Oh really people hate the idea of consensus? I never heard of such a thing. Well the swell of social consciousness we are experiencing now is pretty awesome don't you think? I think I would rather be a part of it than oppose the good of consensus.

I do not understand being opposed to consensus. Can you please explain.

Really? I am quite sure democracy is about empowering the people and the first formal democracy is at least as old as Athens when citizens with nothing to loose because they were not property owners fled when Athens was invaded leaving only the top 1% to defend Athens with their private armies. When the Perians began invading, a serious defense was needed so the top 1% made a deal with the people who didn't own land. In turn for military service, they would get a say in government. The left and right is that simple. How do we justify the peasants having a say in anything?


Here is another to understand the left and right...

"Polanyi, who fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University, wrote that a self-regulating market turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market's assumption that nature and humans are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, unltimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves unto they die. Speculative exesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity." Empire of Illusion ny Chris Hedges

It is odd that Christians tend be on the right, while those with no god to care for them, tend to be on the left.

Sorry, I'm not following how this related to the bit you're responding to. In any case, political philosophy is all about the analysis of power and authority. I'd be happy to explain more if you have some more specific questions, I just don't know where to go from here.
an hour ago
Reply
Share
Flag — Pfhorrest

What forms culture?

How do people come to know the different philosophies and decide which ones are the best to use when they prepare to make a political decision?

What is the relationship between philosphy and culture? That is what I really want to know. Like which philosophy should I study to understand economics and politics?

PS I totally understand what philosophy has to do with democracy, but I don't see anything about that here.

Don't you think that pulling down statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would perfectly fit
to the situation of a culture war? And, there would be the division of people into the two camps:
in favor of and against. Still, it is not clear how pulling down these statues is caused by the above combination.
You could add burning the American flag and destroying other symbols of the US -
will the union survive after all? — Number2018

Thomas Jefferson believed everyone must be educated if we are to have a strong and united republic, and that was not education for a technological society with unknown values. It was education for citizenship and independent thinking and good moral judgment and this education stimulated inventions and the advancement of science because truth is essential to our democracy and liberty. The strongist opposition to that education is Evanglical Christians who also give us the myth of our democracy depending on Christianity. Christianity without education for democracy is theatening to our democracy.

Our culture war is still the war against Christian England and those who wanted to remain loyal to the king. It is still the divide of the federalist papers and Jefferson's democracy and still the divide of slave owners, aristocrats and autocrats, against the people. It is a divide full of lies on one side and the side of science that corrects false information.

Tearing down all the statues is destroying the good with the bad. But as I keep staying we don't know our history and are not prepared to defend our democracy. Welcome the result of education for a technological society with unknown values.

I was hoping this thread would be more on the culture war between what I'd colloquially term the "Silicon Valley Libertarian" and the "Social Justice Warrior" stereotypes, reckoned "right" and "left" respectively, though inaccurately. (The true right is the worst of both, and the true left the best of both).

That's a much more philosophical culture war, as both sides are philosophically wrong in one way about factual matters and philosophically wrong in the opposite way about normative matters, but they've got which kind of wrong they are about which direction of fit reversed from each other. (And also a populist vs elitist leaning in one of their kinds of wrongness each, hence the left vs right gloss they get painted with).

Maybe I should start a different thread on that, if anyone's interested. — Pfhorrest

I am thinking may be I don't belong here at all? Which one objects to the notion that a cooperation is an individual? Which one is againt monopolies and would return things like banking and the media to several small owners? Which one understands what bureaucratic organization has to do with the shift of power from power of the people to power of the state? I am really sorry but I am very ignorant of philosophy and I don't understand what it has to do with political and economic power or lack of it.

Do you understand the current situation in the US as the beginning of the next revolution?
Any 'successful' revolution was led by an organized group that could articulate a clear ideological agenda and establish new forms of power and societal life. Do we deal with a similar situation now? — Number2018

Yes, and no.

We are ahead of the game because we have history and advanced communication technology.

