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

....and the "children" often being external invaders. Women tend to have strong instincts to provide, but very low instincts to protect the tribe. No wonder, as throughout human history, it was males who were and are killed in tribal conflicts. Women are simply taken, and become part of the victorious tribe. Which from a biological point of view makes no difference to them. And this is ingrained in our species throughout our existance. To claim that that has suddenly changed in the last few decades is simply denial of reality.

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.' — jjAmEs

I think we need to be more mindful of what happens when we attribute a masculine-feminine dichotomy to potential/value concepts such as ‘power’. It points to the multi-dimensional aspect of value structure. The same thing happens when we use terms such ‘black/white power’. We need to be aware that there is more than one way to collapse this value structure, depending on your perspective.

There is no valid reason to suggest that ‘spectacle’ is a particularly feminine tactic: men have been employing it since ancient times, including Greek theatre and rhetoric. The idea that men are wholly rational beings is ignorant of the irrationality of men over thousands of years of patriarchal dominance, not to mention the ‘spectacle’ they’ve employed in order to gain or hold onto the illusion of power throughout history.

Women tend to have strong instincts to provide, but very low instincts to protect the tribe. No wonder, as throughout human history, it was males who were and are killed in tribal conflicts. Women are simply taken, and become part of the victorious tribe. Which from a biological point of view makes no difference to them. And this is ingrained in our species throughout our existance. To claim that that has suddenly changed in the last few decades is simply denial of reality. — Nobeernolife

Again, this is a value perspective. What mattered to women in this sense were the relationships, the potentiality, rather than the actuality. So interaction with another tribe would rarely have been seen by women as a ‘bad’ thing. It was the men who were threatened, who seem focused on protecting the status quo at all cost. It was the value they attribute to ignorance, isolation and exclusion that saw them killed in tribal conflicts - and this continues to be the case today. Fortunately, we’ve come to realise that not all men are as fearful and ignorant as history has often portrayed them, just as women are not ‘simply taken’ as much as they are often portrayed.

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. — Athena

Introducing a new topic by articulating how it links to the current one generally makes for a good post. I'm sure that you've noticed that staying strictly on topic doesn't happen very much here, even within the focused exegesis of reading groups. I believe it's partly a combinatoric problem; there's too many divergent ways of taking something as an obvious consequence of something else. Absent strong constraints on seeing what is relevant to a topic, discussion regarding it tends to slide into tangents and tangents on tangents.

I wouldn't call this male or female, it seems to happen regardless of circumstance. You maybe see it as male, though, in that move where discourse itself is seen as following male archetypes and standards.

Despite all the differences in perspective, differences in what people find obvious, and differences in what people find relevant, I believe that when people discuss in good faith, they partake in the same norms of expression and rationality; even if there's no common ground, people speaking in good faith are still disputing the same terrain (usually).

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. — Athena

First thing - we're an open access internet forum, we can't selectively recruit. About as good as we can do is invite speakers. Those events are few and far between, big thinkers are too busy to waste their time educating us plebs on their minutia; or responding to our long winded essay posts and convoluted questions takes up time they don't have.

I don't really understand why you frame what you desire in the quote as a departure from normal discourse on here. Posts constantly talk about language and thought, people behave as if they have a blueprint for sorting out all the world's problems a lot - people with contrasting blueprints get frustrated with each other. This is business as usual for talk beyond gossip.

Big picture talk is also usually extremely reactive, responsive to continually updating meat space events. When the meat space events change, the sites of tension which will be discussed between people's blue prints or big pictures change without (usually) changing their perspective. I mean, I have a bunch of thoughts about how things should be done and see things in that light, and essentially that means I have 2 conversations repeatedly on here and don't talk about much else. The events change, the perspective doesn't. I'm guessing your big picture talk is in the same ball park, how long have you been expressing frustration with what you see as male norms of discourse, saying the same thing in different scenarios?

Anyway, the chances of forum big picture talk turning into a world historical event of ideological rupture are slim to none. Framing things with that goal in mind is... noble, but extremely silly. "Everything needs to change! We need to be talking about how everything needs to change. No, not in that way... The purpose of the obscure hobby forum should be to increase the likelihood of a world historic shift in consciousness."

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. — Athena

Well, so long as you have moderators and admins, a forum is not going to be a democracy. If you don't have moderators, you currently end up with 4chan. I believe this is preferable.

