of problem.

        That is also what the woman author from Africa said, when I was listening to her being interviewed on the radio more than 20 yrs ago. Probably 1990. A very intelligent woman. She said that women bear responsibility for all the problem men in Africa.

        I repeat:

        A society or a civilization is only as sane and stable, and intelligent as it’s mothers.

        I heard an interview on CBC radio many yrs ago, where the host was interviewing a woman from Africa, who wrote a book on this very subject.

        She was a very intelligent woman. She said (something to the effect) that women and mothers have to take responsibility for how her sons and daughters turn out.

        It is the mother’s responsibility to teach her sons how to be good men, good citizens, good husbands and good fathers. She said it is the mother’s responsibility to teach her daughters how to be good women, good citizens, good wives and good mothers.

        A society which fails to understand this is a civilization on it’s way out.

        Women’s liberation is the ultimate genocide.

        The truth is not determined by authority, opinion, or beliefs, or who wins an argument.

        The truth is the truth.

        I doubt if the Hubbard we think we know was really the source of that article Marty referred to.

        There are more articles of that tone level and theta level.

        Dio

        • “T.O.
          If you have a problem with a man. you have to check with his mother for the cause of problem.”

          Dio, I understand how you can see this, this way. In the world I know, and in this particular realm of exploring the supernatural, one would check with a C/S, not the mother, to help sort out the cause of the problem.

          Speaking from my immediate viewpoint as a MOTHER, because I have put three young men upon this planet, I can say a mother is a PROVIDER, not a CREATOR. I only see myself as a provider. My successful action as a parent of three very success young men, has only been to stay in a condition above non existence. I find out what is wanted and needed, and I produce it.

          One day I will go into a condition of non existence with them. Because one day they will want more from a woman than a clean bed, and clean pair of pants, and an omelette with toast on the side, and a chauffeur. One day, they will be able to provide these things for themselves, if they are helped to become more able.

          I will not myself as the source of knowledge for problems other women may have with them. My hat, is to be a successful provider. Hopefully, the other women they will come to know, will not inherit my burden.

          In my own relationships with men, I have never burdened my mate’s mothers with my own knowledge of his “problems”. I inherited them for myself upon my own engagements with these men. And they were all very manageable. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

          Every relationship, is only manageable, to the degree that you can wake up every morning, find out what is wanted and needed, and do and or produce it.

          The day you wake up to discover you have found out what is wanted and needed, and you can NOT produce it, you might as well pack your bags. You have been given an unattainable goal. People’s wants and needs change. It is good to be able to experience not only change for yourself, but change for others.

          All of a person’s problems hinge about two things:

          1. Not being able to or not wanting to give what what is wanted and needed.

          2. Not being able to get or have what is wanted and needed.

          Otherwise we would all be in higher conditions of normal or above.

          You speak of conditions in Normal or above and what would a good “normal”.

          But not everyone’s wants and needs would be fulfilled, in your ideal.

          It should be up to individuals to work these things out for themselves and between themselves, without enforcement of “systems” that only satisfy a few.

    • Dio

      Did you realize that when you state such things as: “We are all a product of a CONCEPTION and an upbringing. If you have a problem with the product you have to check the factory for the cause.”, and other similar statements, you tread dangerously close to validating GENOCIDE?

      Eric

  8. Ps two,
    All our problems are due to unGodly breeding practices and unGodly lifestyle practices.

    We fail in life relative to the degree we fail to learn, understand and live by God;s rules for successful living.

    We succeed in life, relative to the degree we learn, understand and live by God’s rules for successful living.

    We are successful relative to the correctness of the data we are operating on.

    Dio

    • Your God is onley good for war and judgement.

      • Respect for other people’s beliefs is a manageable skill.

        • Not when it makes one human being less equal than another or tell a human being where it belongs or what it should do.

          • Well, perhaps when the Bible was written, people needed more guidance than they do today. The purpose of the Bible was to suggest guidance and self improvements. The ideas were POLICY. These policies did lead to a better civilization. Perhaps the GOAL of the Bible has been met and it just hasn’t been announced? Because if the POLICIES hinder rather than assist at this time, it would suggest an over run.

            • Frankly, I do not think everyone has superseded for biblical advice, as I have know Scientologists that can’t even think with the ten commandments. Notice the Church in it’s statements, bears false witness as policy. A few others running around out here bear false witness also.

              Perhaps without being able to apply the tech in the bible, one can not really get case gain with Scientology.

              Perhaps some people need to be weaned off the Scientology comm lines, until they can at least apply ten rules in social intercourse.

              • T.O.,

                Frankly, I do not think everyone has superseded for biblical advice, as I have know Scientologists that can’t even think with the ten commandments.

                That’s a pretty good post.

                I see no evidence that scntlgy is any where near workable without first a good and thorough understanding of the bible and it’s principles for successful living and living by them.

                In the spirit of the article: How to study a science: The study and evaluation of ahalf a dozen or so other books of comparable magnitude to the bible would only be more helpful.

                Scntlgy is missing the Jesus data, the Jesus factor.

                Dio

        • FREEDOM is for all or it is worth nothing.

          • Freedom is something one creates for themselves. Some people are good at it, some people are not. I think that skill is reflected in what freedoms they create for others.

            If you take a look at the LACK of freedom a Sea Org Member has, it is a shock. Yet, they profess to be “freeing people”. Yet, look at the lack of freedom they agree with for themselves. Don’t you see the contrast?

            If they are so willing to live with no freedoms, even their civil rights, how much freedom do you really think they are willing for others to have?

            Kind of explains the current conditions over there.

            • I understand what you are saying, But brainwashing goes slow as Hubbard explains himself in a few snippets.

              It eventually changes the structure of the brain. You may see that as the computer the Thetan operates, It get’s reduced to a response-stimulus brain with a physically shrunk Neo cortex.

    • I wouldn’t compare myself to a God. I am unGodly. Totally unGodly. My lifestyle will not be Godlike therefore. That would be an unattainable goal. If we are to feel shame for ungodliness, we would be shamed across the boards. We are not living as Gods. David Miscavige lives as a God. The rest of us are living as people or tribe members that care not only for ourselves, but for other tribe members. Gods are not part of tribes. The most God like I can get is when I can forgive others for not being like Gods, and forgive myself as well.

    • Dio,

      Your post indicates a deeply religious approach. This approach hides discrimination against women under the guise of motherhood, perhaps it is claimed that women are superior to men, therefore they need to take of them. The end result is discrimination.

      Please tell me, if a woman has a talent and passion for something (science, music, poetry, etc), should she not pursue it just because she has a vagina and not a penis?

  9. I’m no Hubbard fan but I believe he’s actually accurate in his statement. The feminist movement was created by the Rockefeller foundation. It was not grass roots. It was a top down movement designed to destroy, or at least weaken, the family, displace fathers and destabilize society. It also doubled the work force, decreasing pay, because of more workers available, and there were now two incomes to tax. The New World Order guys knew if they could teach women that men were worthless, they could destroy society and take it over, because the families would no longer have a moral base and the kids could be raised by propaganda in schools. They would essentially be lost and easily misguided. If you research the feminism movement and when it began, American society, morality and economy did seem to go downhill at this very moment, per my estimation. Google Feminism + Rockefeller.

  10. “Whether misogynist views are implanted along with Scientology indoctrination is an interesting question. It would seem they are – at least on some level – for those who take the fundamentalist position that Ron is ‘Source’, and it is illegal and punishable to state or infer or consider that anything he uttered or wrote is ‘background’, ‘no longer in use’, or ‘historical’.”

    Ron’s views on women, marraige and children were arbitrary and changed throughout the years. From my experience with women, every one of them has a different idea of how they want to live their own lives. Some of their ideas seem implanted and some seem self-determined and well-reasoned based on their own decisions. Same goes for men and their role in a relationship. When two independent beings can agree on basic modes of operation without compromising their own integrity or self-determinism, then you can have a great marraige. My wife and I have our own “policy” on the dD. Some of it aligns with some of Ron’s philosophy, much of it doesn not align with anything Ron ever said.

    Personally, I think a lot of what Ron said goes in as implanted data because scientologists tend to accept without real inspection. The really useful data gets grouped in with the not-so-useful and the downright not-useful.

    I don’t think there is any misogyny in the Co$ right now. Men and women are suppressed on an equal basis.

  11. In the sense modern public opinion defines it, man woman equality is equal to a dead battery. That women should play equal parts in industry, business and politics and get paid equally.

    That is deranged thinking.

    Men are men and women are women.

    Both have their own equally important roles to perform in the family and society.

    When women think they will abandon the home and leave children up to day care, empty homes, and the humanistic, hedonistic, education system and go and compete with men in business and politics to save the world or fulfill their dreams, are negligent of the fact that there is new generation, a new crop of kids growing up more crazy, than the previous one.

    These screwed up children become the adults (the lunatics) and leaders of society of tomorrow. A society, a civilization, that can only self destruct.

    These unbrought up, screwed up children become the mass murderers of tomorrow.

    Then when a mass murder happens all the people, particularly the media, wonder what happened and why and can’t figure it out for the life of them.
    They still want more empowerment and more freedom for women.

    And the “stay at home mom” is a degrading, misogynistic phrase.

    Any idea is only as good as it works.

    Democracy is a lie or a scam.

