“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Tocqueville "Democracy in America"

So what is this referencing? — schopenhauer1

Your statement...

Yes. No forcing of anything on anyone. — schopenhauer1

That is not the point of the quote. The bottom line is the point.

"For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Because I understand that question, I have no desire for heaven. We do not like everything that happens in life, but if life were not challenging, no one would want to play the game. :grin:

Are you talking about US government's programs to increase programs in math and science? — schopenhauer1

:lol: That is a rather limited understanding of what happened, and I would not include science in that statement. Education for technology and leaving moral training to the church did not advance our appreciation of science, but advanced reliance of "experts".

You might have noticed the US has a president who denies science and ignores actions that are determined necessary by science, and that is he is very popular. The US has always put religion above science but I think we were better prepared for science in the past. Appreciating science goes with education for good moral judgment and democracy. The Texas Republican party in 2012 opposed the necessary education for promoting science throughout the citizenry.

No. I said that I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to raise a child - it teaches them that they must choose a side in all ongoing conflicts between authority and independence, which ultimately contribute to as much suffering as they strive to reduce. All you’re doing as a parent is achieving a minimal appearance of force shift in an unwinnable war. — Possibility

I will try again. Are you agreement with education for a technological society with unknown values replacing a liberal education for good moral judgment and defending democracy in the classroom?

There is no resolution in a conflict between authority and independence because they are not polar opposites. While it appears as if increasing one decreases the other, it is illogical to think that by maximising one we eliminate the other. The dichotomy is false. Authority is contingent upon understanding one’s interdependence. When clear authority falls away, interdependence is necessary. Likewise, independence is contingent upon knowing where authority lies. And when our independence is lost, we look to authority. So, you see, it’s not a conflict at all, but a dynamic balance. Authority and independence are inversely contingent upon each other. This what the yin-yang symbol means. — "

Oh my, I have a different understanding of history. I thought the American Revolution was about liberty and ending the power of England to rule in North America, and we fought two world wars, to end tyranny and defend democracy. The idea that authority and liberty are not polar opposites may have truth but it can not be the whole truth?

Again, you seem to be reading only to react. I am not saying that we are powerless to effect change. Awareness can empower us, but only insofar as we also strive to connect and collaborate. And I was specifically referring to how we raise our children, not how we react to a current situation. It’s not about observing change and fighting it, or about choosing EITHER authority OR independence. It’s about anticipating the trajectory and doing what we can to adjust it away from potentially destructive outcomes.

You are right about me reacting, but that is not all that is happening. I also notice I am experiencing a lot of confusion, and perhaps gaining self-awareness. Compared to you, I am a poverty level street fighter, who does not understand how to things civilly. I do not like this self-awareness. I don't think this is a matter of one us being right and the other wrong. I think it is a matter of money and social position. I think I thought more like you before the 1970's recession. Before that rececession I was one of those "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people". Then I I became one of "those people" as are many people today becoming one of "those people" because of the economic crisis we are in and one of the wonderful things about this economic crisis is learning the people who work in meat processing plants do not have the means to stay healthy and not only are they a higher risk of dying, but they could contaminate our food. Now we care about them. Throughout our history people have risked their lives fighting for a better standard of living and people in your apparent position have not understood the fight. Why fight instead of being nice and reasonable? My mother did not have the economic opportunity women assume today, and my grandmother who was a devoted teacher for a good 60 years, was put in the welfare side of the nursing home where people were fed after the more affluent people were fed. I am thankful by then her mind was gone and she didn't realize she was now considered a charity case.
— "

Idealistically speaking, if everyone aimed to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, then situations such as Nazi Germany or Trump as President would not have occurred. Liberty and justice seem like noble ideals, but keep in mind that in reality justice hinders liberty, and liberty hinders justice. Hitler and Trump are more products of their society than heinous individuals. The Nazis were handed authority, as was Trump. It is the extent to which we have all been ignorant, isolated and exclusive that we have brought about these atrocities - including environmental destruction. — "

Now I agree with the opening statement of that paragraph. :cheer: However, there is no justice without morality, and tolerating immorality is destructive to civilization, so it can not be tolerated. To ignore immorality is as destructive as ignoring a pandemic, and a society focused on profit instead of morality is doomed to self destruct. This is not as either/or as your examples of this or that. How does justice hinder liberty? Justice must support morality and only highly moral people can have liberty. Life is full of trinities and trinity manifest infinite possibilities.

I understand your despair. Not long ago, I was highly idealistic, certain that there was one perfect way that the world should be, and that inasmuch as we were not living in that ideal and couldn’t even determine it, the world was broken. But I realised that in order to create the world the way we think it should be, we need to first accept the world as it is - not to see it as broken, but rather as a work in progress. And eventually I realised that there was not one perfect world to strive towards, but a range of possibilities, and within that a range of potential, and within that my existence as a unique manifestation in relation to all possibilities. So I strive for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with all possibilities, and in doing so I raise my children to do the same and I contribute in the same way to the lives of others, knowing that what I’m striving to create is beyond any potential I can manifest in one ‘individual’ lifetime of experience. — "

If I were to give out prizes for best posts you and @Congau would get prizes. The two of you have maintained the discussion, while others dropped in long enough to criticize me and left without contributing to the discussion. :lol: Strange but common behavior.

I have wonderful hopes for what might come out of the pandemic. I think affluence leads to making some social problems worse. It set a high standard of living and suddenly people who thought they would never have to ask for help are forced to ask for help. I think this will improve our collective thinking. I don't think you have lived in poverty and experienced doing so with no one to help you. In the 60's I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that no one born white and middle class could experience. We could run away from home and play at poverty, but as long as the economy was good and we had parents to call for help, we could not really experience poverty. It took an economic crash to teach me the meaning of poverty and how meaningless it is.

We can learn facts about poverty, but facts are not equal to knowledge. However, science is filling in some wonderful details and we have every reason to hope for a better future, and largely, I believe that is because women now represent us in government!

This is the first economic turn down since Roosevelt and Eleanor that I remember being focused on helping the little guy get through hard times. When Reagon was president in the 1980's, OPEC had embargoed oil and our economy had crashed and Reagon turned our war on poverty into war against those living in poverty and we have maintained that war until now. I am not sure we will have a better future without fighting for it.

Note, you have made our communication work. Others have not. We can not make a better future with people who drop in, find fault, and leave. Maybe some females are doing that, but I suspect it is more common for men to behave that way.

↪Athena That block of text reads more like a diary entry (not what I come here for). You seem distracted by other discussions so I’ll leave you to it.

Maybe a new thread with specific aims would encourage more focused discussion. — I like sushi

I rather have a good argument than a criticism that does not address anything I said.

No statement about future events has any truth value, but all that concern past events have one. No matter how much potential information you have and how much you can imagine, a truth value can never be achieved, in other words you can never know what will happen in the future (even just a few seconds into the future). — Congau

:chin: What you said is not agreeable to me. The US has recently experienced a huge cultural change and that followed replacing our liberal education and focus on good moral judgment, with education for a technological society with unknown values. For sure this began without full knowledge of the social, economic, and political ramifications, but the main goals have been achieved.

