You've actually been banned...because you think like a women???

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

I think such generalizations as "female mind" / "male mind" are not very useful. Individuals think. Assuming an individual thinks a certain way because of their sex is foolish, and sexist.

The mirroring of human societies to animal societies is something I steer away from, unless one desires to be an animal rather than a human. I desire the opposite.

When answering the question "who should dominate?", perhaps the question that first needs to be answered is, why should anyone ever be dominated in the first place?

https://www.history.com/news/women-leaders-elected

And it almost happened here in the US. :smile:

I would answer that in the affirmative but I don't think any moderator would agree with that.

I am sure there are better words for what I want to say. That is why I started this thread. It is not so much about what is said as it is about how it is interpreted. I think men and women interpret things differently or organize their thinking differently.

Moderators are prone to see a challenge to their authority, rather than an effort to be understood. I think many times disagreements are about interpretations. Such as trying to help a nation eradicate a disease when the people we are trying to help distrust us and think it is our intent to sterilize them or harm them. Mods who use guns in their avatars see bad guys to shoot down because that is what they are looking for. A teacher will have a different interpretation.

:snicker: Whoops

This post didn't come out right.

I think such generalizations as "female mind" / "male mind" are not very useful. Individuals think. Assuming an individual thinks a certain way because of their sex is foolish, and sexist.

The mirroring of human societies to animal societies is something I steer away from, unless one desires to be an animal rather than a human. I desire the opposite.

When answering the question "who should dominate?", perhaps the question that first needs to be answered is, why should anyone ever be dominated in the first place? — Tzeentch

:kiss: Yes, I am sexist and you assume that is wrong? Why? What if it is based on science and an appreciation of yin and yang? Sure under pressure women can behave like men, but is that desired?

Oh my, if you want to ignore anthropology and related sciences, we are in trouble. I don't know how any good can come out this.

Why should there be a leader and submission to the leadership? Because I ship, an industry or a nation without strong leadership is in big trouble. With that said, it is extremely important to know the qualities of good leadership and avoid mistaking a tyrant for good leadership. Tyrants who appeal to the masses can lead to thousands of people dying because of the ignorance and ego of the tyrant. Democracy is supposed to prevent that from happening, while assuring strong leadership, but it can not prevent that unless the masses are well educated, and the culture supports democracy, not Wrestlemania mentality. This is really tricky!

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? — Athena

It is possible, though I don't know that there is good evidence to support it. All thinking individuals have already been socialised to an extent, so it's almost impossible to figure out how they'd think without their socialisation.

What almost happened in the US, electing a woman to the presidency? In matriarchies, women rule, right.

A teacher will have a different interpretation. — Athena

I think you're bang on that "going online to have an argument about something abstract" is something that men are more socialised to accept, seek out and revel in. We unfortunately don't keep collaborative and exploratory discussions going long on here, and it's very hard to keep oneself exploratory and collaborative when someone is going to come along and treat it like a fight anyway.

The topic of raising the bar for post quality comes up sometimes, as does lowering the bar for moderating people getting combative. I think we usually err on the side of inaction for a few reasons, (1) it would make many posters unable to contribute and (2) policing the urge to show someone that they are wrong on the internet on an internet forum devoted to arguing about weird shit seems fruitless.

But I do regret that the aggregate effect of this inaction is that we aren't cultivating an environment where exploratory discussions are more common. Always open to suggestions.

Oh my, if you want to ignore anthropology and related sciences, we are in trouble. I don't know how any good can come out this. — Athena

On the contrary, we tend to try to answer very difficult questions of our complex society by preferring to anthropology and biology disregarding sociology, the political sciences, economics and history.

"Why did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Let's look at why and how aggressive chimpanzees are, biologist X has studied West African chimpanzee groups...".

It's like asking deep philosophical questions from a quantum physicist or a cosmologist, because they study things that people think is close to deep philosophical questions, not knowing that what they actually know is math & statistics.

This is really tricky! — Athena

Yes, would we even notice that you are a women if you wouldn't say that you are? The name in an anonymous site can be actually confusing.

It is possible, though I don't know that there is good evidence to support it. All thinking individuals have already been socialised to an extent, so it's almost impossible to figure out how they'd think without their socialisation. — Echarmion

It took me a couple of posts to get no one seems to appreciate matriarchy is female domination, female leadership, and there are some really good things about matriarchies.

One proof that females think differently is the skyrocketing number of bills passed to take care of children.

Anthropology is one science that studies animals and humans to get at what is natural, and also anthropology does cross-cultural studies. I don't know what the name of the field that studies hormones but that certainly should be taken into consideration in a study of human behavior and gender differences.