One thing that works to propagate exploratory styles is trying to stick with them when talking with someone, mod action to enforce exploratory styles which does not change or strongly restrict the open access nature of the site seems impossible to me.

Again, this is a value perspective. What mattered to women in this sense were the relationships, the potentiality, rather than the actuality. So interaction with another tribe would rarely have been seen by women as a ‘bad’ thing. It was the men who were threatened, who seem focused on protecting the status quo at all cost. — Possibility

....the "status quo" here being the existance of the tribe, and the continuation of its culture. So yes, the male and female perspectives on this are naturally very different, and have been, well, as long as our species has existed.

It was the value they attribute to ignorance, isolation and exclusion that saw them killed in tribal conflicts - and this continues to be the case today — Possibility

.
I do not know what you are getting at here. Conflict between tribes has existed as long as humankind has, and even earlier (apes have it too).

Fortunately, we’ve come to realise that not all men are as fearful and ignorant as history has often portrayed them, just as women are not ‘simply taken’ as much as they are often portrayed. — Possibility

That is a fact, not a question of "portrayed". Conquering tribes routinely killed all the males of the conquered tribe, and took the women and children as part of their own group. You find countless examples of this in history and in primitive societies, in fact it is the norm. What you will NEVER find is a conquering tribe killiing only the women and children,

Please do not confuse wishful thinking with reality.

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 — Athena

Women probably think differently from men, on one level and on average. They are likely to have different concerns about what is relevant and important in daily life – on average. But this shouldn’t matter when doing philosophy, and if it does, we should make and effort to minimize its importance.

They say women are more emotional. Well, men have emotions too, but that’s the part of our being we should put aside when constructing logical arguments, isn’t it? We shouldn’t be swayed by our emotions to jump to conclusions that just feel right.

Also, when trying to understand another person’s argument, it’s unfair to refer to that person’s psychology, life situation and gender to explain where the arguments are coming from. Treating people fairly means taking what they say seriously and don’t dismiss it as psychologically biased. However, that also means taking yourself seriously and don’t tell yourself that you are only saying what you are saying because you are a woman.

I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums — Athena

Are you really saying you have been thrown out because you are a woman? Whether that is true or not you’ll have to prove that the rules that caused your expulsion were unfair or that you didn’t really break the rules. Only then can you claim that there was sexism involved.

I am intensely aware of how painfully difficult it is for me to participate in male dominated forum — Athena

I read your post and wondered what you did to get yourself banned in those other forums and wondered what excitement we might now have in store.

I see two questions here: (1) Do men and women think differently, and (2) can men and women get along even if they do think differently. I think the answer to #1 is more difficult to answer because it requires a break down of how the different sexes think and it necessarily requires some degree of stereotyping, as if all men think one way and all women think another. I think #2 is clearly that they can, largely because they do in very many contexts, including our humble abode.

Both Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt have some interesting lectures on this — Nobeernolife

Peterson gets way too much attention for saying a lot of stuff that's more slightly controversial than substantive. Haidt's theory about moral disgust is so far the only thing of even marginal interest I've heard from him.

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. — Possibility

Well, it's a good thing then that I was careful to talk about degrees of behavior that happen on average and not about any strict distinctions.

I read your post and wondered what you did to get yourself banned in those other forums and wondered what excitement we might now have in store.

I see two questions here: (1) Do men and women think differently, and (2) can men and women get along even if they do think differently. I think the answer to #1 is more difficult to answer because it requires a break down of how the different sexes think and it necessarily requires some degree of stereotyping, as if all men think one way and all women think another. I think #2 is clearly that they can, largely because they do in very many contexts, including our humble abode. — Hanover

Actually it is best to turn to science. We look different because our hormones are different. As our gentiles are the same at first and develop differently so are our brains the same and developed differently. However, the development of our brains is directed by how we use them, unlike our gentiles that are what they are. :lol: Using a penis does not make it larger, but using our brains increases the growth of the neurons that are used.

That is just the beginning of understanding our differences but it is very important because our brain structure and hormones are at the heart of our differences and this why we should not attack homosexuals. Nature loves variety and there is a lot of human variety.

Thank you so much for considering science is important to our understanding.

As for us getting along, of course we can get along. Our difference is a wonderful thing and I think those who have attacked me, hate women. They are jumping up and down like chimps in a rainstorm insisting women should be like men. Imagine if our hands were exactly the same instead of mirrored manifestations. We could not enjoy the use of them nearly so much. I think we can get along much, much better if we do appreciate our differences. I am working for a New Age where we value the feminine as much as the masculine and I invite everyone to imagine how history might have been different if all cultures were as the cultures that valued women as much as men.