    Democracy: government by the people for the people.

    Democracy can only be given to an intelligent, sane, properly educated and responsible society.

    By observation and evaluation, a good half of the population does not meet that level of competence and definition.

    The key problematic factor in the definition of democracy is the word “people”.

    The word “people” contains the hidden lies or problems. It blankets and hides the fact that it includes the crazies, the nut cases, the lunatics, the anarchists, as well as the intelligent and sane.

    But it is the crazies, the nut cases, the lunatics and anarchists ( the GEs) are the ones who do the most squealing and hollering against government and have a tendency to get their way.

    The end result is a deterioration of government and laws and society to their lowest common denominator: lunatics, anarchy and chaos.

    It is evident that the age of rights, freedoms and liberty has got to come to an end. It has proven not to work. Civilization is on the brink of self destruction now.

    For civilization to survive there can only be responsibility and intelligence from now on.

    The greatest degree of responsibility is responsibility for everything.

    Dio

    • Every generation thinks that the current crop of kids is more crazy. You can trace that attitude back at least as far as Shakespeare. And the idea that every mass murderer comes from a home where the mother was off doing other things? That’s a crock and just doesn’t fit the facts.

      If you want to know what’s really going on in the world, start by looking around your own neighborhood. You’ll find some of these opinions you hold so strongly don’t actually match what you see.

    • You are a very sophisticated troll aren’t you ?

      • He is not a troll. He was getting power processing in the 1960’s. He has been around for a long time and is very well read. He was raised in a different era. There is some truth in his visions of an ideal. Whatever burdens he carries at this time, and I know they are not small, adding to them with more force will not make them easier for him to carry. The era he knows carried a lot of beauty too.

        • T.O. Are you sure you have the right Dio? He used to post as Diogenes but then another poster started posting by that name.And I think he has described a very different experience in Scientology than what you just did. Not that I disagree with your other comments in relation to him.

        • The Oracle, I am from that same era (did my first course at LA Org in 1968). I can’t fault you for your compassion but seriously, the guy needs to turn off Fox News, just look around his own neighborhood and chat with some real people face to face. He’ll find that doom and gloom is not the norm out there.

        • I was Impressed by Sam Cooks live performance at the Copocobana in 1964 where he was anounced by Sammy Davis Junior. Power processing ? If Scientologists REALLY believe they are a Thetan with a MEST Body they would nod fuck up the rights of gays and lLesbiand and believe in free choiche rather than gender roles. Altough when it comes to children one should be carefull.

        • Yes, I know who he is. Yes, it is the right man. No, you can not see who is writing on the Internet. If you could, it would change a lot of conversations. Because you really have to know a person’s condition to take into account what they are saying and why. Maybe they are facing challenges you are not and this can shift a person’s viewpoint on many things. People tend to get very religious when faced with uncertain futures. But like the rest of us, he just wants to be heard and understood. It is sometimes hard to understand people you can not see or if you can not take their circumstances into account. Maybe if you could see everyone who is talking to you, you would be able to hear and understand them all.

    • Yo, Grandpa. You’re talking shite. Are you seriously suggesting our supposedly doomed civilisation can be traced back to the mum who refuses to stay at home?

      I invite you to meet a couple of friends of mine who were raised solely by their dad, as well as a girl raised by two guys. These are perfectly sane, stable, ethical, hard-working, tax-payers. One of them is even a copper, trying to rid the streets of criminal scum who often live in poverty, lack a decent education and sadly seek unlawful means to survive.

      What you are doing is judging people based solely on the meat sacks they inhabit. Each being has different strengths, different weaknesses, regardless of their body’s gender. Stereotyping men and women as you do, as if all men are the same and all women are the same, is lunacy.

      • I was raised by men. Worked out great for me. Men make great mothers. Especially when they can cook too. They didn’t pretend to know anything about raising children. They sure didn’t pretend to know anything about women, either since they were all divorced or separated.

        My earliest cooking lessons were learning how to mix drinks using my fingers. Three fingers of Scotch, Five fingers of soda. = deliver it to the Colonial. One beer with two splashes of bitters, = deliver to Uncle Jack.
        One glass of Aquavit with milk on the side = deliver to Uncle John. Whisky with sliced raw onion on the side = deliver to great Grandpa . Moonshine went to Uncle Gene.

        How hard was it for me to stay above non E as a kid? Not hard at all. I just found out what was wanted and needed, and delivered it.

  12. Pingback: Scientology and Misogyny | 31 Factors

  13. Yes, I remember reading that and being somewhat surprised. I’m glad LRH was man enough to re-think his stance on women (joke). Whether a woman is a stay-at-home Mom, or a professional is of little importance. It is a matter of choice. The measure of any person is more aimed at how he/she conducts him/herself through life, not the job description. I had wonderful parents and learned from them both. There is no reason why the sanity of the world should depend on mothers only – there are many wonderful Dads around. There are also many people who have grown up in one parent families, or with parents mostly absent who have turned out very well – on their own steam. Jenna Miscavige Hill comes to mind. She seems to be a very “together” kind of person. I am not saying proper parenting is irrelevant – just that the lack of a mother at home is not the reason for the decay in society. A woman who cannot find a way to become financially independent can end up trapped in a marriage with no-where to go, and no way to raise her children on her own. Society was not a bed of roses pre women’s lib either.

    It surprises me that LRH even raised the subject of gender. In a religion of “you are not your meat body” – I don’t see how the gender of the meat body came into play. Or do I miss something? Does a thetan have a gender?

    • There are 8 dynamics upon which a thetan exists. The above quote is from a reference which was only treating the first four. So, discussing gender roles of “meat bodies” was not out of order. Neither was anti-abortion statement made in the same book. However, if taken out of context, one could make a similar argument, and say that LRH was a misogynist because he was against abortion. Of course, if you are talking about the Church today, where there are forced abortions, then that would not apply either.

      • Thanks Shawn. I take your point about the discussion of gender roles not being out of order. I don’t know whether LRH was a misogynist and I will reserve judgment on that til I know more. But there is no doubt that he had a bias (at least when he wrote the article Marty quoted) – which leaned a little too far for my liking in favour of keeping women in the background. As a woman – I can just say it gets a skyward eye-rolling reaction from me. But I still do wonder the role of gender on the thetan / soul. On the abortion topic I don’t think being an antiabortionist is misogynist. I am opposed to abortion except in extreme cases related to the survival of mother and foetus, and I think many women feel the same way. Being pro life as a general principle should never be lumped together with misogyny.

  14. fcdcclass of 74

    Yes picking up a new body is a crap shoot to some thetans however I have to believe that good mothers and a decent upbringing makes the next game less tramatic. I would love to had picked up a body in my present daughters enviroment, she took off time from her work as a grade school teacher and both she and her husband encourage the arts and their religeon in a spiritual manner and her daughter turns two this week and is this week as well and that will be another luck bright as as bright as a star. She is expecting her second

  15. Did women join Scientology in greater numbers? Might that account for the many women in executive positions?

    • They can take more abuse maybe, work under stress, be more loyal ? I do recognize differences in men and woman even if I say they should have the same pallet of choiches.

      You call that things of the second Dynamic, I don’t like the word meatsack but geneticlly the meatsack or MEST-Body has some urges of it’s own that when met make for a more happier person.

  16. Jeez, reading the comments here I can only say there are many people with fixed ideas on this subject. I’m seeing Rockefeller being granted even more insidious OT power, I’m seeing it stated the kids brought up “wrong” become mass murderers.

    Those of you with “very strong” opinions, or extreme opinions at both ends if this subject might benefit from a little self-examination for fixed ideas in this area. Just sayin’…

  17. Well, I don’t think that statement by LRH has anything to do with the subject of Scientology. Ron was very clear on distinguishing the difference between his opinion about anything, his opinion about Scientology, and the subject of Scientology. This quote was LRH’s view at the time and has zero basis in anything ever written regarding the subject itself. A great deal of Ron’s opinion has been misinterpreted as part of the subject, unfortunately. A very good exercise for anyone who is curious, who has been wounded by what LRH has written, can look and see; is this statement LRH’s opinion, or is it actually part of the science itself? I find almost every time, when something seems really screwy, it is because an opinion has been acted upon. The ‘Not Quite Bright’ do this all the time, since they cannot distinguish differences on anything.

    There were ‘two’ LRHs; one is the source of the subject, a rather unique individual Being, and the other is the human, influenced by his culture and environment, and faulty in many ways as are we all.

    my opinion of course.

    • Bob Grant,

      I would say you are getting pretty close to the truth.

      In saying that there were two LRHs.

      There were probably more.

      Dio

    • Bob, I also remember LRH making a strong statement about distinguishing his opinions from the subject of Scientology. He also stated that the tech that was to be adhered to was what is in the HCOB’s.

      Also, Marty mentioned in the OP “the fundamentalist position that Ron is ‘Source’, and it is illegal and punishable to state or infer or consider that anything he uttered or wrote is ‘background’, ‘no longer in use’, or ‘historical’.” The phrases quoted are from HCO PL “Technical Degrades” in which I think LRH qualifies what those phrases relate to:

      “Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.”

      The qualification I see relates to the student “applying the data in which he is being trained.”

      • I should have included the other two (knowing and using): i.e. “knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.”

