The basic training at Quest was gender-neutral but in the advanced courses it quickly moved on to very strict gender rules like:

[b:42841a3c94]Men must be Men, Women must be Women.[/b:42841a3c94]

The formal definition of this was something like "As long as women are girls looking for father figures, and men are boys looking for father figures, they can't have proper relationships".

But in practise and in the processes what came out is that women must dress like traditional women (ultra-feminine) and men must dress like men (ultra-masculine).

Other gender cliches:

[b:42841a3c94]Women are more powerful than men

...because they are more vulnerable than men

...therefore they must put on an act of being less powerful so as not to frighten the men...

...women need protection from men

...man is the provider

...woman is the nurturer[/b:42841a3c94]

All very much like what they do on mankind project and woman within. Quest also had a "Male Fallacy" course and a "Female Conspiracy" course. Male Fallacy = fallacy that men are more powerful, female conspiracy = women pretending not to know they're more powerful so that they can manipulate men by appearing weak and vulnerable.

And then there were more woo-woo type ideas, like women are more spiritual so they need men to ground them, and men are less spiritual so they need women to ? what ? get their feet off the ground?!

Was there any of this at the other lgats? If someone else attended the lgat, did you notice any changes in them along these lines?

My take on it is that its just part of setting people up with good marketing images so that they can recruit more effectively (traditional feminine and masculine look more acceptable / attractive to wider range of people; using sexual attraction to sell), but probably also more to it, though I haven't thought it through yet...

Any other thoughts on this??

Interesting. I didn't realize some LGAT's did that.

I wonder if it is a way of breaking down a person's individuality by getting them to behave in conformity with certain gender stereotypes.

INteresting that your training had mens and womens training also. Impacts womens training was about letting the feminine side out, even if the woman was obese. Mens training was about getting in touch with...THEIR FEMININE SIDE!!!!!!

Question Lady, thanks, i think you're right as usual :lol:

Quote

wonder if it is a way of breaking down a person's individuality by getting them to behave in conformity with certain gender stereotypes.

Yes, that makes sense. The three things that brings to mind are:

1. People who don't follow strict stereotypes are more likely to be non-conformists; their appearance is usually some kind of rebellion - think of hippy men with long hair, heavy metal types etc and the same in reverse for women with shorter hair etc. Those people particularly need to broken down so they get 'special' attention.

2. Gender is an easy way to shame people - e.g. calling a man a 'mommy's boy' or simply 'a girl' because of long hair.

3. Gender is a crucial part of identity; if they can take a trivial gender aspect of a person's appearance and use it to call their whole identity and gender value (being a 'real' man or a 'real' woman) into question, then that probably goes quite far towards breaking people down.

Passionate, I don't know how that fits in with Impact's sending men off to find their 'feminine side' :? In what way did they do that? And I guess you're thinking of the stretches, where obese women were made to do sexy dances? At Impact do they also give "I Am A Man" and "I Am A Woman" type contracts?

Anyway, that's all gender, but then that leads to sex, (well, so do the stretches of course) because it results in a highly polarized-genderized-sexualized environment, don't know how much that caused the promiscuity that seemed to go around Quest and also the problems in relationships. Obviously gender is always around and noticeable, but normally there is at least some degree of people relating as human to human rather than one sex to another or one sex to the same sex.

Quote
SaneAgain
1. People who don't follow strict stereotypes are more likely to be non-conformists;

2. Gender is an easy way to shame people - e.g. calling a man a 'mommy's boy' or simply 'a girl' because of long hair.

3. Gender is a crucial part of identity;

.

Very good points Sane Again.

Quote
SaneAgain
At Impact do they also give "I Am A Man" and "I Am A Woman" type contracts?

.

I'd love to hear more about these. Who are you contracting with? Is it the same for gay and straight people?

Quote
SaneAgain
Obviously gender is always around and noticeable, but normally there is at least some degree of people relating as human to human rather than one sex to another or one sex to the same sex.

Right. We want to avoid any human to human relating. :roll:

Quote


SaneAgain wrote:

Quote

At Impact do they also give "I Am A Man" and "I Am A Woman" type contracts?

I'd love to hear more about these. Who are you contracting with? Is it the same for gay and straight people?

The contract is with your new "self" to govern how you live the rest of your life. Its given in contrast to your old self, which was defined by a "bad name tag" (literally a name tag you had to wear for a few days, saying something like "Trailer Trash" or "Impotent").

They make out that you "choose" your contract but actually the trainers choose it for you, and prompt you and hint until you 'get it' yourself. Its the main conversion process of inquest; getting your contract is really stressful and when you get it, that's when the 'snapping' happens, and you go into shock and the whole group of assistants pick you up and rock you. So its a very influential process. (On a lighter note, when I was psychotic I got hung up on the word 'contract' - I kept thinking it had something to do with the mafia... :lol: )

I don't remember a gay man or woman ever getting an "I Am A Man" or "I Am A Woman" contract... but I always found it weird that there were a lot of gay people in quest and their homosexuality was well accepted, but I always wondered what they thought of these strict gender things, unfortunately I never asked any of them. I do remember the trainer saying something like "a gay man must still be a man" in the context of 'grown up' as opposed to being a boy.