Well, it's a good thing then that I was careful to talk about degrees of behavior that happen on average and not about any strict distinctions. — Artemis

That is a great statement! :cheer:

....the "status quo" here being the existance of the tribe, and the continuation of its culture. So yes, the male and female perspectives on this are naturally very different, and have been, well, as long as our species has existed. — Nobeernolife

Not necessarily - this is an assumption based on perception of past experience, and both tribes contributed to a self-fulfilling prophecy in this way. It wasn’t until they paused to consider the potential/value of their neighbouring tribe’s culture that fear was no longer at forefront of interactions.

I do not know what you are getting at here. Conflict between tribes has existed as long as humankind has, and even earlier (apes have it too). — Nobeernolife

True - and ignorance, isolation and exclusion even longer. It is the perceived value of awareness, connection and collaboration that has evolved in humankind. The thing is, this perception develops most readily from a position of humility.

That is a fact, not a question of "portrayed". — Nobeernolife

No, it’s a question of available evidence. Please do not confuse awareness with objective knowledge. If you don’t care enough to ask the questions, the answers won’t reveal themselves of their own accord.

Conquering tribes routinely killed all the males of the conquered tribe, and took the women and children as part of their own group. You find countless examples of this in history and in primitive societies, in fact it is the norm. What you will NEVER find is a conquering tribe killiing only the women and children — Nobeernolife

Yet you will find a conquering tribe killing women and children. Don’t assume women were always passive items of property, just because they were treated and recorded in history as such. I would say that at least some of them freely chose their fate, either way - once they perceived the potential. This unpredictable, ‘feminine’ behaviour is regularly portrayed in history as manipulative, disloyal, resourceful, insane, emotional, irrational, illogical, etc. - largely from a male perspective.

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

If two people are debating an important issue (assuming both people are not post modernists), with the exception of logic and/or mathematics and/or article comprehension and/or definition of terms, how are the two sides going to debate anything or try to convince others?

If we aren't willing to expand our minds, what is the point in debating in the first place?

I'm sure you would agree some things are true and some things are false.

If two members of the opposite sex are arguing, shouldn't the one who embraces reasoning best in their argument, be the one who is declared more reasonable, regardless of sex?

I find that many exploratory conversations often degrade into logic and reason arguments.

Both sexes are known for envy and jealousy. Friendly conversations are usually friendly and non-friendly conversations are often not friendly.

I understand friends get jealous of other friends.

Well, it's a good thing then that I was careful to talk about degrees of behavior that happen on average and not about any strict distinctions. — Artemis

Fair enough - I still think too much is made of attributing ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ value to these ways of thinking, as if this ‘holistic’ method is something that men don’t really have a capacity for. Because I think they do.

....and the "children" often being external invaders. Women tend to have strong instincts to provide, but very low instincts to protect the tribe. No wonder, as throughout human history, it was males who were and are killed in tribal conflicts. Women are simply taken, and become part of the victorious tribe. Which from a biological point of view makes no difference to them. And this is ingrained in our species throughout our existance. To claim that that has suddenly changed in the last few decades is simply denial of reality. — Nobeernolife

Making people slaves was an advancement over killing everyone. Not all invaders took slaves and this made resistance against them absolute because the only choice was to fight and have a chance of living or die. But before we became so brutish, I think it was grandmothers who gave their tribes the organization they needed to evolve into civilizations. Science has suggested we survived and the Neanderthal did not because our social organization gave us a survival advantage.

Again, this is a value perspective. What mattered to women in this sense were the relationships, the potentiality, rather than the actuality. So interaction with another tribe would rarely have been seen by women as a ‘bad’ thing. It was the men who were threatened, who seem focused on protecting the status quo at all cost. It was the value they attribute to ignorance, isolation and exclusion that saw them killed in tribal conflicts - and this continues to be the case today. Fortunately, we’ve come to realise that not all men are as fearful and ignorant as history has often portrayed them, just as women are not ‘simply taken’ as much as they are often portrayed. — Possibility

Well, this discussion has greatly improved over yesterday.

Women probably think differently from men, on one level and on average. They are likely to have different concerns about what is relevant and important in daily life – on average. But this shouldn’t matter when doing philosophy, and if it does, we should make and effort to minimize its importance.