      • Marildi: Bob, I also remember LRH making a strong statement about distinguishing his opinions from the subject of Scientology.

        Spyros: Yes, I think in SCN one is not supposed to try to adopt LRH’s considerations. As-isness is much about deleting considerations. I think in it’s purest form, SCN is a group of considerations about how to not have any considerations-case.

  18. There is a BIG difference between “misogyny” and “gender roles”, which is what LRH was commenting on. One might argue that gender roles can be discriminative, but that is a different discussion. A distinction should definitely be made.

    • Hubbard dressed women up as men, and had them called “Sir”. That wasn’t exactly an honor call to their femininity.

      Women were never given extra allowance on staff, although they have additional needs, like tampons and stockings and nail care and pedicures and toiletries, magazines to stay informed about new skin care products and fashion, bras because they have boobs, make up, birth control devices, moisturizers, hand cremes, hair care products and salon for hair maintenance, waxing , nail polish, sunscreen, or any of the many other things a woman needs.

      Then, no extra pay for having children, the 25.00 a week had to support the offspring too. No dental care. A woman can not keep herself together on 25.00 a week or less. Half a weeks pay has to go for tampons every month!

      No, women are not supported as women in the Scientology culture. Now, getting pregnant, in the Sea Org, the truest evidence of femininity, is a high crime! A shock! An act of treason! Those women are tossed out on the street.

      Hubbard declared women as 1.1’s in Science of Survival!

      Women have different ruds than men. They can go out ruds on clothes or hair or other out maintenance. They can go out ruds with curlers in their hair! No toothpaste, can throw a woman’s ruds out! No hairspray can throw a woman’s ruds out! This isn’t even addressed in session in rudiments!

      Hubbard was a man’s man. He was very suspicious of women. He wrote that most of them were 1.1. But we know now he was hiding out in Cuba and in a domestic dispute / divorce cycle / loss when he wrote that. He wasn’t in a win with woman.

      That is really not so unusual. There were very wide distances between men and women back then.

      I don’t think he hated women, but he managed to unmock them. Could have been an oversight or custom. Doesn’t really matter to me since he did share other knowledge with me that was highly beneficial. That helped me to overcome being unmocked on a larger scale.

      Maybe he didn’t just know all that much about women, and their wants and needs. Maybe he didn’t care either. He threw his wife under the bus after she did time in prison for him.

      I am happy to learn about the supernatural from him, to learn about magic, to know about his theories and to benefit from his discoveries.

      I have a different dynamic with him. He wasn’t my husband and he isn’t my type, on dynamics away from the seventh. I have been curious but never dependent. I am happy with his exchange with me. And I wasn’t unmocked as a woman myself, as a result of crossing his path. If he did hate any women, I wasn’t one of them. I provided for myself in the Sea Org and did not make myself a dependent there either. Although I wasn’t very popular for that. The fact that he set up a way to clear men was a great gift to women.

      They say it’s a man’s world. but it is not at all. A man can sleep out in the yard. You go to any mall and tell me out of the hundreds of stores there, how many stores are for men. Radio shack? The men going out and competing in the marketplace, they are trying to move ahead so they can PROVIDE, for women or children.

      This planet is really a romantic one. A beautiful planet for lovers. It practically revolves around the second dynamic. And women are practically a religion here, in themselves.

      Hubbard made this a better world for women to live in. Even if not in the Scientology culture. Not for him to decide where I should be spending my time as a woman. He didn’t give discounts to housewives or mothers! If you wanted Scientology you had to work your ass off to pay for your bridge. Green is green and I don’t think he cared where it came from or how people got it. As long as it did not become a flap.

      One thing is for sure, if Hubbard ever wants to “come back”, or any other Sea Org member ever wants to “come back”, they are going to have to enter through the thighs of a woman.

      We are the gatekeepers to this universe.

      • To The Oracle: Did you happen to run across my comment “Yes, the OT Levels are worth it” under Marty’s article “Ability 3”? I believe it is worthy of inspection. Thanks, Mark Your thoughts are desired and appreciated

        • Yes I did. Always a pleasure to read your insightful posts. Your positions on time and it’s relativity are very theta. Although, I have to tell you, I am very partial to farmers. They have created a lot of pleasure moments for me. Any time you have spent as a farmer made for good karma.

          “My grandfather used to say that once in your life you need a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman and a preacher, but every day, three times a day, you need a farmer.” – Brenda Schoepp

          There is a drought on the Colorado River right now that is going to bleed into the future. Several states are sustained by that river, so are a lot of farmers. I am currently reorganizing to pull myself off that support system and connecting to other water sources. And establishing my own farming.

          Alongside your proposals for policies to sustain Scientologists as a tribe, with the tech, I would include fundamental issues like this to be addressed. Water is a fundamental need.

          • A couple of 10 ft. pipelines headed west from the Missouri and Mississippi rivers powered by a pebble bed reactor (these reactors cannot meltdown under any circumstance and the fuel is encased in graphite, steel, ceramic balls) would green the american west and feed an additional 100 mil people. Fusion reactors will be even better and cheaper. And, yes, I know the missing tech. Introduce the right combination of frequencies to the fuel at the right temp. and pressure. “Play it the right tune and it will sing”. The engineers I discussed the details with thought it was interesting and went along their way. Telling them “That’s the way we used to do it” wasn’t appropriate at the time.
            By the way, the pipelines, perhaps 4, would practically eliminate flooding in the Midwest basin. Maybe someday. There are several other places in the world this would be of benefit.
            Oh, high energy frequencies, both physical and electromagnetic, in the material sciences and chemistry are a vast untapped field. I mention it on this site because an understanding of emotion and wavelength are needed. Got to make those particles willing to combine or eager to jump or get together in a certain pattern.
            But enough rambling for now. MarkR

      • What a great post! I loved it. There really is a difference between men and women, no matter what ANYBODY says. 🙂 And to my observation, although we have all most likely all “crossed over” from time to time it seems to me that some beings definitely prefer a “feminine beingness” and some a “masculine beingness”. My opinion. It seems to me that there is a real “flavor” to both masculinity and femininity that is not derived from body structure, and the interaction between the two is a beautiful thing to behold.
        I think that LRH was aware of this and wrote about it from time to time when it occurred to him….not that that has any bearing as to whether this is true or not.
        So then, what is the difference between a man and a woman?
        …..When a woman gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror, she says, “Oh, my God! I can’t go out looking like this. What shall I do?”
        And then proceeds to create and do what she does.
        …..When a guy gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror, he rubs his unshaven face, scratches his butt, and says, “Damn, I’m good looking!”🙂

  19. Many of Hubbard’s targets of abuse were women.

    Sara Northrup, his 2nd wife: In 1951, Hubbard wrote to the FBI asserting she was a communist or communist sympathizer. According to old timer and confidant of Hubbard, John Sanborn, Hubbard used black Dianetics on Sara in an attempt to make her compliant. In 1969, Hubbard write that Sara was a Russian spy named Sara Komkovadamanov, and sent two of his operatives to read a message to Sara’s (and Hubbard’s) read headed daughter, Alexis, that her mother had been a prostitute.

    Another notable female target of Hubbard’s abuse was author Paulette Cooper.

    And there’s Susan Meister, who was shot between the eyes, mysteriously, on the Apollo, in the early 1970s. He father was treated horribly by Hubbard when he was simply attempting to resolve the circumstances of his daughter’s death.

    And let’s not forget that, after becoming the Commodore, Hubbard started using female children as young as 12 for his personal servants/slaves.

    • I neglected to mention – in addition to Sara Northrup and her red headed daughter Alexis, Paulette Cooper, Susan Meister and her tormented family, and Hubbard’s girl children slaves – Mary Sue, Hubbard’s third wife, on whose back he painted a big red target when he made her head of the Guardians Office, a Guardians Office based on his secret Scientology Intelligence technology, and operating under his direction.

  20. Dunno about that. But the pro-women that talk about women like they were all victims and all men perpetrators, simply turn one against the other. Similarly, the pro-selves are of the ‘don’t-care’ philosophy, which teaches to not care. I don’t care to live with people that don’t care.

    I think a large part of society likes you more when you abandon all other dynamics for it’s sake. You know, get a job, make money for the boss (make a little bit for yourself so you wont die), don’t care about others, pills for happiness, chocolate instead of love…but just don’t do the one unethical thing: to not go to work, you unethical you.

    • It may be a group thing, not just a society thing in particular. I’ve heard it’s done in SCN too nowdays…

    • “But the pro-women that talk about women like they were all victims and all men perpetrators, simply turn one against the other.”

      So true. Very insightful! We live in a dependent universe, where one person aids the rise or demise of another.

      You really float on karma here. If you don’t have your shit together with other people you are fucked. And all that you have to do to survive is fill and want and need! How simple is that? You look at the people that are all fucked up, no stats, no accomplishments, they could not fill any want or need! How fucked up is that?

      That is why I get pissed off when someone attacks Marty. Really? Who else spent all of those years in the Sea Org at the top? Who else bought in the top celebrity? Who else audited those hours? Who else took the heat so the Independent Movement could get established?

      Fucking people out here claiming to be “loyalists” K.S.W.’s can’t even do a proper doubt formula and look at stats! Math problems or what? Claiming to be all K.S.W.. No stats that compare with Marty’s. And, they actually manage to get over on a few dozen people that also didn’t get the math! They PREY on people with MU’s! That can NOT do a proper doubt formula! I mean, people are tripping!