Yes. No forcing of anything on anyone. — schopenhauer1

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Tocqueville "Democracy in America"

In general, in any society (so this cannot be specific to a particular country, region, but human societies as a whole), can we distill ultimate "ends" that societies set-up? So basically I'm asking:

1) Are there discernible goals societies want from individuals?
2) What are the social controls in place to make this happen?
3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual?

This last question obviously has a lot to do with antinatalism. If parent's unwittingly (by their supposed "own" desires) want children, those children will become public entities (they will be used by the community as laborers at the least). Any general thoughts on these ideas and questions? — schopenhauer1

Public education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose of the education is the wish. The students are the genii.

"If we reflect on the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct." William James

In the US in 1958 those who control education changed and they changed the purpose of education, with huge social, economic, and political ramifications.

Our contingent ideas about the world are different because the roles we play in the world.

Men compete and females nurture the kids, of course there are exceptions to this rule like any man made rules.
Though females used to not make the rules only to adhere to them.

People are trying to change this rule I don't understand why?
But in a non-dominated men world I assume things will be different, but not in this world!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rq9OvaJyRc — MathematicalPhysicist

Thank you for a serious contribution. You make me aware of how much my thinking changes and I should have started with a comment about social values because that is what this thread was supposed to be about. What if women from the beginning of civilization women had a more powerful role in defining social values?

and at the whole women is not equal to men, that is an fact. but still this childish topic has gained so much popularity. indeed it is fun to see when people have nothing serious to do they create some problems and then try to solve them. — tavaa

Unless you want to contribute to the discussion seriously, please stay out of it.

But if we only obey policy, then we can’t really BE as different as the aliens of outer space. Our capacity for diversity is then limited by policy. — Possibility

Yes, and I am not accountable because I am just following orders.

Individualism is a relative perspective. To be ‘individual’ is to be indivisible: an isolated and homogenous entity. As it suits us, we can conform to an individual state as God, or an individual interpretation of God, or an individual relation to God - but rarely simultaneously without contradiction. It is the diversity and relations between these structures (which are themselves relational) that reveal the illusion of individualistic perspective. — Possibility

Let me begin by saying I am so pleased you are willing to discuss mythology with me! Each god and goddess is a concept and I wish we all understood that.

I am not sure why you have not accepted my explanation of individuality so I will try again. When education prepared everyone for leadership, individuality meant being responsible and accountable and now it does not. When our nation was born, it was not run by policy but by individuals. Our bureaucratic order was extremely inefficient and we could not have the powerful government we have today unless the bureaucratic order was changed. So first there is reorganizing government and this new order crushes individual liberty and power but makes the government very strong, and what follows this change in governmental organization, is the change in education, making the young followers, not leaders.

Trump, the president of the US, is a great example of someone who is as different as they come and completely unaccountable. We don't seem to understand accountability any more because we are so used to following policy which is tyrannical, but we are too ignorant of what government organization is and can be, that we accept the tyranny of Trump and think this is a good thing. This is a serious change in our social organization and experience of life. This is no longer family order. It is the New World Order.

The ideal of democracy and of Greek and Roman classics is not the same as the reality of it. Greek and Roman societal structures excluded, isolated and ignored elements of diversity within themselves that failed to conform to their limited structural perspective of ‘the state as God’. They were certainly not above distinguishing themselves from an external threat. — "

Absolutely the Greeks and Romans were totally patriarchal, except Sparta gave their women the freedom of barbarians. Spartan women could manage Sparta without the men, unlike Athenian women who were very sheltered and forbidden to have any of the power of a man, which seems strange because their goddesses certainly had power. :lol: Back in the day, Persians and Greeks accused each other of being effeminate and soft. It was very important for a man to be a strong and skilled fighting man, and Spartans took the prize for being the most devoted fighting men, subjected to abuse from a young age to assure they grew up to be committed fighting men.

Athena was patriarchal and thought it worse to kill a man than kill a woman. I have some problems with that but not totally. I don't want to be as a man, so I am fine with supporting the man who is manly.

I get that we increase our understanding of the diversity and relation between two ideas by applying them to our view of the world, but I think we need to be careful of the tendency to then individualise and evaluate the complexity of reality according to this idealised binary. It doesn’t take much effort in looking closer to see how reality transcends whatever labels we attribute to it or categories we separate it into. — "

You might notice I am obsessed with the difference between the Germany we defeated in two world wars and the democracy we defended. This issue of individuality and liberty is hugely important to me. So your comment further down means a lot to me. I bolded that one. We need to nail things to a more concrete reality because I am just idealizing. Effectively, Germany was the Sparta of modern times and the US was the Athens of modern times. But the US adopted German ways and put the US on the same path Germany followed, and replaced the Greek philosophers with German philosophers and now we are what we fought against. When I say Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice and protector of those who stand for liberty and justice, no one is relating to what I am saying. I am speaking of hard reality much more than anyone seems to realize.

I get what you’re saying - as a mother, as a homemaker, as someone who promotes education and is married to a teacher. I understand the value of the full time homemaker, but I also understand that this value is not exclusive to the role of the full time homemaker. I understand how important and honourable the task of rearing children is, but the honour and support we give this task is not just for mothers. And I understand that we structure society on a gross misunderstanding about raising children: that it’s about the conflict between authority and independence. — "

What do you mean the value of a full-time homemaker is not exclusive to the role of the full-time homemaker? We are considering using robots to care for the children and in many families, the TV is the babysitter. Teachers seem to be quite sure we have dumped our children on them and we really don't care about them. While policy, where I live, has taken the authority to disciple students out of the teacher's hands, and it is now government managing the education of children, not the parents and not the teachers. :gasp:

If you understand this is a conflict between authority and independence I am thrilled to come across someone who understands that and I would really appreciate your explanation of that!

The role of child rearing is often seen as a paring back of dependency in relation to developing autonomy. But the ancient ‘matriarchal’ view would suggest that autonomy and independence are illusions - we are all eternally interconnected and interdependent - and whatever power or influence that anyone thinks they possess comes from their relationships. To that end, we should raise our children neither to be independent and challenging authority nor to be dependent and submissive, but rather to have the courage to always increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world. — "

:scream: I need a tranquilizer because what you said is so upsetting to me! If I came down with coronavirus I would go to the hospital and tell them just to make me comfortable and help me die, because I remember a different reality from the one we live in and I do not like this one. Your arguments seem to assure we remain powerless to do anything about the change. I keep arguing because it is my hope awareness can empower us.

Is that the advice you would give the German people as the nazi took over? Is that a stand for liberty and justice? I can see a higher morality in what you said and it would be great if we all got there, but Trump makes me doubt if we can get there peacefully. Not only is this pandemic traumatizing but I am really traumatized by how Trump is handling it and his followers marching around with rifles! I have been arguing my basic arguments for many years and kind of like not worrying about global warming because it isn't that bad yet, Trump and his followers seem to be proving me right and I don't always want to be right. It is that bad now.

Us guys are not to blame for everything you know, most things maybe, but not all. Over the many years I have been around there have been plenty of female posters. And possibly quite a few that were females but kept it a secret.
Not many of the serious posters of either gender check to see the gender of the person posting, they are more interested in the content of the OP and the value of the ideas and arguments provided.

If you want people here to take you seriously, give them something serious to think about and discuss. This thread has gotten over 200 posts, not bad. — Sir2u

I am sorry you are having a hard time with the lockdown. I do fine with this way of life as long as I have the internet. But I am gaining weight and seriously need the pool to open up so I can get my exercise. I expect a lot of good to come from the pandemic and I suppose that is what keeps my spirits up.