We are in trouble because we ignored history. We replaced our domestic education with education for a technological society with unknown values, and because this education leaves us ignorant or the democracy we inherited, we can not defend it. We herited perhaps the best possible democracy and we don't know enough about it to defend it, nor could we establish anything better.

Forums such as this one could resolve the problems. We can take back our power and we restructure our laws so they do what they were intended to do. For example from the book Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges:

"He (Roosevlet) sent a message to Congress on April 29, 1938, titled "Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and the Concentration of Economic Power". In it he wrote:

"the first truth is the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism- ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way to sustain and acceptable standard of living."

Our democracy is open to change by reason and consensus. We do not need to change that. We need to read and talk and realize what has gone wrong and how to right that wrong.

At the same time technology and science has totally revolutionized our consciousness and never before have we been so close to realizing the awesome potential of our democracy. Up until now we have lived with many false believes and without the organization and wealth to fully manifest our democracy. Our consciousness is bringing us to a New Age, a time of high tech, peace and the end of tyranny.

What we have to do now is bring together past wisdom with today's knowledge and potential.
WE HAVE TO DO THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE TO DO IT FOR US. OUR LIBERTY DEPENDS ON WHAT WE DO, NOT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES FOR US.

Return to the intellectual revolution that began our democracy and that was not stated by the Bible! We must bring an end to the Myth of Christianity being the foundation of our democracy. That is just plain un-American and there is no way we should be supporting Israel any more than we should support China or Saudi Arabia or Russia. Making money the bottom line and using religion to support this and the "power and glory" of military force, is destroying our economy, democracy and liberty.

It has happened before but revolutions do not come out as those who fight them hope because they go into them to destroy the existing power and do not have a plan for destroying power, so when the fighting is over, those who understand power take over, and at first people are glad for their leadership, then they realize it is not the leadership they want.

The American revolution began as an intellectual revolution and that needs to be repeated to get a good outcome to a revolution.

Descartes is having a beer in a bar and when his glass is almost empty the bar tender asks him if wants another beer. Descartes replies, "I think not" and disappears.

you can retain benefits for certain historically disadvantaged groups through cultural identification. Clearly people belong to distinct cultures, but people do not belong to distinct races as there is no such thing as race in our reality.

It's really just a matter of getting more sophisticated in our language. Describe people's physical attributes, dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes. Then describe their cultural ties, he was born and raised in Jamaica. This more accurately describes someone as the complex individual they are, instead of the harmful, unscientific and imprecise label "black" — dazed

But Martin Luther King's dream speech had nothing to do with an African culture. It was 100% the culture of the US that children were once taught is our democracy. Since the 1958 National Defense Education Act our culture has radically changed. Some of that change is very good. Women were discriminated against as much as people with dark skin. We liberated women and have been moving on liberating people of color as well, except in the South where the culture of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant supremacy is strong. The South has the aristocracy from the old world. The federal government enforcing change on the South became violet. However, I will go back to the democracy that is in old school books, and books about democracy written during the war years, the democracy people of color and the Japanese Americans thought they were defending in war.

Thomas Jefferson devoted his life to free education for all because he thought that was essential to a strong and united nation. Especially in times of war, before we came to depend so much on military technology, and relied very much on patriotism, we focused on democratic values. I repeat, Martin Luther King was 100% the US culture not at all an African culture. I think we have a huge problem believing the color of a person's skin means the person naturally has a different culture. That just is not so. But it can very much mean they experience a culture of hate because of injustices or an unwillingness to change as is the case in the South. Manifest Destiny came with serious problems because it was also White Anglo Saxon Protestant and that is not a culture for democracy. Without education for democracy we do not have a culture for democracy any more than there would be Christians if churches stopped preaching Christianity and prepared everyone for a technological society with unknown values.

you can retain benefits for certain historically disadvantaged groups through cultural identification. Clearly people belong to distinct cultures, but people do not belong to distinct races as there is no such thing as race in our reality.