They say women are more emotional. Well, men have emotions too, but that’s the part of our being we should put aside when constructing logical arguments, isn’t it? We shouldn’t be swayed by our emotions to jump to conclusions that just feel right.

Also, when trying to understand another person’s argument, it’s unfair to refer to that person’s psychology, life situation and gender to explain where the arguments are coming from. Treating people fairly means taking what they say seriously and don’t dismiss it as psychologically biased. However, that also means taking yourself seriously and don’t tell yourself that you are only saying what you are saying because you are a woman.

I have been banned enough times to know that it is a risk to go against male control of forums
— Athena
Are you really saying you have been thrown out because you are a woman? Whether that is true or not you’ll have to prove that the rules that caused your expulsion were unfair or that you didn’t really break the rules. Only then can you claim that there was sexism involved. — Congau

If a woman has value or not, is a value judgment, and we come from a very ugly misogynistic past. Not all of humanity, but certainly the Christian West with its roots Athens and Rome. Jews were misogynistic and the idea of a deity being born to a woman was absolutely revolting to many. The God of Abraham created without a female force. Misogynistic thinking does not value how a woman thinks and does not include her in decisions made by men. :lol: We have not had the vote for that long, and :gasp: horrors, now women are even serving as representatives and have a real voice in government. :wink: I have to point out this follows a growing rejection of Christianity and men being the head of the house.

:lol: Women are emotional and men are not. There is some truth to the statement for biological reasons, but isn't it annoying when a man believes this and denies his emotions while beating his "emotional" wife. Oh dear, that is a nasty can of worms.

"Also, when trying to understand another person’s argument, it’s unfair to refer to that person’s psychology, life situation and gender to explain where the arguments are coming from."

:lol: Do you think. That is a powerful and cruel effort to dominate and it brings the men together to silence women. We definitely see it in our politics today, right? However, women also join in on this, as the attacks against me in this thread demonstrate. Over the years none have attacked me more viciously than women who are reacting to the misogyny we live with and they are not realizing how important feminity is to societies that are not Military-Industrial Complexes. Destroying the value of being feminine does not improve our social order.

As for being banned. :lol: There have been very few women in the forums, and on occasion, I was the only woman. Women can be so annoying you know. I think that has something to do with a female being the symbol of liberty since ancient times.

Because I think they do. — Possibility

No argument here.

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

Of course! Even feminists, like Simone de Beauvoir, accepted that male and female minds had inherently different "styles". This dichotomy --- as the French say, "vive la difference" --- is obviously related to the contrasting bodies that their brains reside in. The male body was adapted by evolution to life in "Nature - red in tooth and claw". Hence, they were physically & mentally adapted to "Hunter" jobs that require them to face dangers away from home base. Meanwhile, the female body was adapted to "Gathering" jobs that could be done near the village and dependent children. Thus, the male mind tends to be more confident & aggressive & combative, while the female mind is more sociable & nurturing & passive. This is the either/or distinction between male & female roles that we have inherited from thousands of years of human history.

But suddenly, in just a couple of centuries the influence of Nature has been moderated by the rise of human Culture. Hence, in the 21st century, most men do not hunt wild animals for food --- even though a few still do for sport. And technology has allowed women to do jobs that were traditionally reserved for men. But conservative thinkers, of both sexes, rely heavily on emotion & custom, and are wary of tradition-threatening cultural changes. So, they "feel" that women should be content to play their natural "god-given" role as passive "help-meet" to dominant men. Yet again, technology has eliminated much of the advantage of physical strength & combativeness, and civilization has learned to control the aggressive competitive temperament with communal laws. So, for the first time in history, women are empowered (by technology & culture) to do the same mental & physical work as men.