I think I have made serious and interesting posts and I was seriously disappointed when no one responded, and this is on topic. When the men get together what do they talk about? I have been a member of male groups so I know what they talk about but I am opening discussion with the question.
I have fond memories of the coffee clutches of my younger years, where mothers talk about what is important to them, and it is not what men talk about. I am saying perhaps there is a gender difference
when it comes to what is worth thinking about and what is not?

Yes, it is wrong to talk about behind someone's back. In the forum, it is almost equal to being banned. I am thankful to the person who shared this...

I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP. — anonymous

I suspected that was the case because my posts have been completely ignored in some threads. It came up in my thread questioning how history may have gone differently if women had always had an equal voice. Our different experiences in life give us different points of view, and when the woman's point of view is excluded from the discussion you get a different culture than if she is included in the discussion.

Again with the old and the new...

My personal perspective certainly doesn’t value individuality - not sure where you got that from...

The ant colony analogy values surrendering consciousness to the organisation, which then strives for domination, autonomy and influence in relation to the external environment. To illustrate with cultural references, it’s similar to the difference between ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Arrival’: are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat, to survive as the dominant entity, or are we collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves?

And again, I don’t find it accurate to divide this along male-female lines. There are many women who are striving towards maximising or ‘restoring’ female domination, autonomy and influence by opposing male domination, autonomy and influence as a direct threat. I don’t see this as the answer - it’s just more of the same...

The best situation for our children is not an institution at all - it is an ongoing creative process that increases awareness, connection and collaboration, despite anticipating experiences of pain, humility and loss - for our children as well as ourselves. The ancient ‘grandmotherly’ concept of societal order corresponds to this, but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use. — Possibility

Boy or boy we are getting into hair-splitting and I am not sure how this will turn out? The US strongly values individuality but I am not sure what individuality means?

Democracy based on Greek and Roman classics is "collaborating towards something greater than this current view of ourselves". The New World Order is "are we cooperating to distinguish ourselves from an external threat". That is Hegel's the state is God and everyone should be made to conform to the state. However, we can all be as different as the aliens of outer space, as long as we obey policy.

Skip this explanation unless you really want it. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you have watched the TV series Star Trek but Joseph Campbell said it is the best mythology for our time. In the original Star Trek Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. John Wayne stood for individuality. He knew who he was, and set the boundaries. In the US we had education for independent thinking and Captain Kirk was the ideal male leader.

Star Trek the Next Generation replaced Captian Kirk with Captian Picard. Captain Picard rarely made an independent decision. He comes after we replaced education for independent thinking with "group think". Now decisions are made jointly. There is still individuality but it is distinctly more like that ant colony. That is the meaning of individuality changed, and no longer holds the responsibility Kirk assumed. Individuality coming to mean reliant on higher authority but different, like dying our hair pink or green and putting studs in our face, makes us individuals, but that does not go with responsibility. That is not the individuality of our forefathers, and along with "group thinking", we destroyed our national heroes which were Gorge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin. Trump would be an independent thinker of old if he were accountable for what he did and said, but he does not! We have experienced a huge cultural shift that is a shift in what "individuality" means.

Captain Kirk and his crew were repeatedly running into societies controlled by computers. Picard on one occasion, questioned if he should follow orders because of the danger the crew faced if they adhered to the orders and policy. Compared to the original Star Trek that was a weak defense of individuality meaning carrying responsibility and being accountable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the war of the sexes. I am really not interested. What I care about is honoring the Mother and the caregivers and teachers and all the people who work in food production who do not have the means to stay healthy because we exploit them and keep them in poverty. I want mothers to be honored and supported in their honorable occupation of the very important task of rearing children. I will point out, rarely did Star Trek have anything to do with family. Talk to me about the value of the full-time homemaker, okay? What she did for the family and the community and what she has to do with liberty! As John Locke said of kings thinking of their masses as children, they are unlike parents who expect their children to become independent. There is a limit to how long we are under the authority of a parent, unlike living under the authority of policy that is different from the authority of a king, only because kings die, but the bureaucracy above us, does not die.

but there is nothing inherently ‘feminine’ about this as a structure for society - except in your language use. — Possibility

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex | New ...
https://www.newscientist.com › article › dn14146-gay-brains-structured-lik...
Jun 16, 2008 - The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain ... Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women. — newscientist

I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP. But I am getting bored after being on lock down for more than 5 weeks.

I have been reading most but not all of the thread, and have come to a simple conclusion. The first line says it all.

"male dominated forums"

The forums are not all male dominated because the ladies are banned or forbidden to enter.

So why are they not here?

Because most of them have no interest in being here.

So do not blame the blokes, blame the rest of the feminists that cannot be bothered to join.

Sorry if I upset you again. — Sir2u

I agree with you and thank you so much for that information! Please tell me more about "I really did not want to post here because of previously being warned about interaction with the person that wrote the OP." I suspected that because my posts are completely ignored in other threads and I would love to know exactly how the warning was worded.

If a person is ignored what would be the motive for continuing? Wasn't that warning almost as effective as being banned? You would not happen to know the gender of the person who gave you the warning, would you? I am not into blaming males, but I think there is a reality of differences that prevents women from participating. Please go on, let us explored what happened and why it happened.

↪Athena There were huge civilizations across the americas. Disease wiped them off the face of the planet. I thought you were talking about the transition to sedentary life? Technology came hand in hand with changing to day-to-day living. Larger populations survived by storing information - hence the use of quippos in the Incan empire. In Australia and Africa there is some theories surrounding mnemonic techniques and ritual as means of passing information on.

Cannot for the life of me recall the name of the woman who makes a case for that - I’ll look it up tomorrow.

Neither conflict nor cooperation alone beget technological advancements. I cannot imagine a matriarchal society to have ever existed - in the sense of female domination - because men would just just say ‘no thanks’ when they disagreed and the women could do what? Nothing.

An egalitarian society in the past? Sure! There is evidence of this today in hunter gatherers and suggestions of large settlements in the Ukraine that were recently discovered where there doesn’t appear to be any tell tale signs of a ruling body.

I’d recommend looking at He’s a pretty solid source, but I’ve no idea if he’s focused on gender roles in any of his research papers. — I like sushi

It is such a pleasure to argue with knowledgeable people! The people posting in this thread create my ideal heaven. We are not fully understanding each other but what is happening here is what democracy is about, and why Athens was such an intellectual explosion, there was a time when they were thought to be a race of genius. Someone mentioned my enthusiasm about the goddesses and democracy is excessive and the discussion is moving too fast for me to get back to that post, so I will say here, it is all of us sharing our point of view that is the democratic ideal. One God and a kingdom can not advance human knowledge as well as many gods and democracy. The Military-Industrial Complex is powerful and it is not the good of democracy.

So we can agree, writing is essential to civilization as we know it? Imagine how we would know the word of God, without it? :gasp: How would we have laws, rather than a ruler's whims, without writing? Law and order is dependent on writing and the power and glory of gods. That is not how women organized the family and the clan. Agree or disagree?

