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" — christian2017

What leaps out at me is "The point i'm trying to make is its hard to argue who is right with wholistic logic" Yes :party: Exactly! And how might a society that thinks that way be different from the one we have? I have an old logic book that explains why we should never be too sure of ourselves, and since education for technology, we are very sure of ourselves and could not possibly be more divided! Something as gone terribly wrong. I could be wrong but this wrongness seems very male and militant and that is why I question the good of the feminine and the problem of making it taboo.

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. — Congau

There is a thread for discussing banning, so I do not want to do it here. However, I want to move from what I just said, the post above this one, to the subject of this thread. Since education for technology, we have become excessively sure of ourselves, masculine and militant, and no one is holding back because there is a lady in the room. I think our feminity played a very important role in society. Women have gained a stronger voice and political power, but we are no longer curbing the male instinct.

AND YOU ALL GIVE YOURSELVES A BIG HAND :cheer: YOU ARE HANDLING THIS DISCUSSION MUCH MUCH BETTER THAN PEOPLE IN OTHER FORUMS. The first couple of posts were discouraging but after that, you all have been amazing. :grin:

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

If you want my personal opinion, philosophy has experienced a fundamental shift as of lately. It seems to me that women have populated the field much more extensively than at any point in the history of philosophy due to liberal colleges. People like Peterson kind of are a dying relic and countermovement to that sentiment; but, aren't taken as seriously as in the past. Good times!

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. — Possibility

I love what you have said! Emotional Intelligence is so important to us. It was a male who wrote the book, and it was my father who gave everyone in the family a copy of it, as though it were a bible we must all read. But he did so because of his success as a man, left his life void of satisfy relationships that did not depend on his.

Whoo, I am going to get "sexist". :gasp: We used to be homemakers and the caregivers, and we did it all without pay because that is what a good woman did. I am not arguing for going back to that, but for looking at the value of being such a woman and the whole of society valuing her for being such a woman. My father was an essential NASA engineer when we sent Apollo to the moon. I think that pretty well fits the image of male success. But he was a very lonely man in away because he totally lacked emotional intelligence and the ability to have satisfying personal relationships. Until recently the good wife totally supported such a man, so the socialization for past sexism was passed on generation after generation, and have the old books that tell a woman how she should ask nothing of her husband and totally support his professional success so he can best support the family. I don't mean to blame anyone, but be honest about our past and the present.

If we had not come from such a misogynist past but had always honored women would our history and understanding of human nature be different? Would we be prepared for war but not to protect everyone's health? If women were not in government today, would we be getting more unemployment pay and a kicker check? Franklin Roosevelt listened to his wife. Do we think Trump listens to his wife? Women swoon over Trump so I want to be clear about how we created an unpleasant reality, and that I am not blaming anyone. But I would point an accusing finger to misogynistic religion.

If you want my personal opinion, philosophy has experienced a fundamental shift as of lately. It seems to me that women have populated the field much more extensively than at any point in the history of philosophy due to liberal colleges. People like Peterson kind of are a dying relic and countermovement to that sentiment; but, aren't taken as seriously as in the past. Good times! — Shawn

You make me cry for joy. Now if we all can just keep our economies going through these hard times, we might wake up to a New Age, a time of peace, high tech. and the end of tyranny. :heart:

https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+dawning+of+the+age+of+aquarius&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=youtube+dawning+o&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l5j69i64.15175j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But he was a very lonely man in away because he totally lacked emotional intelligence and the ability to have satisfying personal relationships. — Athena

I'd hesitate to see women's socialisation structually and men's individually. If you express negative feelings as a guy, you're a failure - that was a trope, and is still a trope to some extent. To the extent that rationality was treated as an exclusively male property, affect was treated as an exclusively female one. The restrictions cut both ways.

For men, success on those terms is a waking death and a volatile end for others.