Unfortunately, bodies don't adapt as quickly as minds. So the mind-styles of men and women are still emotionally & hormonally influenced by innate genetic differences. Therefore, we will have to gradually learn to modify our cultural expectations to accept the fact that physical bodies are no longer the primary factor in social roles. The either/or rules of ancient societies are no longer applicable to our modern anything-goes culture. Today, a man can become a woman physically, and vice-versa. But socially, the change is much more difficult. And since many world societies are lagging behind in cultural evolution, it will take a few generations for the egalitarian ideal to become the norm. Meanwhile, we'll have to do our best to accommodate the advantages & disadvantages of each mind-style. Again. "vive la difference". :wink:


Gendered Mind Styles : https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses

PS___Women are typically rare posters on Philosophical forums. That may be, in part, due to the wild-west openness & freedom of online forums. It allows aggressive posters to play rough, which suits the individualistic male mindstyle better than the more communal female mindstyle. It's also why most forums have moderators to level the playing field by putting a damper on the boys-will-be-boys rough-housing and I'm-smarter-than-you trolling. Perhaps some philosophical self-defense training will give women more confidence to play with the big boys. :joke:

Introducing a new topic by articulating how it links to the current one generally makes for a good post. I'm sure that you've noticed that staying strictly on topic doesn't happen very much here, even within the focused exegesis of reading groups. I believe it's partly a combinatoric problem; there's too many divergent ways of taking something as an obvious consequence of something else. Absent strong constraints on seeing what is relevant to a topic, discussion regarding it tends to slide into tangents and tangents on tangents. — fdrake

Yes, I have noticed in this forum a topic can easily slide into a related one. There also appears to be many females here.

I wouldn't call this male or female, it seems to happen regardless of circumstance. You maybe see it as male, though, in that move where discourse itself is seen as following male archetypes and standards. — fdrake

I now regret giving up the book explaining how written language made cultures more male dominant. Especially in the west that favors linear logic over wholistic logic. This male dominance is intensified with education for technology and specialization and "expertise". Before this education, we educated for well rounded individual growth and avoided being narrow-minded. The Conceptual Method of education preparing the young to be independent thinkers and the Behaviorist Method teaching them to react like we train dogs to react to commands.

Despite all the differences in perspective, differences in what people find obvious, and differences in what people find relevant, I believe that when people discuss in good faith, they partake in the same norms of expression and rationality; even if there's no common ground, people speaking in good faith are still disputing the same terrain (usually). — "

Not exactly so. In the past women were less apt to organize their thinking with formal rules, such as the rules of thinking essential to science, a college education, business, and legal transactions. The difference in their thinking was called domestic thinking and it went with strong emotional reactions involving the care of others. The point is, there are different modes of thinking and different ways of experiencing life dependent on our roles in society. My granddaughter appears to have the mothering instinct of a cuckoo bird. The cuckoo bird lays its eggs in other birds' nest and leaves the adopted parents to feed and raise their offspring. While one of her coworkers stopped coming to work because the work is so high risk they can not risk being with their children. Of course, this difference is about how they were raised and their understanding of social expectations. Our use of language and emotional reactions are not hard-wired as is so for other animals.

fdrake — "

"]First thing - we're an open access internet forum, we can't selectively recruit. About as good as we can do is invite speakers. Those events are few and far between, big thinkers are too busy to waste their time educating us plebs on their minutia; or responding to our long winded essay posts and convoluted questions takes up time they don't have.

I don't really understand why you frame what you desire in the quote as a departure from normal discourse on here. Posts constantly talk about language and thought, people behave as if they have a blueprint for sorting out all the world's problems a lot - people with contrasting blueprints get frustrated with each other. This is business as usual for talk beyond gossip.
[/quote]

That is a good distinction between formal mental patterns and informal. Gossiping is not a formal mental pattern! Of course in a philosophy forum, people are discussing language and thought, but very few of them have the education for the discussions, so the posts are informal, not formal. And an argument may have nothing to do with the logic of a post, but be focused on attacking the stupid person who made the stupid post. Being formal or informal serves different functions and this not good or bad, it is human and we need all of it.

Big picture talk is also usually extremely reactive, responsive to continually updating meat space events. When the meat space events change, the sites of tension which will be discussed between people's blue prints or big pictures change without (usually) changing their perspective. I mean, I have a bunch of thoughts about how things should be done and see things in that light, and essentially that means I have 2 conversations repeatedly on here and don't talk about much else. The events change, the perspective doesn't. I'm guessing your big picture talk is in the same ball park, how long have you been expressing frustration with what you see as male norms of discourse, saying the same thing in different scenarios? — "

How long have been addressing gender issues and education issues and the ramifications of the change in education? About 30 years I believe. However, I am even more enthusiastic since learning of
Daniel Kahneman and his explanations of Thinking, Fast and Slow Also in my later years I am experiencing a sensation of enlightenment when suddenly I understand the meaning of things. That is so different from knowing facts and not the meaning of them. I think we can life experiences that radically change our consciousness.