When I did a college paper about middle-age women, I came across a study of language and social positioning. That study really got my attention because I could so relate to being a domestic woman struggling to do college work that is very male-dominated! My chauvinistic professor rejected my research on women that was done by women and was not the abstracts. He only accepted papers that were less than 10 years old and in the abstracts. He was perhaps the most ignorant of all my professors. On the last day of class, some older women who audited the class delicately ranked him over the coals for his ignorance of how to help older women. I don't think there is a good understanding of the importance of women's work nor of the language differences, and I am loosing hope of this thread helping me develop my thoughts.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)?

Male and female brains are “wired” differently, to use that old cliche.

“Male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes”.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823

Given that it makes sense that both genders should cooperate with one another rather than dominate. It’s why the emancipation of women is so important to the development of a society.

Male and female brains are “wired” differently, — NOS4A2

Undeniable. (I'm guessing.)

“Male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes”. — NOS4A2

Decade-specific fantasy. (I'm guessing.)

I think you're bang on that "going online to have an argument about something abstract" is something that men are more socialised to accept, seek out and revel in. We unfortunately don't keep collaborative and exploratory discussions going long on here, and it's very hard to keep oneself exploratory and collaborative when someone is going to come along and treat it like a fight anyway.

The topic of raising the bar for post quality comes up sometimes, as does lowering the bar for moderating people getting combative. I think we usually err on the side of inaction for a few reasons, (1) it would make many posters unable to contribute and (2) policing the urge to show someone that they are wrong on the internet on an internet forum devoted to arguing about weird shit seems fruitless.

But I do regret that the aggregate effect of this inaction is that we aren't cultivating an environment where exploratory discussions are more common. Always open to suggestions. — fdrake

Aaliyah! Just as I was giving up any hope of this discussion being what I was hoping for, you come along and give me hope.

I can totally appreciate not keeping collaborative and exploratory discussions going for long because they are exhausting! The thinking requires a lot of energy. Unlike the reactionary, kneejerk fighting than is common.

I have deep concerns about judgments of raising the bar because whose standards would rule? That is a large part of the problem I want to discuss. I am thinking the male standard leads to very narrow thinking? The requirement of staying on topic prevents anyone from considering the bigger picture, and it is my concern this keeps us in a constant state of conflict, heading towards war, and prevents the expansion of consciousness that could lead to peaceful resolutions.

As you said" we aren't cultivating an environment where exploratory discussions are more common".

Suggestion- find more people who can handle this discussion. Talk about language and how we think. Talk about consciousness and how to expand consciousness. Talk about the importance of this discussion to our future and a New Age with such a different consciousness the people of the future can not relate to our barbaric past.

End women's liberation that does not liberate women but makes being feminine taboo and forces us all to conform to the male standard. An evil plot that does not make men any better than they have been. :lol:

Male and female brains are “wired” differently, to use that old cliche.

“Male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes”.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823

Given that it makes sense that both genders should cooperate with one another rather than dominate. It’s why the emancipation of women is so important to the development of a society. — NOS4A2

There is hope! Thank you so much for turning to science. We need a lot more of that. And thank you for suggesting it is okay for me to be a woman and to rely on a man to do what men do best. I really have no desire to give up being a woman, nor to compete with men. I do believe working together can bring out the best in both of us and manifest a better future. Imagine children growing up in homes where mothers and fathers love each other and enjoy working together for the good of the family.

Yes, I am sexist and you assume that is wrong? — Athena

Ignorant is the word I would use to describe a sexist.

Why? — Athena

Because a sexist worldview is inevitably based on generalizations and simplifications that have little connection to reality. To be content with such a worldview or even posit it as truth is what I consider ignorant.

What if it is based on science — Athena

Show me this science.

and an appreciation of yin and yang? — Athena

Yin and yang aren't about sex differences. Nor is it a binary concept. The two parts make a whole. They are not opposites but they complement and give rise to each other, as symbolized by the two opposite color dots. It's a symbol of unity, not of division.

Why should there be a leader and submission to the leadership? Because I ship, an industry or a nation without strong leadership is in big trouble. — Athena

People should submit to leadership? What if I don't need or want to be led? What if I don't care about the ship or even consider myself to be on it?

This 'dominance and submission' concept sounds to me like an non-consensual exercise based on coercion rather than mutual agreement. It seems to me as the polar opposite of what good leadership is, and it should be no surprise when systems that base themselves on such a concept sooner or later start running into problems. Coincidentally, that seems to be the power dynamic that is pervasive throughout most of human history.

End women's liberation that does not liberate women but makes being feminine taboo and forces us all to conform to the male standard. An evil plot that does not make men any better than they have been. :lol: — Athena

I'll vote for that. Votes for women, orgasms for women, equal pay for women, and there you go, now you're just like men. We even monetised childcare and professionalised it. What more do you want?