You mention really good examples of a different mental development not dependent on the written word. Celts are the culture that I know best, which was opposed to writing and reliance on the written word. Think Celts and how do we know truth without the written word? Link Celts with notions of liberty and individual power and authority and gender equality. Who or what is the authority over us? The Holy Grail was about a goddess, not Jesus, and we must not displease the goddess because bad things happen she is displeased. There is no book to explain this but there is nature. :lol: Right now mother nature seems very displeased with us or she is in menopause and having hot flashes.

Men could not just say no thanks to the Goddess! :gasp: Are you nuts? :wink: You are not wrapping your mind around believing all life comes from the Mother and she must not be displeased, because at the very least there will feminine if she is displeased.

I love to think about a consciousness that is free of all the truths we assume today, and totally about being aware of the environment in the here and now. Like the iceman that was mummified and now is telling scientists today so much about his life and how his survival depended on knowledge of nature and awareness of his environment. To think more like a free animal and less like a prisoner of civilization. The iceman may not have had a goddess but we can all see from nature that life comes from females. The power that is much stronger than us is the Mother and we must not displease her. Seriously, worshipping the goddess who provides and a good harvest was pretty universal.

Technology is taking that power into our own hands. It is the Garden of Eden or Pandora's box. This taking of power into our own hands presents a threat that we will destroy ourselves and maybe the whole planet. Technology without wisdom is a bad thing, and we all wisdom is a goddess. :grin:

"An egalitarian society in the past?" Never before have we been able to produce so much with so little human labor. We are living as though we have a labor-intense society and that is nuts because that is no longer our reality. So now what? Hey, if I, as a woman, can have protected human rights, why not everyone? Oh, oh I suppose not everyone is familiar with the Older Americans Act. It entitles us to the benefits of society when we are old enough to retire. That includes the right to continue contributing to society. I think most people never knew of the act or have forgotten about it, but it is a model for a better society. Learning of egalitarian societies from the past can improve our imagination about we can manifest today. As we think it, so we manifest it. What will the pandemic do to our shared consciousness at this time in our history?

"Renfrew" I am on it. I will look up Renfrew now.

Their existence is not a separate entity, though. They point to the truth of our relation to all the possibility of existence. It’s not a matter of choosing either the ‘Mother’ or the ‘Father’ as the source of maximum value and potential. There is no objective image of what we should be, or qualitative definition of the ‘ideal woman’. The way I see it, all of this sanctions ignorance, isolation and exclusion to some extent" — Possibility

Out of nothing came everything. And without division, there is again nothing. When you think of the Father in heaven what do you feel? When in think of the Mother Goddess, what do you feel? If you answer nothing both times, that is a return to nothingness. There is a Chinese notion that in the last days, male and female are blended, the past and future are blended, heaven and earth become as one.

The way I see it is not ignorance to me. :grin: I love to think of the Goddess and to project myself into her. I do this for my own joy. Mathematicians argue about if math is created by us or discovered. So to the gods, were they discovered or created? Each god and goddess is a concept and together they become a complex concept such as democracy, or a kingdom. Either way, if they are created by us or discovered, both math and the gods work. Of course, not all gods work equally for everyone. It depends on our relationship with them.

Because you’ve generously shared so much of your story, I feel I should share a different perspective. I married young, straight out of university, and focused on establishing a career. After seven years, it became clear to me that full time work was slowly killing my creative spirit, so I returned to part time study for a brief time before taking the plunge into parenting and then moving my mother’s only grandchild three hours away. Throughout this, I kept my career - but the choices and support available to me I imagine were not available for you personally, and I’ve always questioned social ‘expectations’ anyway. Working part time from home with two young children wasn’t always easy without extended family nearby to pick up the slack, but my work was flexible, and I never opted for a stranger to raise my children. When they started school, I changed to a school-based job, and eventually managed to strike a personal balance between being a parent, a wife, a professional and a creative spirit.

I used to resent my mother’s choice to sacrifice her career and stay at home, because it seemed to cripple her sense of her own potential. After my father died a decade ago and I learned more about her devastating childhood, I realised that this traditional home bubble was her refuge, and for her it was worth everything she gave up. I also struggled to understand my sister’s choice to work full time and ‘raise’ kids in full time daycare. But her children have thrived in the environment, and the love both parents give them in the time they do spend at home is of such quality that I’ve learned not to judge another woman’s definition of personal balance according to my own experience.

You so remind me of my younger sister and a commercial that was popular in the 70tys. We are totally creatures of our cohort! The very clear split between my cohort and the following one is shockingly sharp. My cohort wanted careers, we just thought we should stay at home and raise our children first. My cohort's plan was to return to college and complete our degrees when the children were old enough to leave alone, then we would help finance the children through college, and we raised our daughters to get the college education and use it. :chin:

When it comes to being mothers, I don't think there is a big difference, but the timing of everything is different. Those who follow my cohort attempt to do it all like the woman in the commercial. :lol: And while you resent your mother's choice, did you rely on her to help with the children? Someone has to care for them and didn't you value your mother as that person? That is precisely the topic of this thread. Are you going to resent her or value her and honor her and appreciate her sacrifice as much as we appreciate those who give their lives war? Some of us think nothing is more important then prepare in the young in our family for life. The career is something individuals do for themselves. Caring for the family is not about ourselves, it is about FAMILY, and this the topic of this thread. You wouldn't be my sister, would you? :lol:

In the late '70s, Enjoli perfume launched a TV ad campaign that became an iconic image of the superwoman, who could "bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you're a man." — CNN

I hope that what you’re starting to picture here is not a male/female difference based on any one value in particular, but more ‘fuzzy’ conceptual structures consisting of many value-related aspects that interact differently for different people, and continue to change and shift with their experience. I recognise that black and white seems to be a cultural preference for the US (or is that red and blue?), so celebrate the shades of grey. But that’s only the beginning. It’s about acknowledging the rainbow of hues, with all their variety of saturation and brightness, as well. — Possibility

The old world order is family order. The new world order is Prussian military order applied to citizens. Family order was started by grandmothers thousands of years ago, but a modern Military-Industrial Complex(Eisenhower's term for New World Order) is far more powerful and some have argued we are like ants and this is our natural organization into a huge anthill. This is not the individuality you seem to value, and I think it is very male. I hope you have a glimmer into the possibility that there is something you are not aware of and it is much bigger than women's rights. What do you think is the ideal institution for rearing our children?

We were about family and community in a very human way that is now threatened.

The main part of the brain responsible for processing emotions, the limbic system, is sometimes called the "emotional brain" [source: Brodal]. Part of the limbic system, called the amygdala, assesses the emotional value of stimuli.

The area for fear and sexual arousal are close, resulting in fear intensifying sexual arousal or the reverse can happen, with fear shutting down sexual arousal. Some Chinese emperors used torturing other people to intensifying their yang energy.

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering. — Possibility

My focus is back to the Mother. An aesthetic or scientific appreciation of nature so not at all equal to having a relationship with our Mother. Our Mother has been presented to us as both remote and uncaring, such as Nut the Egyptian goddess mother, and as caring, the patron gods and goddesses were caring and emotional, and if things were going wrong s/he could be appeased. Loving our Mother the earth, or our Father in Heaven matters a lot. Insisting they are non-existant matters a lot. If we do not think our Mother is real and important, how much do we value the mother? What is the image of what we should be? What are the qualities of the ideal woman?