Now, gender archetypes which were updated by the inclusion of women in the workplace have permeated to widespread cultural acceptance without undermining the expected choice of rationality over affect for men. In that time, relatively little has changed in our social expectations of success and the conditions which give rise to a full life are not available to all as is constantly promised. The game is rigged. And the only way to process the worst excesses of this consistent with the gender norms we're living through the death of for men is the false strength and blunted catharsis that comes from anger.

Men are still warped by norms of emotional restriction and a striving for a kind of "success" born from these zombified social expectations. This condition of disconnection, from self and society, yields dissatisfaction and alienation. Then, absent any socially acceptable means of processing it besides rage ; ; it gets channeled into reactionary narratives. Yielding so effected men to resort to racist terrorism, mysogenous harrassment, or a retreat from social life entirely. Unless they get lucky and manage to step through the looking glass and bodge onwards.

And we blame ourselves for all that because we're supposed to be strong and better than it.

I'd hesitate to see women's socialisation structually and men's individually. If you express negative feelings as a guy, you're a failure - that was a trope, and is still a trope to some extent. To the extent that rationality was treated as an exclusively male property, affect was treated as an exclusively female one. The restrictions cut both ways.

For men, success on those terms is a waking death and a volatile end for others.

Now, gender archetypes which were updated by the inclusion of women in the workplace have permeated to widespread cultural acceptance without undermining the expected choice of rationality over affect for men. In that time, relatively little has changed in our social expectations of success and the conditions which give rise to a full life are not available to all as is constantly promised. The game is rigged. And the only way * to process the worst excesses of this consistent with the gender norms we're living through the death of for men is the false strength and blunted catharsis that comes from anger.

Men are still warped by norms of emotional restriction and a striving for a kind of "success" born from these zombified social expectations. This condition of disconnection, from self and society, yields dissatisfaction and alienation. Then, absent any socially acceptable means of processing it besides rage *; *; it gets channeled into reactionary narratives. Yielding so effected men to resort to racist terrorism, mysogenous harrassment, or a retreat from social life entirely. Unless they get lucky and manage to step through the looking glass and bodge onwards.

And we blame ourselves for all that because we're supposed to be strong and better than it. — fdrake

Do you know why a woman must stay a virgin until she is married? Because it has been males who own and control the property. If we study people in cultures where women have always owned the property or it is communally owned, the reality you describe is different. I think we need awareness of other cultures before we can determine human nature.

Those who work to improve economies around the world for humanitarian reasons, favor loaning start-up business money to women because the women will spend it on the children. That does not tend to be the case if the money goes to men. :rofl: My X had a car, jeep, motorcycles, and a boat, before I got a washing machine. He earned the money so it was his to spend, right. It was a neighbor who gave me her wringer washing machine that I could use in the back yard. But women don't really work, right? They are as children who stay home and do what the want all day and what they do isn't as important as what I men do. :wink:

And may I say, when we entered women's liberation we thought of it as liberating men as well. I try to acknowledge men have been treated very badly in our culture. Autocratic industry has manifested a very ugly reality where union people had to risk getting their heads bashed in to get better wages and better working conditions. Our autocratic industry was supported by an autocratic religion and defended by an autocratic military and when our schools stopped education for democracy that left nothing to resist the autocratic take over of what is supposed to be our democracy. That may not belong in this thread, but yeah, men haven't been treated so well so I am not in favor of kicking them.

bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination) — Athena

I thought feminism was about leveling the playing field with men and not turning the tables on them. :gasp: :chin:

A very fine reason for accepting female domination would be if their moral compass is better than men's but I fear Elizabeth Báthory casts a long, dark shadow of doubt over this possibility.

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"
— christian2017

What leaps out at me is "The point i'm trying to make is its hard to argue who is right with wholistic logic" Yes :party: Exactly! And how might a society that thinks that way be different from the one we have? I have an old logic book that explains why we should never be too sure of ourselves, and since education for technology, we are very sure of ourselves and could not possibly be more divided! Something as gone terribly wrong. I could be wrong but this wrongness seems very male and militant and that is why I question the good of the feminine and the problem of making it taboo. — Athena

Here in America we have alot of Post-Modernists. How does post-modernism relate to Wholistic logic? I actually did google/bing search for Wholistic logic but couldn't find a real definition for it. How would you define it? I actually find alot of Women in my area to be just as confident if not more confident than men.