Anyway, the chances of forum big picture talk turning into a world historical event of ideological rupture are slim to none. Framing things with that goal in mind is... noble, but extremely silly. "Everything needs to change! We need to be talking about how everything needs to change. No, not in that way... The purpose of the obscure hobby forum should be to increase the likelihood of a world historic shift in consciousness." — fdrake

You must not know the history of our democracy. You could not say that and know the list of books that have changed history. But you should know we have experienced major changes and those changes were lead by people who wanted the changes.

Well, so long as you have moderators and admins, a forum is not going to be a democracy. If you don't have moderators, you currently end up with 4chan. I believe this is preferable.

One thing that works to propagate exploratory styles is trying to stick with them when talking with someone, mod action to enforce exploratory styles which does not change or strongly restrict the open access nature of the site seems impossible to me.

Why in heaven's name would a forum with leaders and rules not be a democracy? :gasp: Wow, we are in very serious trouble if people think democracy is an unregulated free for all. That is another important subject and it deserves its own thread.

I now regret giving up the book explaining how written language made cultures more male dominant. Especially in the west that favors linear logic over wholistic logic. This male dominance is intensified with education for technology and specialization and "expertise". Before this education, we educated for well rounded individual growth and avoided being narrow-minded. The Conceptual Method of education preparing the young to be independent thinkers and the Behaviorist Method teaching them to react like we train dogs to react to commands. — Athena

It'd be an interesting argument, for sure. I'm persuaded by Engel's account of the origin of patriarchy, linking it to ownership concepts of agricultural resources and land. Think the root goes further back than the development of logic and the (alleged) cultural contrast between holistic and reductive thinking styles. But I find it more than plausible that expected/acceptable behaviour under male socialisation became the norm in academia.

That is a good distinction between formal mental patterns and informal. Gossiping is not a formal mental pattern! Of course in a philosophy forum, people are discussing language and thought, but very few of them have the education for the discussions, so the posts are informal, not formal. And an argument may have nothing to do with the logic of a post, but be focused on attacking the stupid person who made the stupid post. Being formal or informal serves different functions and this not good or bad, it is human and we need all of it. — Athena

:up:

How long have been addressing gender issues and education issues and the ramifications of the change in education? About 30 years I believe. — Athena

Impressive!

However, I am even more enthusiastic since learning of Daniel Kahneman and his explanations of Thinking, Fast and Slow Also in my later years I am experiencing a sensation of enlightenment when suddenly I understand the meaning of things. That is so different from knowing facts and not the meaning of them. I think we can life experiences that radically change our consciousness.

I've certainly had transformative experiences from forum discussions here (and like discussions elsewhere). Allowing an idea to perturb patterns of thought is a much more intimate relationship with the material, rather than familiarising myself with its consequences. Following an idea is much different than making use of it. I can't turn it on or off though, some things capture my imagination and some don't. Even being owned for the idiot I am, especially being owned for the idiot I am.

I think of those things as peak intellectual experiences, and it's quite hard (for me, though I think it generalises) to form patterns of the kind of conduct that leads to them. It seems to me to depend intimately on what's written and the background the reader brings to it.

You must not know the history of our democracy. You could not say that and know the list of books that have changed history. But you should know we have experienced major changes and those changes were lead by people who wanted the changes. — Athena

I agree with you that ideas change history, but I disagree that there are easy measures for mods or forum standards that increase the likelihood of ideas having such knock on effects. I don't see a way to moderate consistently on something that comes down to a very particular relationship between an expression or pattern of thought and a reader.

Why in heaven's name would a forum with leaders and rules not be a democracy? :gasp: Wow, we are in very serious trouble if people think democracy is an unregulated free for all. That is another important subject and it deserves its own thread. — Athena

Running a forum democratically would probably require upvote/downvote software and thresh-holds for post hiding/deletion based upon it. Even reddit and Youtube, which have those measures, trend to the kind of discussions we both agree tend to be shite (as in, unlikely to generate those kind of experiences). It's not that I don't believe in democracy, it's just that more democratic forum management methods still don't suffice for the kind of content we're talking about. I doubt any formal guidelines or institutional rules would. I think avoiding the worst excesses of internet debate is probably the best environment we can consistently moderate to achieve (without imposing restrictive content standards that the staff would also fail a lot of the time).

Though I would be very happy if that turned out to be false, especially if there were actionable insights involved.