Another thing about gender, and I'm going to quote an apologist (Eileen Barker) here, but I think its a relevant point:

Quote

One argument against brainwashing is that cults appeal to people more during "periods of rapid social change, at times when individuals are feeling a lack of structure and belonging . . . and when the credibility of traditional institutions is impaired" (Fox and Levine 2001, p. 142). This explanation of membership emphasizes social as well as life circumstances.

[www.deathreference.com]

I don't think its an argument AGAINST brainwashing, but an argument that is PART OF brainwashing - but the idea of social structure and traditions - I think a lot of men (and women maybe) are threatened by changing gender roles, so the emphasis on traditional roles was maybe comforting and provided a sense of safety and structure - while the repeated statements that women are more powerful was maybe to appease the women with more feminist views... then again!!! Maybe they just talk totally contradictiory and confusing rubbish purely to confuse people. :evil:

Landmark doesn't seem polarized like what you all are describing. But, if I were to say anything it was more of a melding of the sexes. It was as if in some weird sort of way people were de-sexed!

Men become much less agressive and much more passive. Women also seem to become more passive and more emotional. Women cry a lot when they get up and share during the seminars that attended weekly.

I noticed that men who were clearly agressive before became toned down a lot.

I experienced this in myself. A few weeks into the Landmark Forum in Action seminar I noticed that I had become much less agressive than before. And I'm not talking about the angry kind of agressiveness. I noticed it in all aspects of where agressiveness would play a roll in my life. Such as the kind of agressiveness that a naturally copetitive person would have. Agressive music wouldn't get my blood flowing like it used to. I lowered my defenses to where I was more prone to letting people take advantage of me. But when it came to Landmark, I would quickly get defensive! Odd huh! Everyone in Landmark is quick to defend it as well, but yet not as outwardly agressive.

I noticed that both men and women had more relationship issues. So did I, I suddenly started having issues with the women in my life, whether they were friends or I was dating them. This did not occur before Landmark.

I noticed that the guys seemed to loose their sex drive in Landmark. I noticed a lot of fellow men seemed asexual and not interested in women to the degree that most men would be. I know for a fact that Landmark interefered with my then dating life. I didn't have as much time as before therefore I didn't pursue the single scene with the same intensity as before.

I also noticed that there were a lot more gay people in Landmark than I would usually expect to find in other activities. I didn't have a problem with them, I'm straight and have gay friends, just thought it a bit odd that there is such a high percentage of gay people. Now what I really found shocking with regards to gay people in Landmark, they seemed to be isolated from the local gay community as a whole. Like they were facing some sort of opposition within the community. I wonder if this is true every where?

My main question here is could the programming of people in Landmark effect the center of the brain that controls sex drive? Essentially turning it down or off?

Quote

My main question here is could the programming of people in Landmark effect the center of the brain that controls sex drive? Essentially turning it down or off?

Landmark programming seems to affect a person's ability to empathize, or to emote anything without a landmark filter running in the background. The programming also causes affected people to become sociopathic or sociopath [i:bc8bae2c1f]like[/i:bc8bae2c1f], in how they approach the world and people. Think of all the stories of people sharing traumatic experiences such as rape or childhood sexual abuse in a landmark forum and being accused of causing it.
If landmark programming can disrupt or damage personal conscience to that depth and degree, why wouldn't it cause the same damage to libido? Empathy and libido are fundamental components of our humanness, if landmark programming can confuse or paralyze these qualities, why wouldn't it also make an absolute mess of the rest of what is biopsychologically embedded in an average human being.

Yep it definately affects a lot of stuff.

I even stopped dreaming when I was asleep. I discussed this with another Lekkie when I first started Landmark and she was experiencing the same thing. I've started having dreams now that I've left Landmark. Some are quite disturbing I often wake up with sweat soaked clothes. This used to not happen, not with the temp I keep my place at night.

Anyone else experience this?

Quote
Zorro
Yep it definately affects a lot of stuff.

I even stopped dreaming when I was asleep. I discussed this with another Lekkie when I first started Landmark and she was experiencing the same thing. I've started having dreams now that I've left Landmark. Some are quite disturbing I often wake up with sweat soaked clothes. This used to not happen, not with the temp I keep my place at night.

Anyone else experience this?

I recall my friend telling me once that she doesn't have dreams, and this was prior to her re-involvement with landmark. She had taken a forum over a decade before she got re-involved. That is scary. Perhaps someone could give a psychological explanation for dreams, it may be clearer as to why a person doesn't dream after being psychologically butchered in a landmark forum.