God, you want men to change? That's a step too far!

If I were to suggest that we live in a patriarchy because that's the way women prefer to organise it, would you bite my head off? The trouble is, we cannot start from a state of nature, we start from men in a patriarchy and women in a patriarchy critiquing the patriarchy. Their critiques are not to be relied on, but that's all we have.

And thank you for suggesting it is okay for me to be a woman and to rely on a man to do what men do best. — Athena

Mrs un relies on me to open her fizzy water bottles, and other feats of strength, but she is an old-fashioned lady. But I am a thoroughly modern man, I and know my place.

No one has to read what I have to say, and if the replies are not respectful I will not read them.

Opposite doesn't necessarily mean equal, in regards to human rights, we are equal if only for small differences.

We are all equal under the sun, but as the Greek gods and goddesses were all different, so are we. I very much like Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. books "Goddesses in EveryWoman" and "Gods in Everyman".
The US carried the three aspects of Athena, Goddess of Liberty and Justice and the Defense of those who stand for liberty and justice. As Liberty, she is our Statue of Liberty holding a book because our liberty depends on being knowledgable. She was common in courtrooms as the Lady Justice holding a scale because justice is a balance of wisdom and compassion. And in a mural at the Capitol Building, she is the Spirit of America, brandishing the Sword of Justice.

I think our culture has lost a lot by loosing the meaning of these icons and it amuses me that what is most important to us is represented by female figures. Perhaps we should wonder why?

Bolen's books explain the archetypes of men and women. Our archetypes can change over our lifetimes. And of course, there is the mythology of Gia the earth mother goddess. I know people mean well by ignoring the feminine power, but I don't think the ignorance benefits us.

:up:

Some are more comfortable (i.e. socialized for) talking about talk. Some are more comfortable (i.e. socialized for) talking about more-than / anything-but talk. Surely, as pointed out, they're complements, not opposites.

I fail to perceive the point of your OP, @Athena.

Coming from the head of a male ("Zeus"), your "goddess" user name is rich with irony - intended or not - in taking this essentalist "male vs female thinking" position.

If true, then isn't it incoherent to expect, or even seek, to persuade us "male thinkers" to think otherwise (i.e. in order to make you "female thinkers" more comfortable - how gallant of us that would be :wink:)?

If not true, however, then ... ? :roll:

What am I missing (other than sequiturs)?

Btw, I've just reread Wittgenstein's Mistress by David Markson for the Nth time. Lacunae & elisions abound. Have you?

:death: :flower:

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forums. I know I am thinking on a different level and that I am not conforming with the male idea of what is important. I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums. All this seems to make a discussion of gender differences, and how our thoughts are shaped, very important.

Abigail Adams prodded her husband John Adams to think of women when he was working on the constitution. History has said John Adams considered his wife to be an excellent advisor. Hopefully, we all know Franklin Roosevelt also considered his wife to be someone to listen to, and that Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in his decisions and national policy. That clearly is not the case for Ivana Trump who is the worst first lady we have had in a long time and the tyrannical rule of Donald Trump.

In the back of my mind is the Haudenosaunee and their a matriarchal society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America
And the Etruscans who were contemporaries with Athens and Rome.
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/30/archives/etruscan-women-had-womens-lib.html

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

There are forums run by Women and some probably have section that if it isn't dedicated to philosophy it might, allow philosophy.

I got kicked off of www.christianforums.com and they had wierd sections for seekers.

I would be surprised if facebook didn't have several philosophy groups.

Or you can just stay on here and continue to argue with us.

Or you can change your name so no one knows you are a women.

I've never told people my race and i never intend to.

I'm guessing you've figured out my sex.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

Of course it's possible. But it may not entirely be possible to distinguish nature from nurture in that regard. We can't raise children in a sex and gender-less society, because no such thing exists. We have no possible way to create a double-blind test for this. So, whether females are hardwired differently from men, and if so to which extent and how exactly may not be within the grasp of humanity for the foreseeable future.

What we do know is that whether nature or nurture is to blame, there are average differences between how men and women act, reason, perceive the world, etc etc. I emphasize average, because there are huge discrepancies within these demographics.

Are these differences important? I should think the answer is obviously. Again, whether you attribute such differences to nature or nurture, they are all part of what it means to be human.

For example, one thing feminist theorist emphasize as a good quality of feminine thinking, is the generally more "holistic," relationships-based view of the world versus the masculine "atomistic," view. Women are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of the holistic approach to reason, whereas men are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of atomistic thinking. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is useful on its own.