I think, despite the law of large numbers, one can say that there is something about the differences between feminist ethics, and morally obligated theories like Nietzsche (to a lesser degree, although almost exclusive to males) or Kantian ethics.

I am a personal subscriber to A Different Voice by Gilligan or ethics of care by Noddings. There's obviously a bias in the field of philosophy towards male dominated ethical theories in my view, which is unfortunate, given that women roam the interwebs also.

Introducing a new topic by articulating how it links to the current one generally makes for a good post. I'm sure that you've noticed that staying strictly on topic doesn't happen very much here, even within the focused exegesis of reading groups. I believe it's partly a combinatoric problem; there's too many divergent ways of taking something as an obvious consequence of something else. Absent strong constraints on seeing what is relevant to a topic, discussion regarding it tends to slide into tangents and tangents on tangents.
— fdrake

Yes, I have noticed in this forum a topic can easily slide into a related one. There also appears to be many females here.

I wouldn't call this male or female, it seems to happen regardless of circumstance. You maybe see it as male, though, in that move where discourse itself is seen as following male archetypes and standards.
— fdrake

I now regret giving up the book explaining how written language made cultures more male dominant. Especially in the west that favors linear logic over wholistic logic. This male dominance is intensified with education for technology and specialization and "expertise". Before this education, we educated for well rounded individual growth and avoided being narrow-minded. The Conceptual Method of education preparing the young to be independent thinkers and the Behaviorist Method teaching them to react like we train dogs to react to commands.

Despite all the differences in perspective, differences in what people find obvious, and differences in what people find relevant, I believe that when people discuss in good faith, they partake in the same norms of expression and rationality; even if there's no common ground, people speaking in good faith are still disputing the same terrain (usually).
— "

Not exactly so. In the past women were less apt to organize their thinking with formal rules, such as the rules of thinking essential to science, a college education, business, and legal transactions. The difference in their thinking was called domestic thinking and it went with strong emotional reactions involving the care of others. The point is, there are different modes of thinking and different ways of experiencing life dependent on our roles in society. My granddaughter appears to have the mothering instinct of a cuckoo bird. The cuckoo bird lays its eggs in other birds' nest and leaves the adopted parents to feed and raise their offspring. While one of her coworkers stopped coming to work because the work is so high risk they can not risk being with their children. Of course, this difference is about how they were raised and their understanding of social expectations. Our use of language and emotional reactions are not hard-wired as is so for other animals.

fdrake
— " — Athena

Wholistic logic can be quantified to some measure using linear logic. Even though it is extremely hard to quantify feelings, it is technically possible.

Extremely complex systems (such as wholistic logic) can be sampled (such as the sampling rate used to digitize sound so that it can be put on a compact disc for music) and have equations applied using mathematical subjects like linear equations.

In some ways wholistic logic has similarities to post-modernism.

The point i'm trying to make is its hard to argue who is right with wholistic logic. One could almost say once someone embraces wholistic logic, why not just discuss wholistic logic with only people who believe strongly (strongly) in it. Or you can evangelize people to it.

All decisions people make are based on alot of information or a little bit of information but never a complete set of information, so the winners of history are not always the people who were the most rational.

Its one of those things, "only time will tell"

There is no valid reason to suggest that ‘spectacle’ is a particularly feminine tactic: men have been employing it since ancient times, including Greek theatre and rhetoric. The idea that men are wholly rational beings is ignorant of the irrationality of men over thousands of years of patriarchal dominance, not to mention the ‘spectacle’ they’ve employed in order to gain or hold onto the illusion of power throughout — Possibility

I agree. The whole game of feminine/masculine is a mess. But I try to meet others in terms of how I think they are playing the game.

They say women are more emotional. Well, men have emotions too, but that’s the part of our being we should put aside when constructing logical arguments, isn’t it? We shouldn’t be swayed by our emotions to jump to conclusions that just feel right. — Congau

I think the idea that we can just ‘put aside’ emotions is a point of contention. There is a difference between being aware of how our emotions affect our logic and trying to exclude or isolate the information available to us from this interoception of affect.

When we are aware, we can take steps to allow for or counteract the effect (ie. collaborate) when constructing our arguments.

When we choose instead to exclude certain value information (eg. emotions), we reduce our perception of the situation, and therefore our capacity to relate our arguments back to reality without prediction error.

Philosophers have recognized that the emotion/reason dichotomy is a false one for decades.