You asked for examples of technological inventions (knowledge) from goddesses and I gave you two; Athena is a third.

Who was or wasn’t mother is important why? — I like sushi

I need to go back and review everything as it relates to technology and get back to you. Thank you for clarifying, and how in heck did my mind jump to Mothers? Perhaps because I have kids on my mind and the pressure of making masks, which becomes a pressure to spend less time here. There is just too much on my mind and when push comes to shove, Demeter is going to rule me.

The answer to your question comes from Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s book "Goddesses in Everywoman" opened up life to me in a way I never imagined. Speaking of archetypes she says

These powerful inner patterns- or archetypes- are responsible for major differences among women. For example, some women need monogamy, marriage, or children to feel fulfilled, and they grieve and rage when the goal is beyond their reach. For them, traditional rules are personally meaningful. Such women differ markedly from another type of woman who most values her independence as she focuses on achieving goals that are important to her, or from still another type who seeks emotional intensity and new experiences and consequently moves from one relationship or one creative effort to the next. Yet another type of woman seeks solitude and finds that her spirituality means the most to her. What is fulfilling to one type of woman may be meaningless to another, depending on which "goddess" is active. — Bolen, M.D.

The gods and goddesses are archetypes and I find her books totally amazing! The one for men is "Gods in Everyman". It is amazing what we can learn about ourselves and others by knowing the God and Goddess are mental/emotional patterns and what our childhood experiences have to do with our mental/emotional patterns and setting our future. The cultural demand on women has changed and we seriously lack awareness of that and the ramifications. The purpose of this thread.

I was 100% Demeter. I have worked very hard to shift to Athena, but I am now a great grandmother, and Demeter continues to play a very strong role in my life. Do you know why so many women appear to be stupid? Spend a day with little children and just try to think about something other than the children. Within 5 minutes of trying to think of anything else, the children demand attention and there goes whatever else you were working on. Our present situation of people working out of their homes while the kids are home is insane!

Spend 5 years pretty much isolated with little children, and then try to identify yourself as anything besides the extension of the children's and husband's needs. Try to answer the question, "What do you want". :lol: I was isolated with children and the marriage was not going well, and I absolutely had to have professional counseling to find "a me" that was not dependent on being a wife and mother. Now jump to post women's lib and the expectation of women today. :scream: Stop the bus I want to get off.

I was thrown into a reality for which I was not prepared on any level. I wanted a career and returned to college, but stopped 15 credits short of a degree. And even if I had gotten the degree, I was not prepared to function in a career position. My sister, who is a couple of years younger, took to a professional career like a duck to water and she resented our mother for not advancing her own career and economic position so she could have been a better provider. My daughter has done well professionally and my granddaughter has no problem leaving her children with other people and not seeing them for weeks. I have always totally freaked out because these women have not been the mothers I think a woman should be and I have been very angry about not having the career I wanted. :lol: Thank goodness for Bolen's book. But you might notice, while I am using the name Athena, I am tightly controlled by Demeter. I not only gave up a career for one generation, (my cohort was going to have careers after raising our children). but for the next two more generations as well. I have enabled mothers to have the freedom to pursue their goals. A support I did not have. Someone has to care for the children, and right now we do not seem to value the people who do.

Competitiveness doesn’t have to be about individual or even group-oriented domination and conflict, or about the influence of power, money or accolades. There is a deep connection between competition and cooperation that is too often ignored with particle thinking: the capacity we have to create shared meaning and possibility from an interaction of different, even opposing, perspectives. What drives us to maximise our potential and achieve more from healthy, sustainable competition is a focus on awareness, connection and collaboration, rather than individual domination and exclusion. Competitiveness isn’t about winning or losing, after all. — Possibility

Would you please go to our congress and the political meetings to explain that. What you said is awesome. I was a Toastmistress when women and men could have their separate clubs and activities. Today we only have Toastmasters where public speaking skills are practiced. We frequently had speech competitions and we ran for the different offices in the club. But it was always about cooperation. It took me a while to get that. The members lifted me to the top of all positions and I finally got what they were doing and learned the meaning of giving service as the winner who represents the club in a higher competition or the President responsible for conventions and weekly meetings. :lol: Oh lordy, especially when I was made president I realized why everyone was not in the competition. :lol: It is the rookie who gets to be president because she doesn't know enough to decline the opportunity to be president.

Now if our representatives understood what you said, life might get a whole better! Some men may understand this but taking that stand can make them appear weak, like a weak-kneed liberal you know. Here is where the woman can be most helpful, because she is admired for encouraging cooperation, and if she seems to be too pushy, will you know the bad words we say about her.

Possibility
1.2k
But all this doesn’t change the facts that are already there, that have already been produced. What Peter thought about yesterday at noon, not to mention on this date last year, is an absolute fact, now forgotten and inaccessible but if you still try to guess what it was, that guess will have a definite truth value (true, false, partly true). Your thinking about Peter’s past thinking will not change it in any way. A fact remains a fact and truth is absolute.

The future holds facts not yet produced, so of course we can change what will come, and human contact, including guesses about their past thinking, does indeed play a role in our production of new facts. But the facts that are already produced are unalterable and therefore “out there”. (That is even true about my own thinking whatever I think about it now.)
— Congau

This I disagree with. That Peter had a thought yesterday at noon may be a fact, but the contents of that thought is potential information. There is no actual fact produced from a thought except the event of thinking. You even said yourself that Peter may be just as uncertain about his thoughts as anyone else. — Possibility

:lol: You both must be young to have that argument. I am lucky if I can remember a thought for 5 minutes. My thinking disappears like a puff of smoke on a windy day. There is no substance to a thought so perhaps we should not treat a thought as a tangible reality?

↪Athena Artemis and Demeter spring to mind. Or you could just look at the hindu pantheon of gods/goddesses - they often switch forms from male to female so that pretty much covers everything. — I like sushi

Athena wasn't a mother. She took responsibility for Hephaestus' child but stuck it in a box and left someone else responsible for it. That is like many working moms today.

Artemis was not a mother. She eventually got associated with other mother goddesses but I don't think she ever had her own child.

Demeter is clearly recognized as a mother goddess.

That may sound picky but it is very important to me. Demeter basically set her career aside when she needed to rescue her daughter. To me, a mother sacrifices herself for her children. I know this is not acceptable today, but for me, it is very honorable and very important to humanity. Our sense of right and wrong is very physical and even when our heads tell us our thinking may not be logical, our bodies will resist changing our position on right and wrong. So for me, a mother must be devoted to her children, and children should not be raised as we raise our pets, as an afterthought to our identity that is not about being a mother or a father. Treating our children as luggage that can be left on a shelve until we are ready for them, is not okay with me. That is my feeling put into words, not exactly a mandate for everyone, but something we might want to think about when we think about family, children, politics and the organization of our of the workplace and how we value mothers. Athena and Artemis do not qualify as mothers as I understand motherhood.

I really know very little of Hinduism and their gods and goddesses. I know I was shocked by the goddess, Kali the Mother and giver and taker of life. It was shocking to me that a goddess would be associated with taking life. But mind you, I come from a culture where the only female role model was Mother Mary. So for me, all the goddesses, all the different role models/ archetypes for women, was pretty amazing.

Lynne Kelly was the name I couldn’t recall - ironic considering the point was about memory systems! Haha!