      • Ask them what ABC or 123 is and you can not get a straight answer.

      • And all that you have to do to survive is fill and want and need! How simple is that?

        http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

        Love this.

      • Oracle: So true. Very insightful! We live in a dependent universe, where one person aids the rise or demise of another.

        You really float on karma here. If you don’t have your shit together with other people you are fucked.

        Spyros. Yes, to be a victim you need to be the victim and make/let the other be the perpetrator. Yet, considerations are senior to the mechanics of MEST, and the overt-motivator sequence is a mechanism too, and it doesn’t have to be followed (dramatised). I think it shouldn’t be, for freedom to exist.

        I think it was about time the father’o’cracy ended –wherein father was the dictator of the family. But if women avenge on that indiscriminately, then we can have the other end of the pendulum swing which is equally messed up and unfair. And also, very important, what women and what men? How do women know I was being a man a century ago?😛

    • “I think a large part of society likes you more when you abandon all other dynamics for it’s sake.”

      Laughter! When the “group is all” and the individual is nothing. Total propitiation to society.

      What is the role of the Sea Org member if not to propitiate? Propitiation to David Miscavige. Because of the out exchange, it becomes propitiation. What are the beggar units in the Church doing? Asking members to propitiate with “donations”. If you say or think anything negative about DM now it’s an instant declare! “Mentioning something” is an ETHICS gradient! If you are not permitted to “mention” it, you are not NOT permitted to use ethics!

      Propitiation: The action of propitiating or appeasing a god, spirit, or person.

      From Theopedia: “Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering.

      In relation to soteriology, (The term “soteriology” comes from two Greek terms, namely, soter meaning “savior” or “deliverer” and logos meaning “word,” “matter,” or “thing. Soteriology discusses how Christ’s death secures the salvation of those who believe. ) propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.”

      The entire field of Scientology now is propitiation to David Miscavige.

      Finding a want and need and filling it for a value in return is EXCHANGE.

      Spending yourself without benefits in return is PROPITIATION.

      This is the issue with fanatics and fundamentalists, total propitiation. And why they are so easily dominated and used.

      • The 3 popular monotheistic religions knew what they did well, when they told you that by nature you were a sinner and you needed to be redeemed (although ‘science’ didn’t like religion they liked to keep that man is evil😉 ). And yes they seem to have inspired ‘SCN’ists, who from your first steps in SCN put you to admit guilts and work to put yourself and others on the right road. Right/wrong making is based on ser facs and on own overts. And to restimulate another’s overts to put him under control (on the righteous path) and the most typical SP SOP. Why wouldn’t a SCNist know about that?

        • So true! When I cam in there was this long policy letter in the HQS pack for new people welcoming you and telling you whatever you did before Scientology did not matter and that you were starting on new fresh road.

          As soon as I finished HQS I was routed right onto Integrity Processing and confessing.

          I found the culture in Scientology was a lot more fixated on my past that I ever was.

          • Yes I wasn’t much concerned (if at all) about my sinful past before the COS either. I know some SCNists would argue that subcosciously I was, but I was not aware of it (just like with the whole non existent case). I need to say about it that for as long as you create it, it is. And if not-isness made things totally get unmocked, those things wouldn’t be. And since that which cannot be perceived cannot influence (according to the logics), F A I L . No subciscious (sub awareness, that cannot be perceived) thing can influence anybody. So don’t make nasty stuff conscious.

          • Oracle: I found the culture in Scientology was a lot more fixated on my past that I ever was.

            Spyros: Yes, after you study about the existence of case you are liable to put it there way more than before. I used the theories I knew about case to explain how I couldn’t or forced myself to cause stuff, and as a result I did or couldn’t do that stuff even more. It was alteration, as your creations (case being your creations too) aren’t cause, you are cause. I think to get rid of case is so much more precious than it is to learn about it through study. I still love all issues that are about the thetan’s non-casey behaviour (some call them ‘OT data’, but I refrain to do so because ‘OT’ sounds like a distant and even unreachable thing in the COS) –real eye-openers.

  21. The article describes a very patriarchal view. Dio’s various responses are Exhibit A thereto.

    I see the Scientology tech (red in particular) as a toolbox with a set of tools. We, each of us, are the technicians. The bulletins and lectures are the “how to”. The tools, not necessarily perfect, are for understanding, repairing and improving life, and for unburdening ourselves and training ourselves in new(old?) disciplines (lower grade chart). While potentially powerful, it is still a toolbox with a set of tools and instructions and specific subject of application. For me. FOR EACH OF US. To USE as we find it useful.

    Where the tools and toolbox start using me and start telling me how to live my life (with ‘only way’ statements) I disagree. They are my tools, I am not their’s. Scientology should stay a toolbox and not be a way of life (and in fact the ‘only way’ that’s got it right). Today, more and more people can lead the life they want to. Thank god! To define the playing field and assign ‘hats’ and characteristics and ideals for others based on arbitraries such as their gender or orientation or interests is more cookie-cutter think. Nice and easy and ends in disaster. What gives anyone the right?

    Historically, this ‘ideal’ man/woman role has hardly existed. Check out your history of medieval Europe – wars every generation, sickness, mothers dying in childbirth, children dying before they were 3, sons and husbands dying in war, fights. Not necessarily all gloomy, but this 1950s post-war ‘ideal’ is about as grounded in history as the fantasy of employee job security.

    Children need love. People need freedom of choice.

    What was that again about self-determinism? Oh yes, we are ‘pan-determined’ (meaning really, other-determined by Ron, or nowadays CoS).

    • I agree about the toolbox. I think SCN orgs degerated and lost their basic purpose while they didn’t allow it’s members to go on their own (self determined) way. ‘The greatest good’ in SCN isn’t something that somebody tells you. It is what that you say it is, based on yourself. SCN Ethics went as ashtray as to mimic advisory psychology and tell (or worse impose) people what to do. Haven’t they ever read that clause in the code of honour about being ones own advisor (for starters)? Doesn’t that also mean to not give advices to others? The picture I have from my local org is people desiring to give and take advices, directions to go to the right way. Everybody knows ‘ethics’. Rarely anybody knows ‘self determinism’ and it’s relation to being ethical.

  22. There are some very odd ideas of misogyny here, and would suggest that if anyone wishes to understand it, a basic book is, ‘The Equality Illusion’ by Kay Banyard. Although it’s directed towards a UK audience as far as the statistics, the USA is fairly similar.

  23. Isn’t it clear to everyone how LRH felt about women by his own actions with his wives..His scorecard there was pretty low..and if you say he loved Mary Sue, well he may have, BUT if I loved someone I would not have hid away from them and only make contact through others…hell or high water wouldn’t keep me from my spouse..The first 2 wives were treated horribly…

  24. Jane Doe 2, Yes he has his low stats on wives. But also keep in mind that DM by that time was in total control of LRH’s comm lines and he cut comm with Mary Sue and forbad Mary Sue to see her husband. She tried. And LRH didn’t nkow that DM was doing all this.

    • David Mayo’s account conflicts with yours, as do the accounts of others.

    • There was nothing stopping Hubbard from contacting his wife if you had wished to do so.

      Hubbard could have appeared in court to support his wife, or visited her while she was in prison.

      He chose not to.

      • B Wbbb, I agree. It is very disappointing that Ron didn’t do any of those things regarding Mary Sue. I’m not defending his actions or lack of them. I just pointed out that in Marty’s book I got the clear understanding that DM was painting a horribly dangerous environment “out there” for Ron and that if Ron appeared in public anywhere he could go to jail. So Ron’s mistake was to let one person or a small group of people control all his comm lines and feed him lies about how bad it was and how hunted he was. And DM remains, in my book, the poster boy definition of what an SP is.

        • How is it that LRH the great scientist of the mind could not see that dm was lying to him? How is it that he himself blamed his wife to be an SP? Perhaps he did not know her well enough.

    • Whether she tried or not, don’t you think it was up to LHR to be in touch with her..not the other way around. Why do you give him a pass…and B.Wbbb is correct your account of Mary Sue and Lrh is in conflict with many others…as I stated before..nothing or no one would stop me from seeing my spouse..no excuses…none….

  25. Wouldn’t a man, in his mid 50s, surrounding himself with girl servants, who were denied a normal childhood so as to serve him, qualify as a misogynist?, to say the least?

  26. Here’s a song that came to mind while reading through to the current end.

    & a modern updated version that’s an encore:

    From the best of my recollections, I’ve gone through the trials, tribulations, victories, defeats and everything else foisted on me and created by me as a being, as well as a human, regardless of male or female identity.

    C’est la vie!

    • Marty,

      Moreover than being Misogynist in nature, Radical Corporate Scientology can be defined as being Misanthropist. It, the organization, dramatizes its hatred of mankind and humanity.

      “Be with the Borg or you’re denied eternity. Resistance is futile.” That’s the mantra.

    • Tom, love those singers and love those two songs! You sent me!🙂

  27. The incredibly ironic thing is about this that back when “Women’s Lib” was in vogue and Helen Reddy was singing “I am Woman”, I had the example of very strong women in executive positions in Scientology. My mom was a senior tech terminal for ASHO, Leslie Epstein was LRH Comm, Jane Kember was the leader of the GO, Mary Sue was… well Mary Sue. Alethiea Taylor, Yvonne Jentzsch.