I think there is more complexity to this than you’re making out. I will agree that there are many variables in the way that we think and feel and value and integrate information. But I disagree that these can all be distilled into a basic dichotomy of male-female. This leads to inaccurate assumptions about how people think and feel and integrate information, based on their sex.

One thing I’ve discovered through forum discussions is that one should never assume the poster is male or female based on the way they think (or their avatar) - you’re liable to be mistaken. Yes, there are a lot of older males in this forum, which I have found to impair discussions that pertain to sexual relations, and contribute to a certain amount of ignorance regarding how people might think and feel and value generally that appears to be based on a limited understanding of women in particular.

I have a fair idea of what my strengths and weaknesses are, but while I recognise many of them as common to my sex, I won’t assume that anyone who appears polar opposite in any of these traits to be male, or assume that I cannot develop a capacity to, say, grasp complex mathematical concepts, given a focused degree of time and effort. I think that would be ignorant of the degree of diversity in humanity, and of our capacity as humans in general.

I agree that we need to recognise and value what women bring to leadership positions - here in Australia, we have been watching NZ PM Jacinta Ardern’s handling of situations common to both governments with no small degree of admiration - particularly when fear, anger and hatred is at the forefront. But the qualities she portrays with courage and tenacity are not alien to the male psyche - they’re just devalued, generally speaking.

Quality leadership is about collaboration more than dominance. It’s not about attaining individual power to the exclusion of others, but about leveraging the potential of a group within a broader whole. I don’t think it helps to claim this as uniquely matriarchal - but I do think it may be something we’ve traditionally downplayed as an act of leadership, in favour of ‘instinctive’ evolutionary behaviour. And I do think the experience of women in society allows us to value it more, generally speaking.

For example, one thing feminist theorist emphasize as a good quality of feminine thinking, is the generally more "holistic," relationships-based view of the world versus the masculine "atomistic," view. Women are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of the holistic approach to reason, whereas men are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of atomistic thinking. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is useful on its own. — Artemis

I like to view this distinction in relation to particle-wave duality, but again, I’m not convinced that it’s necessarily a male-female distinction.

I also agree with and appreciate @fdrake’s measured response.

Quality leadership is about collaboration more than dominance. It’s not about attaining individual power to the exclusion of others, but about leveraging the potential of a group within a broader whole. — Possibility

:clap:

For example, one thing feminist theorist emphasize as a good quality of feminine thinking, is the generally more "holistic," relationships-based view of the world versus the masculine "atomistic," view. Women are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of the holistic approach to reason, whereas men are more likely on average to employ a greater degree of atomistic thinking. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is useful on its own. — Artemis

Both Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt have some interesting lectures on this, based on research. To put it simply, of course every individual is different, but as whole there are some general differences that are based on nature, not nurture.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)? — Athena

This is an interesting but also dangerous thought. The idea that men and women are essentially (spiritually/intellectually) different was/is perhaps the basis of male supremacist ideology. Opposing matriarchal to patriarchal ideology just inverts the same hierarchical structure. FWIW, I do think that technology has empowered the 'feminine' (traditionally-associated-with-females) aspect of the human to become more important. What does it mean that POTUS is a reality TV star? Appearance and pageantry are more important than ever perhaps. Seduction has replaced violence in many ways perhaps, yet this seduction is often itself a virtual violence (more Mean Girls than a utopia of free love.)

I know people mean well by ignoring the feminine power, but I don't think the ignorance benefits us. — Athena

I just want to add/emphasize that perhaps men are using 'feminine' power, the power of spectacle. Perhaps even Trump is using feminine power. Pelosi was recently called a 'mama bear.'

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-ocasio-cortez-on-the-view-20200219-gcliuehkgbb77dovdjxt3j2p3i-story.html

きち

It took me a couple of posts to get no one seems to appreciate matriarchy is female domination, female leadership, and there are some really good things about matriarchies. — Athena

If matriarchy can take as many forms as patriarchy in practice, then talking about the benefits in general doesn't seem to be very useful to me. There are presumably huge differences between a "Victorian era, but reversed" kind of matriarchy and "enlightened post scarcity" kind of matriarchy.

So what are the specifics? Where would you start with the matriarchy?

One proof that females think differently is the skyrocketing number of bills passed to take care of children. — Athena

You're using proof very loosely here. After all the majority of MPs are still male. Though it occurs to me that the relative absence of historical examples for matriarchal societies does point towards some kind of relevant difference in practice.

Anthropology is one science that studies animals and humans to get at what is natural, and also anthropology does cross-cultural studies. I don't know what the name of the field that studies hormones but that certainly should be taken into consideration in a study of human behavior and gender differences. — Athena

Endocrinology, perhaps?