Yes, that is a laugh. And thank you for sharing your humanness. I think sometimes we take ourselves too seriously and stop connecting as equal human beings who may not know everything, may forget what we do know, and may not always agree with ourselves. :rofl:

I will be gone for awhile. I am making masks for the homeless. They can not get on the bus without a mask. And a couple of nurses left Oregon to work in New York for a while and they need something to cover their hair. Reality is the priority at the moment. I love you all.

Well, I’d warn that the existence of peaceful cultures is not a convincing argument against the capacity for war being part of our ‘nature’ - only that the capacity for peace is part of our nature as well. My main argument here is that in entertaining both capacities simultaneously and without judgement (moral, logical, rational or otherwise), we perceive a more objective truth about our ‘nature’. — Possibility

You make me think. You are right about avoiding judgments. I don't doubt it is natural for humans to raid each other but others have questioned if today's warfare is a natural thing. Genghis Khan and his followers were hunters without an agrarian consciousness and hunting is natural to us, and they stayed away from home for a long time. I guess it doesn't really matter what is being killed.

One study observed if children are treated abusively from infancy, they grew up to be strong warriors, So upon examination of info in my head, I guess I do have to conclude you are right and I was being a bit romantic.

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering. — Possibility

That triggers the memory that perhaps our egocentric thinking is not common to all people. Some cultures have a stronger communal identity so that when there is a gathering each one thinks about what everyone is doing together, not "I am doing this right". I think there is something about being competitive or cooperative in this. True as you say this is about how we value ourselves, and that happens in a culture. It seems to for the last several decades the focus has been on competitiveness, but old textbooks in the US focused on being cooperative and sharing. This shift came with establishing the Military-Industrial Complex.

In developing an understanding of our relationship with the world, we have throughout history and culture been torn between accepting that we are an integral but ultimately expendable part of a self-sustaining universe, and entering into a dialogue/conflict with a separate entity that is ultimately more dominant, autonomous and influential than ourselves. The interesting result of this is that, while the experience of men points them towards dialogue/conflict, the position of women - whose experience points them towards interconnectedness - must then be accounted for within this dialogue/conflict: absorbed into the identity of the ‘earth mother’ or of ‘mankind’. — Possibility

OMG that statement is so exciting to me. For me what you said is science versus religion. It is also Daniel Kahneman's fast and slow thinking with the fast-thinking being common to all of us, and slow thinking, pondering what is so, is less common to us and some people totally avoid it. Liberal education developed slow thinking, education for technology does not, and the result of replacing our liberal education in the US with education for technology is the social/ economic/political mess we are in now.

I love your definition of the male/ female difference and mention that this difference is based on a division of labor. The traditional division of labor shaping our experience of life and self-esteem and a sense of personal power. Are we dependent or independent? What an incredible mix of concepts that make soups of many flavors out of basically the same concepts. I think this influences our left and right politics and the political crisis in the US we are experiencing. It also takes very special people to maintain this discussion. People here are not thinking in terms of black and white, but acknowledge all the shades of grey.

I don’t see any evidence - at least you haven’t presented any. If we’re talking purely about mythos there are enough instances of goddesses giving knowledge to humans to make your claim a questionable one. — I like sushi

Very good point of argument. What kind of knowledge? I would like to search for answers so do you have any mythologies in mind that I might read? I know often goddesses are said to be wise but wisdom and technology are separate things. I think today we are technologically smart but not wise.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from mythological references. The big step was sedentary life. — I like sushi

You make me think and I am loving this.

Did north American natives live in societies or civilizations? Was the confederation of the North East natives comparable to the Aztec civilization? I think there were many farming communities that were sedentary but not civilizations. I think there is a technological difference between a stable farming community and a civilization?

↪Athena Not really. I don’t know of any matriarchal societies full stop - at least not on a scale that would compare to a ‘civilization’.

Testosterone is apparently linked to an explorative function. There are more men with low IQ’s than women, and more men with higher IQ’s than women - it’s far from hard evidence though because it depends on interests and societal expectations and individual choices.

Hypothetically if women were physically stronger than men, but otherwise the same, I still think civilization would have advanced in pretty much the same manner it has (men and women are far more alike than different compared to literally every other primate).

The burden of pregnancy and child birth is by far the biggest difference. Other than that it’s just brute strength (which it not necessarily a tool of oppression or war; yet undeniably came into play during the birth of inequality). — I like sushi

I want to be sure you noticed I said there is a relationship between creation stories, gender dominance, and technological advancement or lack of it. Obviously our creation stories justify our choices and visa versa they tell us what our choices are. The Greek gods most certainly begin with a jealous father and a mother who just wanted her children to live and then a war between the generations of gods.

The Egyptian goddess Nut is curious to me because she did not intervene as a mother should when her children misbehaved. Unlike the male gods that kill humans and do punish.

While we have a lady of justice she holds scales because justice is weighed with wisdom and compassion, that is not exactly the power behind law and order, which begins with a male God doesn't it?

I see you have distinguished between a society and a civilization. I had this difference in mind and fall back on the God who does enforce law and order and mother goddesses and the lady of justice who were not the force behind law and order. This is sort of which came first- male dominance or civilization as distinctly different from a small society?

If we remove this culturally arbitrary distinction, we are on par with our lonely savage. If you doubt that, you might as well think that psychology can’t be practiced cross-culturally and theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race.
— Congau

I agree that ignoring the distinction puts us on par with the lonely savage - but that doesn’t improve our understanding of truth - it only reduces it. I DO think that psychology can’t be practiced with the same accuracy cross-culturally, and that cultural differences should always be taken into account when making decisions globally for the human race. — Possibility

Wow, that is an interesting argument- "theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race". A main reason for starting this thread is I do not believe it is human nature to war. There are peaceful cultures proving it is culture, not our nature, that leads to war.

— I like sushi

I forgot my main reason for arguing why I do not believe matriarchies would develop technology. When reading different creation stories it became evident that those with developed technology began with a creation story of male gods killing each other, and killing mankind, not a mother goddess who gives life and nurtures it. There appears to be a link between those creation stories war and technological advancement or living cooperatively and not developing technology.

This takes us back to the main discussion here. The dominant, influential individual will always value certainty above all, and view any uncertainty that inevitably persists in his choice of actions as overwhelmingly negative. The life of our lonely savage is attractive to him: no one questions his decisions or points out conflicting, alternative or unsettling information. Ignorance is bliss. An individual’s social connections and collaboration increase the uncertainty of his autonomy, dominance and influence. He is more aware of the universe, but less certain of his individual position in relation to it. — Possibility

Very nicely said. Any thoughts on how we shifted from turning to our earth mother for sustenance and comfort to the a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God?

Okay, I am ready to offer an explanation of why matriarchal societies did not develop technology. This is a weak argument because it appears no one has specifically paid attention to human social organization and technology. There is a study of apes and social organization. https://www.damemagazine.com/2013/05/10/five-things-we-know-about-societies-run-women/

A separate source of information was a video about how mother chimps transmit information to their children and how female children stay close to the mother and learn from her, while the males wander off and are slow to learn from their mothers. For sure among higher IQ species relationships are very important to learning, but that is not the driver for learning math, developing writing, and the technologies of civilization.