    As a young man and teenager, I had the experience of seeing women working in Scientology with zero discrimination, in position of prestige and power. WAY before corporate America.

    It sure did not seem to jibe with what Ron wrote in New Slant (which was taken from Science of Survival). But, I believe it does jibe. Obviously, Ron in practice did not believe women should be baby-breeders and man-slaves. And I don’t think that is what he meant.

    But it is telling that in the NEW version of SOS, the text was updated to make it sound like making babies is all women are good for.

    So, DM is the misogynist, not Ron.

    Mark

    • I read Dianetics in 1969. I “studied” the new version bout 5 yrs ago and noticed there were at least two sections gone. One was the article describing the scientific method, written by a famous scientist, I forget the name, but added to the book and acknowledged by Ron. This was an important part of the book and immediately gave a validity to the science. Second was an article by Ron describing when he was growing up in the midwest, that people who were down on their luck would suck up their pride and grudgingly take charity, swearing to pay it back when they were able. That no one starved without welfare because people took care of each other. Apparently this was to political for the current COS mgmt. Sad, these were both important articles and gave a insight into what kind of data that Ron wanted to spread. Thanks, MarkR

      • Yes, the new books are rife with changes – all in the name of going back to source. No, they are NOT going back to source, they are being homogenized and dumbed down.

    • two words: second wife

      • Divorce and affairs do not make someone misogynistic. Horny perhaps. I don’t understand the connection between “great men” and philandering, but there sure is a huge connection, as much as I hate to see it. You would think that people with vision and gumption would know enough to keep it in their pants, but no – we have Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bill Clinton, Ben Franklin, etc., and that is only the Americans.

    • Mark, I tend towards agreeing with you on this. Back inthe 1970s,it seemed to me there were plenty of very empowered women in responsible positions in Scientology.

      There is a certain degree of misogyny built into our culture. Institutionalized Christianity tends towards it. Eve caused all that trouble by seducing Adam into tasting of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

      Anyway. DM’s background is Polish Roman Catholic. Catholicism is the faith that does not allow priests to marry. And SO members are defined as Scientology’s “priesthood”. So it’s stretched to mean they shouldn’t have children. How not to have children? Heavily suppress sex and break up marriages.

      Not all Christian denominations have the same policy. The Eastern Orthodox churches encourage priests to marry. Nonetheless, there is a bias against women, sex, and girls in Western culture and until recently, women were seen as “property” in the West, as well as in many other cultures worldwide.

      I think “misogyny” is really a bias or hatred of sex in all its aspects.

      • Yes. Scientology cut through all that back in the day – Racism, too. We are beings inhabiting bodies of all sorts, with past lives going back, and back, and back. How can you define “who you are” by the body you were born into? When you were perhaps a woman last lifetime living in Canada, and a man living in Borneo the life before that?

        I can’t emphasize enough the egalitarianism of this in the church back in the day. I don’t know about other areas, but in the areas I was in (New Jersey, ASHO in the ’70s) there was NO attention on it. Other than, of course, wanting to get laid.

    • Grasshopper, can you be specific as to what was updated in the text. I just compared the new version, and in the section Marty quoted and the text surrounding it I don’t see any difference.

      • Why, yes I can. It was a section that bothered me for a while. Marty actually has it in the post, but the emphasis is off. The text is:

        SOS 16th printing, 1975:

        “A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out.”

        SOS bastardized NEW DM version:

        “A society which looks down upon this mission and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, the care of men and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on its way out.”

        First, notice the punctuation changes – the hallmark of DM’s illiteracy. There are many in the full section (hell, in the whole damn book). But the real kicker is the change in italics. The change of “anything but” to “anything but” changes the entire meaning of the sentence. The original says that educating women to be nurturing mothers is being excluded from their education. The later says that women ONLY should be taught to be mothers and caretakers. Big, big difference, especially in such a section as this, which is already incendiary. To imply that women should NOT get educated at all is not Ron’s intent, and yet it was changed to be so by DM and the ‘droids.

        This was written in 1951 – over ten years before Freidan’s “The Feminine Mystique” was published. I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s when middle-class wives stayed home and did not work outside the house. Fast forward to 2013, and it is now REQUIRED that women work outside the home, or you can’t eat. Wow – what a shift. This is “The Man” taking over Feminism. “Okay – you want to have a nice, boring clerkship career? Great! Now you MUST have a nice, boring clerkship career. And guess what? All your friends will make you feel super guilty for staying at home for a few weeks after you give birth to your baby because your CAREER (which is feeding the yawning maw of The Man by doing some stupid, mindless, unthankful middle-class job) is SO important to YOU as a PERSON.”

        Women, like men, have a right to a real, soul-consuming, passionate career. Go for it. But the VAST majority of women (and men for that matter) working outside the home are FORCED to by economic circumstances, and are doing essentially menial bullshit jobs (just as most men are). I mean, how important is it to society to be a cashier at Wal-Mart for BS pay and no benefits? How important to society is it to be an “admin” for some Wall Street guy? Or some CPA? How important is it to be a junior programmer or paper pusher deep in the bowels of some Fortune 500 firm? I am not knocking women here, I am knocking mindless jobs. Men are stuck in this as well.

        It is worse for both men and women. Back in the halcyon days of middle class America, a man could get hired by IBM or Xerox, or American Express, and KNOW he had a job for life and a pension at retirement. Now? HA! Don’t make me laugh. If you are working, your boss is looking for ways to fire you. To make the company have “more productivity” which means you are fired and you are replaced by someone cheaper, if you are replaced at all. So, hell yes, women must work – because the man’s job is precarious and he can get fired “at will” – it says so right when he is hired on his offer letter.

        The sad reality is that women are now LOCKED into this. Men were always locked into it – at least since the industrial revolution. But in the last 40 years, women have been locked into The Man’s clutches as well.

        So, frankly, I look at the section of SOS as Ron’s condemnation of The Man trying to screw people up. This is a defense of the “stay at home mom” and the stay at home dad as well, although they really did not exist in 1951. SOMEONE should stay and raise the children – not the State, and not overpriced child care providers with their “boo boo” notices. Ron had the nuts to say it.

        • Grasshopper, I beg to differ with you. The data I have is that SOS was a dictated book. (There are many online sources for this, including Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Survival )

          Thus, the punctuation was not done by LRH himself but by the editors – something I learned about when I worked as a public doing proofreading in the ’89 evolution to upgrade all the basic books.

          As for the idiom “anything but”, here’s the definition: “used to emphasize that something is the opposite of what you might expect” or “used to mean the opposite of the stated QUALITY.” Some examples I found on the Internet were “anything but nice”, “anything but ambitious”, “anything but ordinary”. You can see from these examples that the idiom is always followed by a QUALITY.

          In the SOS sentence the words “anything but” are not followed by a quality. They are followed by these words: “the management of a family”. In actual fact, the literal meaning of the individual words, which could be rephrased as “anything except”, fits the context. Here’s the sentence together with the context around it (caps are mine):

          “We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have. A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but THE MANAGEMENT OF A FAMILY, THE CARE OF MEN, AND THE CREATION OF THE FUTURE GENERATION, is a society which is on its way out…

          “The creative CARE AND HANDLING OF MEN is an artful and a beautiful task. Those who would cheat women of their rightful place by making them into men should at last realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but THE MEN AND THE CHILDREN AS WELL.”

          The choice of which words to italicize is an editorial decision but in any case, as per the above, I don’t think it changes the meaning of the sentence.

          • Look at it this way:

            1. Feeding your child anything but broccoli will send him to prison.

            This means you are avoiding broccoli and that is bad – broccoli should be part of his diet, but not his only diet.

            2. Feeding your child anything but broccoli will send him to prison.

            This means you should ONLY feed your child broccoli – or he will end up in prison.

            In any event, this is one page out of a ton of other pages. Ron’s actions later on show the true scene – women in positions of power in the church far in advance of society. DM has turned that on its head. Being a member of the SO now means you must abort your children – or neglect them if they do make it through the gauntlet.

            • Grasshopper, the main thing I was trying to say is that even if that part seems ambiguous, the surrounding context indicates what LRH meant. And you and I come to the same conclusion – that his view of women was very positive.

  28. In this paragraph, LRH uses an idiom that is seldom used any more, and wasn’t in broad use even by the mid seventies. That idiom is “anything but.”

    anything but (idiom): in no degree or respect; not in the least: The plans were anything but definite.

    “A society in which women are taught ANYTHING BUT the management of a family, the care of men, and the creation of the future generation is a society which is on its way out.”

    So I read this phrase as saying that if women are taught NOTHING about family, men, future generations in favor of anything but that information then there will be disaster. Sure enough, there would be.

    But this is a nonsense claim to make and LRH simply demonstrates his lack of education on the history of familial dynamics. “Society” has NEVER taught women about the management of a family, the care of men or the creation of future generations. My mother taught me, as her mother taught her, as her mother taught her, on down the line as assisted by the wise women or elders in the community and as modified by restrictions and fashions adopted by or enforced on women, and lower status men by the ruling elite. Most of those restrictions and fashions served the purpose of the ruling elite. The ruling elite, planet-wide, has consistently been primarily male throughout recorded history.