A very fine reason for accepting female domination would be if their moral compass is better than men's but I fear Elizabeth Báthory casts a long, dark shadow of doubt over this possibility. — TheMadFool

Something like 80-90% of the world's violent crimes and murders are committed by men... but sure, let's take some nut job from the 1500's to prove we're the same anyway in that regard. :roll:

There are good arguments to be made about female aggression and morality, but this is not one of them.

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

:up:

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

What do you mean by "being feminine"? I have read some feminist literature and would like to share my thoughts.

I am not a woman myself, but from what I can tell, "femininity" is a standard imposed upon women by men. It is an expectation that they be submissive, nearly child-like, listen and don't interrupt, shut up when they are interrupted, be a sex toy for the silverbacks and do all the chores that men don't want to; but also cultivate virtuous traits like patience, kind-heartedness and beauty that, if displayed in a man, would make him emasculatorily gay and ultimately strip him of any power to dominate.

My observation is that much of second-wave feminism (the scary, exhilarating kind) is populated with figures that are "anti-gender", and they seem masculine because they are taking up roles, responsibilities and personalities that are typically only associated with men. It is not that these women were trying to be masculine, but rather they were denying the reality of masculinity, and demonstrating that some of the things associated with masculinity are things that any grown-up, self-respecting human has. Becoming less feminine meant becoming more human. Not a child/doll/object, but an adult with agency.

Imagine children growing up in homes where mothers and fathers love each other and enjoy working together for the good of the family. — Athena

I'd rather just imagine people getting along and maybe living together without the need to have children.

I thought feminism was about leveling the playing field with men and not turning the tables on them. :gasp: — TheMadFool

Well, liberal "if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them" feminism might be about that, but who honestly takes them seriously?

What do you mean by "being feminine"? I have read some feminist literature and would like to share my thoughts.

I am not a woman myself, but from what I can tell, "femininity" is a standard imposed upon women by men. It is an expectation that they be submissive, nearly child-like, listen and don't interrupt, shut up when they are interrupted, be a sex toy for the silverbacks and do all the chores that men don't want to; but also cultivate virtuous traits like patience, kind-heartedness and beauty that, if displayed in a man, would make him emasculatorily gay and ultimately strip him of any power to dominate.

My observation is that much of second-wave feminism (the scary, exhilarating kind) is populated with figures that are "anti-gender", and they seem masculine because they are taking up roles, responsibilities and personalities that are typically only associated with men. It is not that these women were trying to be masculine, but rather they were denying the reality of masculinity, and demonstrating that some of the things associated with masculinity are things that any grown-up, self-respecting human has. Becoming less feminine meant becoming more human. Not a child/doll/object, but an adult with agency. — darthbarracuda

This is certainly a common understanding of what it means to be ‘feminine’. It is also what drives the commentary that wonders what we’re still complaining about in relation to feminism. And again, I hold what has to say as an excellent example of what is missing from this understanding - that qualities and capacity often dismissed as ‘feminine’ has VALUE in relation to all of humanity. Things like patience, kindness and connection, as well as the realisation that dominance is not what we should be striving for, either individually or collectively.

This is certainly a common understanding of what it means to be ‘feminine’. It is also what drives the commentary that wonders what we’re still complaining about in relation to feminism. And again, I hold what ↪fdrake has to say as an excellent example of what is missing from this understanding - that qualities and capacity often dismissed as ‘feminine’ has VALUE in relation to all of humanity. Things like patience and kindness, connection and collaboration, as well as the realisation that dominance is not what we should be striving for, either individually or collectively. — Possibility

I guess the question is why have these qualities of care, collaboration, domesticity been associated with the feminine in the first place? Maybe that is what Athena is getting at.. or not.