“In matriarchies, mothers are at the center of culture without ruling over other members of society,” says Heidi Goettner-Abendroth, founder of The International Academy HAGIA for Modern Matriarchal Studies. “The aim is not to have power over others and over nature, but to follow maternal values, ie. to nurture the natural, social and cultural life based on mutual respect.”

Now there is a technology driving force statement. Living in harmony with nature, as the native Americans and others around the world have done, does not drive technological development. It gets jars and baskets and art and jewelry but not math and writing. Picture writing I would put with in the female side of things, but not the symbolic letters of Jews and Greeks, and darn it but I gave away the book that explained what is important about the change in written language. I just remember the book said this change shifted power to males. But I found this online

How the Invention of the Alphabet Usurped Female Power in ...
https://www.brainpickings.org › shlain-alphabet-goddess
Mar 17, 2014 - God worship, masculine values, and men's domination of women are bound to the written word. Word and image, like masculine and feminine, ... — brainpickings

It is not that women can't do math. One of the most famous female mathematicians was killed by Christians, putting her in our history, and it is known Pathagorians included females. But I assure you, math is not typically what women talk about. I just do not believe a matriarchy would develop math and they did not develop writing as we know it. Now let us consider architecture that requires moving heavy stones. Not a whole lot of women are going to do that, and my first thought when I brought up the subject is that the civilizations we know of, that may have been matriarchal, did not have large buildings of any kind and they didn't have temples with huge statues of gods and goddesses, nor huge statues of their leaders. They had small sanctuaries in nature. And all buildings were small and modest. No massive government buildings or temples.

The very notion of many gods had to have grown from city living where life was too complex for one god to manage everything and some who study the gods see evidence of the male gods replacing the ruling goddess.

Essential to developing technology is metals and mining them. This is not a female activity. It is the boy wandering around hitting everything with a stick who is going to find that special rock and explore its potential and shove his friend into the hole to get more of them.

What do you think? Is that a good argument for what gender has to do with different social/political organizations and the development of technology?

You’ll have to explain further where you’ve pulled that from? — I like sushi

Okay, that will require looking through my books to find quotes and I need some time to do that. I do think this point is an important one and should be scrutinized.

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that. — Aussie

Okay, as I said in response to sushi, I think only the male-dominated cultures developed technology. If we were all matriarchal, we would still be farming with sticks and communing with the Mother Goddess. But we would also have games to channel our aggressive urges as mothers keep the children busy to avoid problems. :lol: I could be wrong but I suspect the male impulse to correcting a child is more apt to be corporal punishment. Not that long ago it was legal to hit a wife and the law only attempted to limit that hitting. Men on ships were whipped. Slaves were whipped. And still the way we treat prisoners is horrifying!

Women could count on men to defend them. It is amazing how women stay with abusive men and attempt to avoid abuse by being pleasing. I have not observed too many men who attempt to get what they want and need by being pleasing. There are some. They are called "henpecked". Socially that is discouraged because it is not attractive to either men or women. But life loves diversity. And I think today, more men are apt to think and apply reason than in the past. That is in part what inspired this thread. I like the change I see in men. I like it a lot! I like the change for women as well, but who is taking care of the children?

I love contemplating this stuff and wondering, how did some cultures become passive and others become aggressive. I read a book addressing this difference between aggressive people who leave home and venture out into the world and nonaggressive people who stay home and cling to the familiar. Some tribes would invite trading. Mongols killed everyone in their path until a man from China taught Khan to harvest the cities (demand tribute).

↪Athena Masculine qualities are pretty essential in terms of discussion and approaching uncomfortable ideas. There is a certain degree of combat when ideas are laid out. Feminine qualities are also essential in discussions, for remaining open minded and explorative.

One without the other is a disaster.

If women wish to compete with men then they either have to bring men to where they are or meet them head on. Either way, as above, one without the other is a disaster.

The major change for women came into play with family planning. Things have shifted. — I like sushi

:heart: I think I love you. I wish the whole world held those ideas.

I think there are varying degrees in our differences. I know for sure I think differently from others and I am pretty passionate about others having some of the same thoughts I have, but I am also totally frustrated by my inability to find the words that make them clear. That is largely why I started this thread. I was hoping someone would say things better than I can, and that is happening. Others are saying what I wish I could find words for. You sure did an excellent job of that.

One more thought. It seems to me only male-dominated cultures developed technology. Ones with more female influence may have failed to develop technologically?

I'd have to disagree. Democracy, as a form of government, is solely for the administration of it purpose. While a well educated electorate probably makes for a "better" democracy, i don't know that I'd call it a necessary component. Additionally, I would not equate education/educated with search for truth. — Aussie

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson — Jefferson

If we can not agree democracy is an ideology, a complex concept, and like religion, only if the ideology is known can it be manifested, then it may be pointless for us to continue this discussion. Democracy has everything to do with overcoming the problems of ignorance, EVERYTHING! There are so many wonderful quotes about government and ignorance. Here is the link...
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/ignorance-quotes

"government, is solely for the administration of it purpose" :gasp:

Education for technology is not about overcoming ignorance. It is about thinking of the young as products to prepare for industry. Oregon had a governor who thought saying that was a good way to convince taxpayers to spend more on education. I was horrified! Technology has always been the education for slaves. Liberal education is for free men. The Statue of Liberty holds a book because our liberty is dependent on literacy. I am wondering is the problem we have here is because we stopped teaching the history that is essential to understanding our liberty? Sincerely, I am thinking something has gone seriously wrong with education for technology and I feel overwhelmed by this. Democracy is rule by the people. not authority over them and they better be educated!

Semantics...we are a democratic republic. Republican in our philosophy of states rights and inalienable individual rights within a federal system. Democratic in our ability to elect our representatives (which I understand has evolved over time) and grant that it is a spectrum and we have been more to one side or the other from time to time. — Aussie

Not at all just semantics. A Republic because of fear of the ignorant. When the US constitution was written it did not have a bill of rights. But educated people fought for the bill of rights. There was not mass education, in the north some religious colonies such as the Quakers had the necessary education and it had nothing to do with vocational training. Throughout the colonies extremely few had any literacy that is essential to democracy.

I opened my argument with a quote from Jefferson because he was one of the few who had the required literacy and he devoted his life to manifesting public education. Economically Jefference was wrong, but ideologically he was right and he fought the Federalist to defend our democracy. Jefferson fought our liberty and this was not limited to states' rights. We used to stand for liberty and justice, but that is not evident in your argument.

But, if democracy is a spectrum (degrees of enfranchisement) I do not see where you have shown Christianity rejects it outright. — Aussie

:gasp: You speak of authority over the people, (degrees of enfranchisement) and do not see how Christianity is opposed to liberty and democracy? The Bible is clearly about a kingdom and that is not a democracy, but supported the autocratic church and kings with its hierarchy of authority.

The Bible tells was we were created by a God out of mud and because the man and woman ate of the fruit of knowledge, that God cursed them and would not allow them to eat from the tree of life. None of that is compatible with democracy. If you think differently, please explain how you think that is compatible with our liberty and democracy?

.but you seem to suggest that these individuals pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in pursuit of an endeavor whose ends they found entirely abhorrent. — Aussie

:worry: Yes there are secular reasons to favor authority over the people. We have government to protect us from each other. But that isrule by reason, not rule of human authority over the people. It is Christianity that gets us Trump and that understanding of authority is extremely frightening! Can you paraphrase what I have said? Rule by reason and a consensus on the best reasoning, not rule by someone like Trump. It is Christianity that gets us a ruler like Trump.