    The idea of teaching women about these subjects is a NEW idea in history. It is not some idea that was known and lost. Women were GIVEN to men throughout history as bargaining chips, SOLD to men, or were simply TAKEN by men as rewards of war. They were TOLD by men (their husband their father, their owner) what their role would be and what they were required to do for men. It is not until the 1920s that we even see a recognition that anything should or could be different.

    Then there is this nonsense about men are difficult and troublesome creatures…

    No, the fact is that LRH was a difficult and troublesome creature and very proud of it. And really, what was his concept of raising children? Oh, you give them to the Nanny and to the Tutor. And Mary Sue? Well, she doesn’t exactly act politically does she? Nope. She goes on to lead the infiltration of government agencies and crafts PR and propaganda responses for the Church. She runs the most prosperous arm of the Church, Franchise Office Worldwide.

    In fact, within a few short years of writing Science of Survival, all of this gender nonsense goes by the boards, but in a very skewed fashion as Marty so succinctly pointed out in his articles about Yin and Yang. LRH was Yang to the nth degree and sought to avoid or outright refused Yin on pretty much any level. And Yin is the essence of female.

    That is the ultimate in misogamy.

    All yang.

    • My, my, how a proper definition, in context, changes everything. Good one, Marianne. MarkR

    • I don’t think LRH was using the idiom “anything but”. He was using each of the two words with its own meaning – i.e. anything except – which would fit the context.

      • Yes, I agree with Marildi.
        This is clearly not a use of that idiom but rather the two words with their regular denotation.

  29. Co-incidentally I just received this:

    Enjoy!

    In the old Orthodox Jewish tradition, going back when,the morning prayer on awaking included giving thanks for not having been born a woman. I suppose the following explains why.

    Men Are Just Happier People —

    What do you expect from such simple creatures?
    Your last name stays put.
    The garage is all yours.
    Wedding plans take care of themselves.
    Chocolate is just another snack..
    You can never be pregnant.
    You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
    You can wear NO shirt to a water park.
    Car mechanics tell you the truth.
    The world is your urinal.
    You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
    You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
    Same work, more pay..
    Wrinkles add character.
    Wedding dress $5000.. Tux rental-$100..
    People never stare at your chest when you’re talking to them.
    New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
    One mood all the time.
    Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
    You know stuff about tanks.
    A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
    You can open all your own jars.
    You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
    If someone forgets to invite you,
    He or she can still be your friend.
    Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
    Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
    You almost never have strap problems in public.
    You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
    Everything on your face stays its original color.
    The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
    You only have to shave your face and neck.
    You can play with toys all your life.
    One wallet and one pair of shoes — one color for all seasons.
    You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
    You can ‘do’ your nails with a pocket knife.
    You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
    You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives On December 24 in 25 minutes.

    NICKNAMES
    · If Laura, Kate and Sarah go out for lunch, they will call each other Laura, Kate and Sarah.
    · If Mike, Dave and Chuck go out, they will affectionately refer to each other as Fat Boy, Bubba and Wildman.

    EATING OUT

    · When the bill arrives, Mike, Dave and Chuck will each throw in $20, even though it’s only for $32.50.
    None of them will have anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.
    · When the girls get their bill, out come the pocket calculators..

    MONEY

    · A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
    · A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn’t need but it’s on sale.

    BATHROOMS

    · A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.
    · The average number of items in the typical woman’s bathroom is 337.
    A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.

    ARGUMENTS

    · A woman has the last word in any argument.
    · Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

    FUTURE

    · A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
    · A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

    MARRIAGE

    · A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn’t.
    · A man marries a woman expecting that she won’t change, but she does.

    DRESSING UP
    · A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the trash,
    answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
    · A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.

    NATURAL

    · Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
    · Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

    OFFSPRING

    · Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
    · A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

    THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

    A married man should forget his mistakes. There’s no use in two people remembering the same thing!

    SO, send this to the women who have a sense of humor and who can handle it
    and to the men who will enjoy reading it.

    Dio

    • Laughter! Too funny! The one about women deteriorating throughout the night goes both ways though!

      The morning after

      What a distance there can be
      from reality to memory!
      The morning from the night before
      can hide the moon
      behind a door.

      T.O.

      Laughter!

  30. The way the “church” tries to strip people of emotions is particularly hard on women. The “Angry Wives” on Anderson Cooper were so chilling.

    Has anyone written about the Keller family? They were a family of field counselors in Los Angeles, husband and wife life-long auditors and two of the grown daughters auditing as well. They kicked out their 70+ year old father, Wolfgang Keller, when he got expelled from the “church” for questioning.

    How does that happen? I mean, did the family vote, “Hey, let’s kick out dad until he comes to his senses?” Just so chilling and disgusting – a life without normal emotions.

    Ingrid, Maya, Iris and Torsten Keller, I’m praying for you. What you have done has damaged your spiritual eternity.

  31. A good man’s motto:

    If I am not horny,
    make me something to eat,
    look after the children and the home,
    and I will lay the moon and the stars,
    at your feet.

    Dio

      • T.O.
        Another thing in regards to bad mothers.

        Likewise as to men, if you have problems with a mother, or a woman, you have to check with her mother for the problem.

        If that does provide the answer, than you have to go back another generation, and so on.

        And that may not provide all the answers either.

        Life is a lot more complex than that.

        And more than we simple humans can figure out, too.

        But the answers are there somewhere.

        Dio

    • If you cook a woman a mean dinner sometimes,she will lay the moon and stars at your feet. Just my expierience.

      But I get it, different cultural backgrounds we both have. So I think your motto works in cultuaral groups that alsoo exist in my country. I see that man an woman feel happy in traditional genderroles of their own choosing.

      I am still uncomfortable with the separation of “choirs” like that, after my mom went back to work again choirss were shared eaqaly, including cooking and looking after us.

  32. Sorry to hijack this article for an off subject comment, but thus is a short essay of some value at this time. Read my comment under Marty’s article “Ability 3” “Yes the OT levels are worth it”.

    Thanks, Marildi, for the comment. Farming is honorable and it can be a joy to watch the fruits of your labor come forth. THE POINT OF MAGNITUDE is of course that the church is in bad shape and many people were wronged or even injured in the past and presently. Some people don’t have a reality on whole track. Some have had it invalidated. But there are many thousands of ex-scientoloigists with a very real reality on this who are sitting around feeling sorry for themselves or even living a comfortable life WHO ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING. What a waste of intelligence and energy. YES, YOU WERE WRONGED. THANK YOU FOR INDICATING THAT TO ME. NOW, LOOK AROUND THE WORLD AND FIND SOMETHING YOU COULD LIKE. GOOD. END OF SESSION. Take some vitamins, go jogging, get a good nights sleep, get up in the morning AND GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR. Either shit or get off the pot.
    I wrote a letter to Marty about getting a small group of auditors together, especially those skilled in OT repair, and form a research project. Furthering the tech with experienced, bright, high-classed auditors is not squirrel, it’s scientology. Perhaps he’s mulling it over. Bodies and planets are short lived and I, for one, don’t want this fruit to die on the vine. For myself and all those that I love, which is everyone. Even DM. Imagine an individual of his drive and intelligence were on purpose, in ethics.
    Start with that ashtray, then the dishes, then that hanging ARC break. Come up to present time and get busy. We have all been through a LOT worse. Sorry to be low toned, but you have to confront low tone to get up tone. There are lots of things you can do, right now, to greatly improve yourself and others. SO DO IT, RIGHT NOW. Thanks for the opportunity to voice some observations that I’ve held to long.
    Real ARC, MarkR
    If you wish to comm. with me just send it to marknr@hushmail.com.

    Talking about what oughta be without doing something about it is like masturbation. It feels good but it doesn’t produce life. ‘Sidney Poitier from To Sir With Love’. Thanks MarkR

  33. EnthralledObserver

    If LRH was not misogynistic, then why, in Dianetics, did he consistently blame women for the engrams of the children originating in the womb? Why were women constantly accused of trying to ‘self abort’ their babies?
    This man was not just a product of his times, he was the worst kind of product of his times!

  34. EnthralledObserver

    To add and reiterate: How dare this misogynistic prick attempt to suggest that a woman’s body is not the perfect vehicle in which to bring a new life into this world! And I’m referring to pregnancy AND birth – this mere man tried to interfere in both!
    I’ve also read differing versions of LRon suggesting babies are best raised on ‘Barley water formula’… so again, how dare this mere male try to undermine women when it came to the best, most natural way to nurture her new, precious infant!

    • My daughter and two grandchildren were breastfed, then Barley babies. Done wisely along with good food it makes a real difference.

      • MarkR,

        I have tried making drinking the barley water made as per LRHs recipe, and I did not do very well.

        I would like to know if you or anyone else tried it?

        And to those who have not tried it, I suggest you do.

        And I would like to know your experience?

        Dio

        • Dio. I have made a few hundred batches of barley milk over the past 26 years. It should be an important part of any baby’s diet. It does take a little practice. I do not agree with Ron that breastfeeding should be dispensed with, but Barley milk should be added to the diet as soon as one has the energy to make it. Barring a rare disease of some sort that is aggravated by high protein, it should be given in quantity to any baby with health or disposition problems. For more info on cooking the barley, contact me at; marknr@hushmail.com Thanks MarkR

          • Proteïn is needed for the development of the brain. You are doing it wrong. where do you get these silly ideas. Leaving Thetan’s operating a flunked apparatus.