Something like 80-90% of the world's violent crimes and murders are committed by men... but sure, let's take some nut job from the 1500's to prove we're the same anyway in that regard. :roll:

There are good arguments to be made about female aggression and morality, but this is not one of them. — Artemis

Guilty as charged. I was simpl(isticall)y looking for the paradigmatic case of the fairer sex failing spectacularly and in the process revealing how women may not be better than men in the moral department and equality, if anything, is about goodness, no?

I guess the question is why have these qualities of care, collaboration, domesticity been associated with the feminine in the first place? Maybe that is what Athena is getting at.. or not. — schopenhauer1

Exactly.

that qualities and capacity often dismissed as ‘feminine’ has VALUE in relation to all of humanity. Things like patience and kindness, connection and collaboration, as well as the realisation that dominance is not what we should be striving for, either individually or collectively. — Possibility

Agreed. It would be nice to combine the good parts from both genders, remove the bad and then dispense with the concept of gender.

My father was an essential NASA engineer when we sent Apollo to the moon. I think that pretty well fits the image of male success. But he was a very lonely man in away because he totally lacked emotional intelligence and the ability to have satisfying personal relationships. Until recently the good wife totally supported such a man, so the socialization for past sexism was passed on generation after generation, and have the old books that tell a woman how she should ask nothing of her husband and totally support his professional success so he can best support the family. I don't mean to blame anyone, but be honest about our past and the present. — Athena

I think in many ways, the ‘good wife’ was required to absorb or embody those elements of human experience that ‘mankind’ is frequently expected to ‘put aside’, avoid or ignore: like emotion, nurturing, uncertainty, humility, pain, lack and anything else that doesn’t fit with this image of ‘man’ as being autonomous, dominant and fully in control of a rational world. This perception is very much a source of domestic violence, even today.

But this is not just an issue for men. I also see women use their emotional and nurturing capacity to avoid humility, pain and lack by deflecting these experiences onto their partner, believing that a ‘good husband’ is responsible for protecting his family from any form of suffering. I think if we’re being honest, we need to acknowledge this side of it as well.

Emotion, nurturing, uncertainty, humility, pain and lack are all elements of the human experience, regardless of sex. This is what we SHARE, not what we avoid or blame on each other. The sooner we acknowledge this, the better off we’ll be.

If we had not come from such a misogynist past but had always honored women would our history and understanding of human nature be different? Would we be prepared for war but not to protect everyone's health? If women were not in government today, would we be getting more unemployment pay and a kicker check? Franklin Roosevelt listened to his wife. Do we think Trump listens to his wife? Women swoon over Trump so I want to be clear about how we created an unpleasant reality, and that I am not blaming anyone. But I would point an accusing finger to misogynistic religion. — Athena

Perhaps you are blaming, in a way. I’m not sure that it helps to go down the ‘would-a, could-a, should-a’ path in this discussion. I don’t think you can argue that women have not been honoured - not publicly and not often enough as individuals in their own right, sure - but are we honestly striving for this kind of honour, or is it just because that’s what society has valued?

We tend to devalue what reminds us of our own fragility and interdependence, and of the uncertainty and suffering we encounter the more we interact with the world around us. As women, we have always been an unavoidable physical reminder of this reality - for men and for each other. In many ways, women have learned to accept these aspects of life more readily, if only because we could not so easily ignore, isolate or exclude it from how we conceptualise reality.

In an age where even science cannot ignore the uncertainty of reality, I think society as a whole has much to learn from what are traditionally seen as ‘feminine’ perspectives. But so long as we keep referring to them as ‘feminine’ perspectives, and the striving for dominance, independence and honour as ‘masculine’, then we remain limited by our value structures.

This is peripherally related to the discussion, but I like George Carlin a lot, and I want to share two recordings of him talking about women and men because I think it is valuable to hear, and the contributors to this thread may appreciate it.