For example, you cannot reason without emotion. In order to even attempt to reason, you must care to do so, but you have reasons to care about reasoning.

you cannot reason without emotion. In order to even attempt to reason, you must care to do so, but you have reasons to care about reasoning. — Artemis

Sure, we can’t put aside our emotions in the sense that they are our driving force for making the argument. I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t somehow feel that the question was interesting. My reason and conviction will affect my emotions and stimulate me to pursue the argument. But in this process, I must be careful not to be carried away with emotions, not letting them obscure my reasoning arguing from feeling instead of logic. Of course, in public debate we see that all the time and all of us are probably guilty of slipping into it now and then, but we should definitely strive to avoid it.

When we choose instead to exclude certain value information (eg. emotions), we reduce our perception of the situation, and therefore our capacity to relate our arguments back to reality without prediction error. — Possibility

Our feelings can give us the first information about an issue. I may just sense that something is wrong, but then I should employ my reason to investigate if my feelings were right. Of course, that first information was useful and necessary.

As for being banned. — Athena

In discussions like in this forum, we can observe how emotions are sometimes running high and feel the temperature of the debate. That often makes it more entertaining, which isn’t bad, but when it doesn’t connect back to logic and are just bursts of personal emotions it’s impossible to keep a serious debate going and that’s and understandable reason why some users might get banned.

Sure, we can’t put aside our emotions in the sense that they are our driving force for making the argument. I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t somehow feel that the question was interesting. My reason and conviction will affect my emotions and stimulate me to pursue the argument. But in this process, I must be careful not to be carried away with emotions, not letting them obscure my reasoning arguing from feeling instead of logic. Of course, in public debate we see that all the time and all of us are probably guilty of slipping into it now and then, but we should definitely strive to avoid it. — Congau

I think it’s not just an initial impetus, though - if we keep in mind the reasons why we care about the question, then I think we’re less likely to be ‘carried away with emotions’. It’s not so much arguing from logic instead of from feeling, but rather arguing from logic whilst feeling the way we do. We can’t avoid this affective information - we need to adjust for it instead. To do that we need emotional intelligence: an awareness of how internal affect impacts on how we subjectively conceptualise reality, including the value structures we employ.

But, perhaps more importantly, we need to be aware of the potential for subjective value structures and emotions to be impacting on how this same reality is conceptualised by those with whom we’re arguing. It’s commonplace for those who have ‘put aside’ (ie. ignored) their emotions in an argument to expect others to do the same. So when our positions differ, we’re often unaware of the value structures that motivate that difference, and the discussion eventually deteriorates as a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

Women probably think differently from men, on one level and on average. They are likely to have different concerns about what is relevant and important in daily life – on average. But this shouldn’t matter when doing philosophy, and if it does, we should make and effort to minimize its importance. — Congau

The title of the thread invites everyone to think about how history may have gone differently if women always the powerful voices they have today. Would we have had the same violent history and conclude that we war because it is our nature to war? How might history have gone differently if women had always been respected and could have become as well known philosophers as Socrates or an elected representative?

They say women are more emotional. Well, men have emotions too, but that’s the part of our being we should put aside when constructing logical arguments, isn’t it? We shouldn’t be swayed by our emotions to jump to conclusions that just feel right. — Congau

Without question men who feel so strongly about something they are willing to risk their lives for it, such as those who lead the American Revolution, are emotional. However, these men did not put much consideration of women and children in the Constitution as, Abigail Adams, asked her husband to do. Using the Constitution to protect the women's rights, was like using it to protect the unalienable rights to people held as slaves. That is important to this discussion.

I think, despite the law of large numbers, one can say that there is something about the differences between feminist ethics, and morally obligated theories like Nietzsche (to a lesser degree, although almost exclusive to males) or Kantian ethics.

I am a personal subscriber to A Different Voice by Gilligan or ethics of care by Noddings. There's obviously a bias in the field of philosophy towards male dominated ethical theories in my view, which is unfortunate, given that women roam the interwebs also. — Shawn

Thank you for sharing that observation. That is exactly what I hoped would be the subject of this thread.

Our concept of reality has been shaped by male philosophers. Socrates, Aristotle, Cicero shaped our reality differently from the way Nistzche and Hegel have shaped our reality. And female philosophers and females with political power are new. How might history have gone differently and how might our understanding of humans be different if women had also been treated as equals to men?