      • EnthralledObserver

        If that were true then mainstream infant nutritionist would have been on to it long ago. It was probably the breast milk and then ‘good food’ that ‘made a real difference’, if you cared to do an in-depth study on it.
        The point here, of course, is not whether Barley has benefits as a food source for humans, it’s that Hubbard decided and tried to teach that women had faults that reached so deeply as to almost undermine their primitive purpose as life-bringers. Why? Because he couldn’t stand the thought that women had a value in something that was greater than a man’s. He was incredibly misogynistic… and it shows in many areas of the development of Dianetics and Scientology.
        This man (and I use that term loosely because of his cowardly hiding out at the end of his life) used his made-up qualifications to influence people into believing he knew what he was talking about. Breast milk and subsequently (from about 6-12 months of age) a diet of high quality fresh fruits, vegetables, grains (probably even including some Barley), meats and dairy products will have children thriving. The proof is in the product… my children are perfectly healthy, thank you, no ‘Barely formula’ in sight!
        Maybe this formula won’t harm babies if used sometimes, but it is dangerous if used as the sole nutrition of an infant – which is what this foolish man tried to promote – all because it didn’t sit well with him that women had a power he could never, ever possess. (after all… anyone can make this formula)

        • Entralled Observer,

          You made me think. Could it be that his covert intention with barley water for babies, was so that mothers would not take time off working for him to breast feed?

          Just a thought.

          Hubbard was very clever and now always in a good way.

          So every datum he said, must be impartially and thoroughly evaluated from all sides to determine the highest truth possible of the matter.

          Dio

        • To: Enthralled.
          Interesting opinion. My observations are different.

  35. To all of you who disagreed with Hubbard’s words on women and mothers:

    (Note that those words actually need considerable improvement to be more accurate. Someone brought up one point and that is: “men are difficult and troublesome creatures”. And that is a good point.

    Hubbard failed to say that if you have a man that is a difficult and troublesome creature, you have to check with his mother for the cause.

    And there is more correction and improvement needed, but it is more than I feel like doing at this time.)

    Next: all you critics and disagreeers, seem to think that the truth is determined by what you think, or feel like, or your opinion, or beliefs, or your choice.

    Or by who wins an argument.

    You are greatly mistaken.

    That means you flunked scientology, at the least.

    The truth is nothing more or less than the datum which solves the most problems for the longest amount of time for all dynamics.

    The spirit of Hubbard’s words on women and mothers is indeed the datum that solves the most problems for all dynamics for the longest amount of time.

    Any deviation from that datum is a slippery slope to the end of civilization.

    That truth will exist long after all you naysayers, disagreeers, arguers, complainers, opinionators and believers are gone.

    Freedoms, rights, democracy, and liberty are evidently not working, in a population, where most are near the bottom of the tone and theta scale, so have to be canceled.

    If civilization is to survive, from now on there must only be intelligence and responsibility.

    It is time to climb up the theta scale and get serious, very serious.

    The highest degree of responsibility, is responsibility for everything.

    And there is a right way and a wrong way to do pretty well everything.

    Most humans tend to screw up even the best of things.

    Pearls shouldn’t be thrown in front of swine, for they shall trample them under their feet into their manure.

    Dio

    • You summed up with this pronunciamento: “Freedoms, rights, democracy, and liberty are evidently not working, in a population, where most are near the bottom of the tone and theta scale, so have to be canceled.” Here’s mine in response: Find yourself a hard-core Scientology forum. I created this forum to help people graduate from such inhumane, cult implanted think.

      • Marty,

        My statement was based on extensive evaluation.

        Any idea is only as good as it works.

        So don’t shoot the viewer.

        :))

        Dio

    • “Hubbard failed to say that if you have a man that is a difficult and troublesome creature, you have to check with his mother for the cause.”

      This is the second time you have mentioned this.

      Some mothers have a low I.Q., no common sense, are ignorant and stupid and blind as a bat, and don’t know their ass from the elbow. And they have no idea who their kids are. Many mothers fail to see outpoints at all when viewing their children. Many mothers think what they want to think. Many mothers are not alive to ask anything or have relocated and left no forwarding address. Many mothers know nothing of the mind or conditions and little about social intercourse. Many mothers know very little about their children. A mother can not know a man from his wife’s viewpoint, or a girlfriend’s viewpoint, unless the mother is so unholy she has been in a wife/ girlfriend relationship with him.

      I do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that every mother would know the right “why” behind a person’s case and be an instant case cracker along the child’s dynamics. Know all the right items for every one of their children. This is simply impossible.

      When my kids are difficult or troublesome I have no idea at all what has keyed in on them. None. I only know they get re stimulated. And I try not to evaluate for them when they do. If other kids their age have problems with them it is not something I understand because I am not playing on line Internet games with them!

      Fixed idea, is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement.

      Mothers may have fixed ideas about their children. You may have fixed ideas about mothers.

      • “Hubbard failed to say that if you have a man that is a difficult and troublesome creature, you have to check with his mother for the cause.”

        This is the second time you have mentioned this.

        It is clearly a wrong why and wrong item for others. I do not know of anyone that would go to my mother to know anything about me.

        • And if you force wrong items on people, and datum’s that are not true, you are going to get protest reads back from them.

          I can tell you what has been true for me, the men I’ve known, their mothers didn’t have a CLUE who were their son’s were.

          When they in front of their mothers, even I didn’t know who they were any more! They would morph into a “son” I didn’t get to see until they were standing in front of their Moms!

          Out of the house, they were someone else altogether, someone they didn’t want their mothers to know! God forbid! Most of the men had “fair roads good weather” comm cycles with their mothers. I had better relationships with their mothers than they did! I actually lived with a guy for four years because I became best friends with his Mom! I just couldn’t confront losing her as a friend! You think she knew her son was? It would have given her a straight up heart attack!

        • T.O..

          Yes, you are correct, that is not an absolute.

          Similar could be said about me.

          But according to what I gather is that there are 24 types of beings on this planet.

          Some are greenhorns who come here to learn and experience and some are on assignment to teach.

          And many different types and purposes in between.

          I have that range in my family of seven, of which I am the oldest.

          Dio

          • Hi Dio. I’m not exactly familiar with the ’24 types of beings’. Could you explain what you’ve heard or give me a reference? Are you familiar with the introduction to Super Scio which lays out the purposes we’ve been given (to put it mildly) along the way? Thanks MarkR

          • I remember hearing or reading the point about the different categories of thetans who were relegated to earth. Does anyone have the full list of 24? I’d love to read it? Help me out here.

  36. Maybe I’m missing the big picture BUT it sure seems to me that there was a serious difference between what Ron wrote about women and their important roles RAISING children AND WHAT WAS IN FACT happening in the Sea Org — DURING the era of top female, no-discrimination-execs (Yvonne, Jane Kember etc etc) …

    I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments so perhaps someone else brought this up already but women in the Sea Org DID NOT have the time or energy to spend with their children. The children were shunted off either to a nursery within their org (like CCLA had) OR off to the Cadet Org and Nursery (Oh the horror of it — seriously)

    Family time was only an hour after dinner and many spent it taking a nap —

    So a mother and father got to see their children first thing in the morning to bathe etc and then not until family time (if then) then pick up their kids out of a dead sleep to take them to their room.

    HARDLY a way to nurture and raise a kid.

    And in my experience 2nd generation Sea Org/Scientology children are either — extreme fundamentalists OR when they became old enough and were able to go out on their own (OR WERE kicked out and disconnected from) — they want NOTHING to do with scientology/LRH/the tech.

    So — blame dm all you want BUT those seeds were sown before he was himself a teenager.

    When I went to Flag as staff in 1975 – the scene with children was the same. Very little time to spend with the children. Family time started to get cut down by late ’70’s — days off were ONLY every two weeks, if then.

    And by the time the ruling came for no more children — children were considered the ultimate dev-t — not the future of the planet. More double speak IMHO

    Christine

  37. Pingback: Scientology and Psychiatry | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  38. Jane Doe 2, I am with you on the fact that if my husband and I were separated, I would go to the ends of the earth to find him. And I would expect him to do the same for me. So don’t think for a minute I am giving Ron a free pass on all this. He should have found Mary Sue and lived with her following her release. After all, she took the fall for him. But in Marty’s latest book, he goes over how DM worked hard to keep them separated and how DM destroyed Mary Sue. DM by that time controlled all of Ron’s comm lines coming in or going out and many comms were simply destroyed and not passed on to him at all. Ron should never have let one person have that much power. And as for May Sue, if she were able to orchestrate the break in of the government agencies in the Snow White Operation as she did, then I would think she could with a little help from loyal Scns, break into the Int Base and find her husband. She should have done that. And Ron should have found her. But neither of those things happened. I would love to see a real biography of Ron written by anyone other than Dan Sherman. The real biography with no punches pulled would be a best seller because it is an interesting story, and I think even non-Scn’s would want to read it too.