It’s commonplace for those who have ‘put aside’ (ie. ignored) their emotions in an argument to expect others to do the same — Possibility

Whether or not we really expect others to have put their emotions aside in an argument, we should act as if we expected it. If we don’t do that, we don’t treat them with enough respect. It is disrespectful to respond to an argument by saying: You obviously talk like that because you are a woman, or because of your childhood experience, or because you have a different nationality than me etc. Even though people’s background and values most certainly influence their thinking, we should treat their arguments for what they are or attempt to be, namely a rational and logical construction. I highly suspect that your Christian upbringing has influenced your anti-abortion stance, but I shouldn’t dismiss you by suggesting that you are only arguing in this way because you are a Christian. I should evaluate your arguments for what they are, no matter who you are; they are valid or invalid depending on their logic only.

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. — Possibility

That has to do with an unwillingness to consider arguments that sound too strange and foreign. Sure, it might help to remind ourselves that our opponent has a different background and is not necessarily crazy, but after this reminder of tolerance we should move on to consider their ideas as objectively as possible.

Whether or not we really expect others to have put their emotions aside in an argument, we should act as if we expected it. If we don’t do that, we don’t treat them with enough respect. It is disrespectful to respond to an argument by saying: You obviously talk like that because you are a woman, or because of your childhood experience, or because you have a different nationality than me etc. Even though people’s background and values most certainly influence their thinking, we should treat their arguments for what they are or attempt to be, namely a rational and logical construction. I highly suspect that your Christian upbringing has influenced your anti-abortion stance, but I shouldn’t dismiss you by suggesting that you are only arguing in this way because you are a Christian. I should evaluate your arguments for what they are, no matter who you are; they are valid or invalid depending on their logic only. — Congau

I understand what you’re saying, but their ‘logic’ is often a result of their background, emotion and values as much as any other relation, as is our own. It’s not a matter of assuming, reducing or dismissing their logic based on these aspects, but rather mapping it in relation to our own value structures, recognising the uncertainty of this level of information. Again, we need to be conscious of this tendency to strive for dominance, independence and honour at the expense of new information.

An argument isn’t always as simple as who is right and who is wrong, or even which argument is most valid. When there isn’t enough information for certainty either way, it’s more about how your perspective of reality relates to mine. The more information we gather about the value structures of alternative perspectives, the more aware we become of the limitations and errors in our own perspective with regard to a more objective understanding of reality.

n the process revealing how women may not be better than men in the moral department and equality, if anything, is about goodness, no? — TheMadFool

But you haven't revealed anything. You mentioned a single case, which can easily be written off as an anomaly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

But you haven't revealed anything. You mentioned a single case, which can easily be written off as an anomaly. It's absolutely irrelevant. — Artemis

Why? Haven't I proved that it's possible for women and power to be as lethal a cocktail as men and power? If so, then an argument in favor of women-dominated society premised on women being morally better than men doesn't hold water.

An argument isn’t always as simple as who is right and who is wrong, or even which argument is most valid. When there isn’t enough information for certainty either way, it’s more about how your perspective of reality relates to mine. The more information we gather about the value structures of alternative perspectives, the more aware we become of the limitations and errors in our own perspective with regard to a more objective understanding of reality. — Possibility

I agree with this in general, more data is a good thing. As is more practice dealing with it - communicating, learning what others' see as relevant to what. But I think that there's a necessary component of disconnecting ideas when reasoning about things.

When two people share perspectives on something, we generally think something X on some basis Y. The basis Y and the conclusion X might not be fully known to their interlocutor, they might not be fully expressed, but I think it is important to be able to disconnect ideas; to say that the connection between X and Y is flawed on some shared, or in principle share-able basis. "There isn't sufficient evidence for that given what we've talked about", "That doesn't follow.". We live in the same world despite our experiences and learning making us see different things as relevant to our speculation.