It's really just a matter of getting more sophisticated in our language. Describe people's physical attributes, dark skin, dark hair, brown eyes. Then describe their cultural ties, he was born and raised in Jamaica. This more accurately describes someone as the complex individual they are, instead of the harmful, unscientific and imprecise label "black" — dazed

That is not at all how an old text describes democracy in the US. It is not how books written during the world wars describe the US democracy when we were called to war to defend it. However since 2000 plenty of books have been written about what has gone wrong in the US. We stopped education for democracy and began educating for a technological society with unknown values in 1958. Could that have lead to the lost memory of what democracy? But even when we had education for democracy, that was a very White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant education that supported prejudice and inequality.

How about autocratic industry could that lead to weakening democracy when most of us became dependent on corporations for employment, instead of owning our own businesses? And we do have a history of exploiting laborers and focusing on gaining wealth. That was curb with laws against monopolies but corporations have gotten around those laws and we remain in denial of that.

It is not like the US does not have problems, but it seems they all center on not understanding democracy?

I don't see anyone talking about democratic values so I want to stress I think talking about democratic values is the solution to the problem. Why aren't people speaking of democratic values?

A friend and I claimed to be Ferengi from the Star Trek show on a census because we object to the race questions. However it is not as easy as just not using those racially identifying terms because people in different classifications get special benefits and perhaps they should. Native Americans and people of color deserve those benefits.

However, I hate talk of racism too and wish we talked about the values of democracy and why our nation is worth defending and what it means to be a good citizen of a democracy. Thomas Jefferson thought education was essential to being a strong and united Republic and I agree.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" August 1939

Martin Luther King didn't make up new values, he repeated the values of democracy in the US and people of color and the American Japanese thought they were fighting for these values when the served in military service during the second world war.

Hanover, those are interesting considerations however I was attracted to this thread because I would like a less demanding experience appropriate for a learner.

Men tend to discuss subjects and goals and shy away from correcting each others behaviors. Women tend towards correcting people's behavior and that can be very offensive and bring an end to further discussion.

I think I have been fairly tolerant of your dismissive attitude towards my perspective during this discussion. I recognise that you have a unique perspective and set of experiences that is meaningful in how I relate to a more objective understanding of reality, but you don’t seem to see it that way at all. I’m not sure how much longer my tolerance is going to hold out if you keep making comments like this. — Possibility

I have also felt offended.

I am not sure women would have ever gotten a civilization going. Men seem more capable of getting past personal differences and achieving goals. I know I am not the person who can better.

Before leaving, I want to say, Jesse Jackson said poverty is like living in a war zone. That is very different from pointing to people living simply in a Garden of Eden as a definition of living in poverty.

Evidently explaining the difference an economic crash made on my understanding of poverty, did not convey the meaning I intended. Sorry about my communication skills being so bad and having such an obnoxious personality. I did the best I could.

I think you might be making assumptions here regarding my relative affluence and social position - perhaps to justify our difference in perspective? I don’t buy it. — Possibility

Either you can relate to what I am saying or you can not, and right now, you do not appear to be relating to what I am saying so yes I assume you have not had the same experience.

[QU0TE]You’re railing against the perceived injustice of your position in comparison with everyone else.[/QUOTE]

No, not everyone else has had a different experience. There are some people who share my point of view and would not make the arguments you have made.

What they have that you don’t, in terms of economic opportunity or health or social validation or influence or power or independence. Yet, if you travel to the remote villages of East Timor, for instance, you will find more joy in what little they have than you can imagine.

I once thought like you. The whole point of my explanation was to say how the experience changed my understanding of poverty.

There, I think, you may understand what the value of family and community really is, without the economic, health, social or political structures that fail to serve you.
They are not fighting for equality or validation or a better ‘standard of living’. They are happy with what they have, but they are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with people and communities across the world. And we give to them, not because they ask or demand it, but because they give us an opportunity to care about them, and in that connection we recognise how much we have to give. It’s a matter of perspective.