    • Jane, no matter how much evaluation you (or another) make based on data, about how my life’s been the past years for me, you couldn’t possibly know. You might get an (general) idea, and plenty of false (for me) ideas. Yet so many people know about LRH because one or another said “…”? While the Church claimed he was out on vacations? I find it funny (not ridiculous, funny), as SCN has much to do with first hand knowing. Nobody can feed you cogs during auditing. But to know for yourself is the way to truth in SCN.

    • DM isn’t exactly reaping good karma from the ladies lately:

      Debbie Cook
      Leah Remini
      Nancy Many
      Karen De lacarrier
      Jenna Miscavige Hill
      Denise Miscavige
      Christie Rinder
      Katie Holmes
      Lisa Presley
      Nazanin Boniadi
      Valeska Guider
      Lana Mitchell

      Are just a few of the his recent planetary OUT P.R. flaps of late.

      He is on a motivator flow with women. Not a little one.

      • I think the war was against 2D, not just women (by far, most staff in my local org were women). I think by definition a 2D partner is closer than a 3D teamate, and they wanted to deal with that. The group wanted to substitute family, so it could make decisions ‘with’ you about your life. Eventually, 2D became junior to 3D, and you couldn’t have it without approval/control from the 3D. Just try to have a relationship with a COS hater while in the COS.

        I think this Church has so many similarities with how the soviets operated. The group was above all in importance, they were not allowed to communicate with opponents, family houses became group houses, personal posessions were minimal, same clothing, strict of group-based ‘ethics’ (morals), work was the holy thing, tight surveilence, talking ill about the leaders was a no-no. LRH talked very ill of that system, and called it a slave system. How is it that he made the SO about like that? I think it’s very possible that he didn’t, and instead it became like that. I don’t know much about it. But logically, it would be a blatant contradiction if that was his work.

        • Oh yes, I forgot the most blatant similarily: the punishment and brainwashing that those who disagreed (and communicated) with the system underwent. In the case of the soviets it was through psychiatry, in the case of the SO it was psychoentology😛

          SPs lack in originality so much. Can’t even figure out a slave system of their own.

  39. P.S. to Jane Doe 2, And YES, I think Ron should have looked for Mary Sue and brought her there and given her the love and respect she was due and had earned from him. He must not have been in his right mind at that time to do otherwise.

  40. Spyros, I don’t know if your comment is to Jane Doe (me) or to Jane Doe 2.

    And I’m not sure what you mean by “…about how my life’s been the past years for me, you couldn’t possibly know.” I don’t know what you mean? I never commented on how your life’s been in any years. Clarification?

    • Jane, it was addressed to you but not just you. I meant that just like one couldn’t know about me by asking people about me and making evaluations, same is for LRH. And that I consider ‘knowing for oneself’ the way to truth in SCN.

      • Spyros, I agree and that’s why I’d like to see a real biography done on LRH. There is an Indie that collected up boxes and boxes of stuff for a biography and then he became out of favor and was either RPFed or expelled and declared. But it would be good if he wrote the biography he intended to do back in the 60’s. Also anyone who actually had personal dealings with Ron would of course be interviewed. I found the interview that Sarge did with Marty for his last book was very interesting and gave a glimpse into Ron’s last months.

  41. Pingback: Scientology and Psychiatry | 31 Factors

  42. T.O. and who ever else,

    Re: the discussion we had on the lack of “mother know how”.

    I failed to make my point. I could not think that far into the subject at one time.

    What is lacking in regards to the societal problem with women and the importance of proper mother hood is that there is not a systemic cultural datum (implant) in the mass consciousness of the importance of proper, responsible, intelligent motherhood and what proper mother hood consists of.

    Simply stated, good motherhood is not clearly defined in society and should be

    I suppose in some cultures it may be. ( or similar to what Hubbard stated which I quote below) But it is not wide spread or global, which it needs to be.

    Women should have regular weekly “study groups” where they research and discover and discuss and learn and teach the best mothering (parenting) practices to raise the best types of children to be the best men and women.

    (Including the proper care and feeding of husbands, to use the title of Laura Schlesinger’s book:

    http://www.drlaura.com/pg/jsp/community/bookdetail.jsp?detID=-950235365937463723)

    Instead of bridge clubs and what ever other kind of mindless clubs and women’s activities there are.

    That is in the spirit of the remainder of Hubbard’s article in SOS:

    Quote: The arts and skills of women, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable and which –here and there in isolated places in our culture—she still manages to effect in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world which spreads around her, must be brought newly and fully into life. These arts and skills and creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of mankind.”

    The ideal society to work towards is where women learn how and look after children, bring up children right to be noble men and women, and look after husbands first.

    ( As in the words of wisdom: behind every successful man there is a successful woman who knows how to look after men)

    Then when family duties are looked after and there is spare time left, then the women should best look after community duties and jobs, then do local business jobs. (prioritize in that order) So that they can always be in touch with the family and the community. But family is first and highest priority.

    Re: The proper care and feeding of husbands and “Behind every successful man there is a successful woman.

    A successful woman is a professional mother and wife, first. She is a professional at raising family and looking after men.

    These two statements, are the spirit of “a good man’s motto” that I posted earlier:

    If I am not horny,
    make me something to eat,
    and look after the children and the home,
    and I will lay the moon and the stars at your feet.

    Being a successful woman and mother can be so easy, but the majority of women screw it up and make it so difficult and problematic, that they shun it.
    And thus that sets civilization on a downward spiral to self destruction.

    People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge on how to solve the problem at hand.

    If you have the right knowledge, you can solve any problem perfectly.

    Gain wisdom, knowledge and understanding and they shall be as crown of glory for you by day and a guiding light by night. Proverb.

    Dio

    • EnthralledObserver

      Dio, I’m going to assume that you are a man for the purposes of my reply:

      I’m going to let you in on my pov. First, I am a mother of five, oldest 15, youngest 5… and I am pretty outraged at your suggestion that women should conform to your suggestion and idea, which I’m cynically going to refer to as ‘stepford wife’. I don’t want to be one, the whole idea horrifies me, so much so that if that was all I was allowed to be as a woman, then I’d hide my gender, for real. As it is I have sacrificed a lot to be a mother, and I am, even though you can see I’m probably only about half way through my duties, very OVER IT! But I will continue, because that’s what my kids need from me. However, women are not men’s servants, and nor should women be expected to ‘earn’ their good treatment by men any more or initially than a man might have to from a woman. 50/50, my friend, and I won’t accept anything otherwise.
      Now, moving on, to limit a woman’s role in life to this stepford wife/mother image is immensely unfair! Men, in their work roles would be able to chop and change their employment/occupation whenever it became boring/intolerable for them, so where, as women, is our change? I mean, adding infant after infant didn’t really change my life, it just added to my burden, and now you want me locked in to it for life? Man, seriously, I wish I could do other things. Unfortunately, my circumstances with my hubby working away, limits me personally, but as soon as a woman feels her infants do not need her devoted full time to them, she ought to be able to seek a life outside this role. (note: Some ladies may be satsified/happy in the role you’ve described, and more power to them – but it shouldn’t be a requirement!)
      Also, you are seriously discounting a woman’s potential and role in the community. We aren’t just good for sex, food and babies… we have brains and are more than capable of contributing on our own merits, so why shouldn’t we be able to do so directly? And what sort of world would this be if the only influences were those of only men? This whole idea of ‘behind every successful man is a good woman’ or whatever version you might come up with, is setting up the idea that only men get to take the credit for the good ideas… and soon enough women will be back to having NO say whatsoever.
      Lastly, a lot of men already expect a woman to look after the kids and house because he is the ‘earner’… but in todays society two incomes are needed to survive. Now you are suggesting that men need looking after by the women as well, plus the house, plus the kids… and NOW we have to earn as well?
      Come on, lazy, selfish blokes… pull your finger out and step up as real MEN and look after and help those ladies live valuable, worthwhile lives too!

    • Dio, thanks for your thoughtful post. The Mormons have been doing just that… where the women meet and discuss ways to better care for the house , the man, the kids, and exchange recipes, get solutions to problems, encourage each other etc. It is one of the things I see positive about that religion. And I have read some of Laura Schlessinger’s books and found good info in them. But the Women’s Lib movement of the 60’s and 70’s would reject that book and those ideas. I think I read Ron say somewhere that it was the Psychs that started the Women’s Lib movement as a way to break up the family.

  43. Actually Dr. Laura’s philosophy is very much in alignment with Hubbards article on women and motherhood. Read up on it here:

    Books by Dr. Laura

    The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands
    Buy it on Amazon.com

    In her most provocative book yet, Dr. Laura urgently reminds women that to take proper care of their husbands is to ensure themselves the happiness and satisfaction they yearn for in marriage.

    Women want to be in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Yet disrespect for men and disregard for the value, feelings, and needs of husbands has fast become the standard for male-female relations in America. Those two attitudes clash in unfortunate ways to create struggle and strife in what could be a beautiful relationship.

    Countless women call Dr. Laura, unhappy in their marriages and seemingly at a loss to understand the incredible power they have over their men to create the kind of home life they yearn for. Now, in The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands , Dr. Laura shows you-with real-life examples and real-life solutions – how to wield that power to attain all the sexual pleasure, intimacy, love, joy, and peace you want in your life.

    Dr. Laura’s simple principles have changed the lives of millions. Now they can change yours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s