I say this despite the common tropes that people declare their opponents as illogical, or someone who takes the discursive role as a critic for the sole purpose of maintaining their own opinions (which they then don't need to express) by right of conquest. Still, when someone connects two ideas badly, we have to value dispelling the connection between them, and the emotional work required in having one's idiocy so publicly revealed.

Even in exploratory terms, dispelling bad connections, and being able to recognise them, allows us not to be sent down unfruitful paths, and opens others. Critique should always be an option when talking about the state of things, though it isn't always the best strategy to change someone's ideas about them (or even to learn new ideas).

I don’t know who you are, where you come from, what your background is, and for the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care.
I don’t think having your personal information in any way would aid me in realizing the merits of your argument.

But sure, this information would be useful for another branch of knowledge, namely psychology. Learning how people may think and which possible perspectives exist is certainly useful for understanding how we as humans reach our conclusions. It hopefully also teaches me to look into my own thinking, making me more aware of how my limited perspective risks pulling me in the wrong direction.

Modern philosophers, other than the ancient masters, typically stress that there can be no view from nowhere. Fair enough, there can’t be, but that is only a limitation of our human condition. We are always prejudiced by what we have learned before and that habitually makes us jump to conclusions without a thorough investigation. It is an unattainable goal to rid ourselves of all bias, but we can surely do better every time we try, and that is what doing philosophy is all about: The attempt to always look at the world afresh.

I thought feminism was about leveling the playing field with men and not turning the tables on them. :gasp: :chin:

A very fine reason for accepting female domination would be if their moral compass is better than men's but I fear Elizabeth Báthory casts a long, dark shadow of doubt over this possibility. — TheMadFool

You hit a nerve. I have always done better with men than women. I am not in favor of either sex dominating. Actually I prefer rule by reason and everyone coming to a consensus on the best reasoning. The problem I see is, historically women have been excluded from the discussion.

I can't watch videos because of my limited information bits. Can you make the points he made without the foul language?

Perhaps you are blaming, in a way. I’m not sure that it helps to go down the ‘would-a, could-a, should-a’ path in this discussion. I don’t think you can argue that women have not been honoured - not publicly and not often enough as individuals in their own right, sure - but are we honestly striving for this kind of honour, or is it just because that’s what society has valued?

We tend to devalue what reminds us of our own fragility and interdependence, and of the uncertainty and suffering we encounter the more we interact with the world around us. As women, we have always been an unavoidable physical reminder of this reality - for men and for each other. In many ways, women have learned to accept these aspects of life more readily, if only because we could not so easily ignore, isolate or exclude it from how we conceptualise reality.

In an age where even science cannot ignore the uncertainty of reality, I think society as a whole has much to learn from what are traditionally seen as ‘feminine’ perspectives. But so long as we keep referring to them as ‘feminine’ perspectives, and the striving for dominance, independence and honour as ‘masculine’, then we remain limited by our value structures. — Possibility

Whoo, do you think women have always had the opportunities they have today and have always been included in the discussions? Speaking of the past was inviting people to imagine a different reality if women had always been seen as equals. Would we have always engaged in war if we had not been male-dominated? Might men have been kinder and gentler people? Might we not have the argument you made if there were no reason for it?

Yes, I blame men and misogynistic religions and the women who enforced the repression of women.

Wait a minute! I am reading post after post taking sides on which sex should dominate the other. That is not where I wanted this thread to go. This is not a battle of the sexes, or it shouldn't be. But I sure do want it to be okay to be a feminine woman and to have a voice and make a difference in the world. I think there is value in considering what the world would be like today and what we believe is true of humans if we had always had a voice and could have always made a difference.

Agreed. It would be nice to combine the good parts from both genders, remove the bad and then dispense with the concept of gender. — darthbarracuda

Heavens I would never want to dispense with the concept of gender! I am totally opposed to the women who have pushed us to act like men or at least totally reject the idea of enjoying being pretty women.