Thanks to television, I know of people in remote places. You are speaking of a totally different culture. The comparison of poverty in a completely different culture, with poverty in the US, is like comparing apples to oranges.

Watch your assumptions here, again. No experience is meaningless - you might have just missed the point of it.

The word meaningful means. "having a serious, important, or useful quality or purpose.
"making our lives rich and meaningful"

Arguing that my experience was a beneficial and meaningful experience is like arguing fighting for air because of the coronavirus and suffering organ damage for life is a meaningful experience worth having. That is pretty idealistic middle-class thinking not based on knowledge of the experience and when it comes to poverty, that kind of thinking is not to be tolerated! It is like tolerating people drinking bad water because it is a "meaningful experience" to watch your bright and loving child suffer mental retardation or death while being helpless to do anything about it.

I think you keep reminding me to not assume things because you know the problem of making assumptions instead of asking questions.

Liberty is not contingent upon morality, and morality is not contingent upon justice - that’s just how we like to conceptualise the world - but it isn’t reality. In truth, immorality enjoys undue freedom, and highly moral people suffer injustices. We ensure justice (and morality, too) by reducing liberty. Do you think you get to choose whether or not to ‘tolerate’ a pandemic? Do you think our efforts at isolating are the solution, or are they simply buying us time to increase awareness, connection and collaboration?

The ideal of Liberty, Morality and Justice is one of many trinities whose ‘infinite possibilities’ cannot be manifest in observable reality. It may be mathematically perfect, but if you base your concept of reality on it, then your sense of suffering will be acute, I’m afraid. — Possibility

My reply to your post disappeared and I am too tired to repeat the effort so I will skip to the most important points. Besides the criticism that my post are not on point is also eating on me. I don't want something as important as the following to be lost in too much verbiage.

Liberty is contingent on morality. Liberty, morality, and justice are a trinity, that manifest our reality, as surely as the three sides of a triangle give it strength. Democracy does not work without that understanding the trinity does manifest our reality.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

A moral is a matter of cause and effect.

Only highly moral people can have liberty.

“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

That actually makes no sense. I don't eat to attain the goal of satiation. 'Often' I can accept, but not 'always'. I am not always future oriented, which is when goals have to be achieved if they are achieved. Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

Okay, I can appreciate that reasoning. But it is hard today to imagine a community of people who do not share goals. I think when a group of people do not share goals the group falls apart. Just like a body stops functioning when its parts are not working together.

The US, and several countries around the world, provide us examples of what happens when people are not united by values and goals. Having armed men threatening those who oppose them is not a sign of a healthy nation.

What's the point, what's the goal?

Why do you think there ought to be a goal? We have established what your personal goal is, and that you would like the rest of life to adopt the same goal, but it looks to me that life in general has no goal, any more than the moon has a goal. A lot of humans like to set goals and achieve them and then set more goals... if you are dissatisfied with the goals you have set yourself, you can abandon them and choose a new goal or no goal. A plant grows towards the light, but it does not have the light as a goal. It produces flower and seed in season, but does not have a goal to reproduce, it does not complain if it doesn't.

The moon is absurd, going round and round like that and never getting anywhere. This is the absurdity of absurdity. — unenlightened

Humans always have goals. They don't always share the same goal. However, when we were defending democracy in the classroom, the citizenry of the US was much closer to sharing the same goal. Education for a technological society with unknown values has pretty well destroyed that.

Education for a technological society with unknown values and the bureaucratic technology that goes with it, manifest of the despot Tocqueville warned us about. Our present economic crisis may sink this technological ship and leave us all in small lifeboats without the despot over us?

PS humans do not have the intellect of plants. They have the potential to be like a colony of ants, but education for independent thinking leads a reality that is not like a colony of ants. Education for "Groupthink" and our present bureautic technology, instead of education for independent thinking and the bureaucratic we had, can make a mass of humans more like an ant colony.

“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.