Further, you assert their abhorrence of any degree of enfranchisement was BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs — Aussie

Oh yes, we agree on that. Except for those literate in Greek and Roman classics, it was the Bible that set their point of view. We might clarify some of them lusted for wealth and power as much as Trump does and that may not be Christian, but if you can get people to believe God whispers in your ear, and you, and they, know the will of God, then you have real power over the people. Bill Graham was the right-hand man for several Presidents, convincing the people it is God's will we send our young to war. Stuff like that gets presidents re-elected. It also made the Civil War extremely uncivil as both sides thought God was on their side, and war is the way the Bible tells us to behave. We must give our lives when that is what God wills us to do. I do not believe God willed us to fight in Vietnam, nor any war since then and those wars are what determined me to argue against Christianity.

Point? Republicans think Democrats are not fit to rule and vice versa. Libertarians think both are unfit. Socialists want the capitalists thrown out on their ear. One faction disagreeing with another and working to see there own philosophy advanced (at the expense of another) is not antithetical to democracy...it is democracy (so long as it is done through some system of election and political action). — Aussie

I have no problem with that as long people leave God out of it. But the Bible tells us God will give us leaders and Christians believe that and that thinking gets us some really terrible leaders!

I said "Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved."

You said,

What makes you think that? It doesn't appear to be about either. It is about the rights of individuals to have a say in the administration of their political world. In other words, it it not about human excellence or salvation...it is about human freedom; freedom which may just as well lead to all sorts of not excellent outcomes as the reverse. — Aussie

Please, this is a philosophy forum. Do you know any Greek or Roman philosophers? Basic to that point of view is all plants and animals have their purpose. Fish are made to swim. Birds are made to fly. Horses are made to run. Humans are made to think. This obviously is not compatible with the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the command to obey God or Allah and His chosen leaders and the notion we should honor God by being good slaves.

So now, one's views on cosmological and historical science assertions renders them incompatible with a political system... — Aussie

Yes. Vital to democracy is truth. The purpose of humans is to think. And right now some of us believe science is vitally important, and some of us do not. The social, economic, and political ramifications of this are great. What is anti-democratic about insisting it is important to know truth and to think? Ignorance is extremely dangerous. Right now ignorance has thrown our nation into an economic crisis, and there is evidence we are destroying our planet. Let's see if we can reason through the importance of education and knowing truth? Knowing truth is about having good lives and avoiding bad consequences. This does not mean I take a club and beat away ignorant people, but it does mean I say, again and again, a liberal education is vital to our democracy. Rule by reason, not rule by having more power than you do.

So long as both of you are willing to work within a system of some amount of enfranchisement neither of you appear to hold views incompatible with democracy. — Aussie

Wow, Cicero- it will be what it is and if we don't get it right, bad stuff will happen. Democracy is about figuring things out. It is an ideology. It is a way of life that depends on knowing truth.

Ultimately, though, you failed to show what in Christianity is incompatible with the notion that some amount of the citizenry should be enfranchised to have a say in the administration of their political system. .

Granted, the task is difficult until an adequate definition of "Christianity" is agreed upon. But that alone would be an entire thread in itself...and likely lead to nowhere. — Aussie

Really? Let us pretend we know nothing of science. However, we study the Bible every day. How does a good Christian deal with a pandemic, without science? Which would you want to give up, science or the Biblical myths?

The Athenian law against blasphemy originated with Solon. — frank

I am not sure of your point? Solon was before the democracy and later Socrates was told to kill himself with hemlock for questioning the gods. But Socrates did question them and so did those practicing the art of medicine. Philosophy, as you know, is a love of knowledge but the process of what would develop as scientific thinking, thousands of years later, was just beginning and not everyone would have pursued knowledge. Religion was just as important to the Athenians as it is to people today. Athens had its good times and bad times, such is life. In bad times people tend to turn to their gods and fear those who might offend them.

I am not sure what your point is. The North and South had bascially different people. The Puritans were not known for religious tolerance. Nor were they the only religious colony.

For the rest of the chatter, Something has caused an itch on my back to flare up and I feel going crazy in tormenting pain. :grimace: I am signing off until this passes.

It’s hard to say what a matriarchal society would look like today. It’s hard for me to imagine a strong patriarchal society - I’m European and I’ve grown up during the transition, so I know of a more equal society between the sexes than say more ‘traditional’ family units.

I’d be careful with the use of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ because most people assume they equate to ‘female’ and ‘male’.

It’s an interesting subject. I’m not so sure that philosophical discourse helps cut right to the core issues though. Science can reveal certain truths, but when it comes to human behavior it’s a tricky thing to investigate as almost anyone can find ‘evidence’ to back up their own pet theories.

I’ve come to discussion late. What specifically is of interest to you in this area? — I like sushi

I will definitely opt for open-mindedness. I am coming from the traditional past and it was not my intent to start a battle of the sexes. I am sort of surprised by what happens when I say being feminine is a good thing.

I went from being the ideal 1950 ideal woman to "just a housewife" in the 70 tys. Some good has come out of the change but also a lot of bad has come out it because no one wants to be "just a housewife". That is very demeaning and so I want to speak of the values of being a traditional woman.

I have some strong concerns about the effect of "liberating women" to be like men. When the USSR did this, at first the economy boomed but then women and children began falling below the poverty level and abortion and divorce rates increased. In the US we can add to this, so has the rate of women and children involved in crime increased as victims and perpetrators.

At first, I thought women's lib was a good thing because I had ambitions and looked forward to having a career, but for some of us, when our husbands walked out in the middle of a long recession, reality did not look as good as the promise. I don't want to get too personal, but the reality for many women is low wages and having to pay for child care and all the other bills with no help and our children are being institutionalized by 3 months of age. Some child care facilities are better than others, but no matter good the child care, it can not benefit a child as parents can. So I am concerned not only for the women who are now economic slaves, but also their children.

As for philosophical discussion, how else can we determine human values? And, and what of the possibility that history could have gone differently? What if we are not doomed to war and brutality?

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that. — Aussie

I don't think either sex should dominate but the example of bonobo and chimps is to question if we are doomed to war and other forms of brutality because it is our nature? I have a preference for peace and family life. That is not exclusively female, but neither is it a chimp choice. It is a bonobo choice. It is the animals that have male and female domination and hopefully, humans work together without dominating. You seemed to speak for working together and I will point out that is not "men being the head of the household" as some males have interpreted their right to rule. We have had patriarchy and that has oppressed people, especially women.

Very little, if anything. I can imagine religious tolerance in a society that has little regard towards truth just as easily as I can imagine it in a society that has high regard towards truth. — InPitzotl

It is a matter of where we look for the truth, in a holy book or in nature.

Liberal Democracies embody a system of trial-and-error, a la Popper. A country is almost forced to learn from the mistakes of its political experiments, allowing them to self-correct peacefully over time. Governments submit their policy to public scrutiny and are accountable for their actions. In that sense Democracy fosters the scientific tradition of critical discussion. — NOS4A2

Political accountability would be nice right now. I think we are having this discussion right now because we forgot what science has to do with democracy. :zip: