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. — TheMadFool

Because an anomaly does not make data. I'm afraid your equation of the general criminal populations with outliers evinces a pretty weak grasp on how to apply statistics.

Albino crows don't mean anything when describing the coloration of crows. You don't say "well, because there are some albino crows, crows can equally be considered black and white."

If student A does 10-20% of his work all year long and student B does 80-90%, you don't say "well, because student A did some of the work, they both should get the same grade."

If you are a doctor and you have a medicine with 80-90% efficacy and another medicine that cured one patient over 400 years ago, you don't tell your patients that the medicines are equally effective.

I could go on, but you (should) get the point. At least I hope you do, because I'm not sure how better to explain this.

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. — darthbarracuda

A delicious post. :cheer: We can not force anyone to feel anything. AND I sure do not want anyone telling me I should not have all the feelings you mentioned. I love being feminine and hopefully, it is obvious I believe feminity plays an important part in human societies. Some of my friends and I, think it would be super fine to share a home with a gay man. The problem isn't their nature but the intolerance of it. Why shouldn't males be feminine? That is what I am getting at, the intolerance of feminity.

My granddaughter who takes charge of shelter programs is proud that she can disarm men carrying knives with her feminity. She and I know if a male were sent in to take the knife, the problem would probably escalate. She goes out of her way to be none threatening to maintain peace. How angry can you get with a big cute bunny? :lol: You can identify the women in charge of a shelter, they are the ones who wearing the hat with a spinner thing on top, or a bunny suit.

About taking on roles of responsibility, did you suggest that is not feminine? :confused: I always ran the household, and I took volunteer positions where women carried responsibility. I have had more power and authority as a volunteer then as an employee where a person can be fired for being insubordinate. I had a terrible time as a paid employee because I tend to take charge, You have opened a can of worms. Being feminine should not mean disrespect or powerlessness. And I should not have to be as a man, to actualize myself outside of the home. What is this thing with insubordination anyway? Might the problem be autocratic industry and exploiting all laborers, regardless of gender? When women stayed home and men supported the family, the men were treated like shit and brought that home.

I think a female has represented liberty since ancient times because women do not organize themselves in a hierarchy of power and authority. A woman is less apt to attempt to control with brut force but she attempts to get cooperation. Without her, we can fall victim to a tyrant or warlord who uses the peasants to fight his wars. The Spirit of America is also a female and she was not about military might.

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men — Athena

yes, obviously. That is, the average woman thinks differently than the average man. What those differences are, I do not feel like getting into.

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. — fdrake

I agree - when it’s as simple as X based on Y. But philosophical discussion is rarely as simple as a two dimensional relation. For me, perspective is a five dimensional relation, so if you want to make a genuine effort to understand the differences, then you will eventually need more variables than X and Y. This is especially important when we agree in some respects but not in others, and when there isn’t sufficient evidence either way. We do live in the same world, but we certainly don’t conceptualise it the same way.

I can say, ‘X doesn’t follow unless you value Y’, and then what matters is the sum of their experiences and circumstances that contribute to the reasons they value Y. Many of my discussions on this forum end at this point - people are often reluctant to get into the basis of their basis. There’s a certain fragility in holding the foundations of your own personal logic up for scrutiny. They’d much prefer to dismiss a discussion based on ‘lack of evidence’ than examine how we each structure value, potential and possibility, on which our thoughts, beliefs, words and actions are ultimately based. But to me, this is the basis of philosophy.

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. — Congau

No, it shouldn’t matter to this discussion, which is why I haven’t offered it. I like to think I don’t need to offer it in most situations - so long as you don’t assume certain information about me.

But there are a number of occasions on this forum where I have given personal information in order to dispel certain assumptions made about my particular perspective. I think when we feel the need to position ourselves in an argument as male or female, for instance, it’s often to address a degree of ignorance, isolation or exclusion in relation to that position. This may be the crux of what Athena is getting at.

The aim of philosophy is to approach a shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates. We can’t achieve this accurately if we ignore, isolate or exclude information that relates to the difference between my argument and yours.

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. — Athena

This is what I’m talking about. There is pain and anger in your words - it helps to recognise and then come out from under that emotion in order to have a rational discussion here. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t feel - but in communicating, you shouldn’t always expect others to make allowances for your emotion before they can understand your argument. As women, we’re probably more used to distinguishing between the different value structures in language. There are other ways to demonstrate the value of emotion.

I think a few women in history have made use of opportunities and influenced discussions more than most - and they haven’t had to become ‘male’ to do so. That this isn’t visible in historical writings has to do with perceived value and potential. The most influential women in history, the ones who had the best opportunities, are practically invisible in the history books. You have to read between the lines to find them, because they did what women do best, none of which was considered that important by writers of history and fact. But they did it anyway, because it was important to them.

My point is that we don’t have to re-imagine a different reality. We shouldn’t wait or wish for women to be seen as ‘equals’, for men to stop focusing on domination, to become kinder and gentler people. We need to see ourselves as equals, to argue for a more accurate view of reality than ‘domination’, and to demonstrate the value of kindness and gentleness, etc, so that no one cannot fault the argument. And we need to stop blaming and looking for re-dress, and instead recognise that our potential and value was always there - it’s just been ignored, isolated and excluded: by ourselves as much as by men. We can find it in our past as much as our present and future.

We need to demonstrate the value of kindness and gentleness — Possibility

We need to argue for a more accurate view of reality than ‘domination’ — Possibility

But that is the value of kindness and gentleness towards strangers: domination. Hospitality paralyzes emnity in the stranger. A desire to view reality any other way than a game of domination reeks a bit of nihilism.

A perfect example, right from this thread:

My granddaughter who takes charge of shelter programs is proud that she can disarm men carrying knives with her feminity. She and I know if a male were sent in to take the knife, the problem would probably escalate. She goes out of her way to be none threatening to maintain peace. How angry can you get with a big cute bunny? :lol: You can identify the women in charge of a shelter, they are the ones who wearing the hat with a spinner thing on top, or a bunny suit. — Athena

I love being feminine and hopefully, it is obvious I believe feminity plays an important part in human societies. — Athena

Most important quote in this thread. As civilization complexifies and progresses, everyone will continue to get more feminine, too.

As civilization complexifies and progresses, everyone will continue to get more feminine, too. — BraydenS

And eventually, men with superior genetics will be sequestered underground and milked for their semin. Meanwhile on the surface, transgender females will utterly dominate.

They’d much prefer to dismiss a discussion based on ‘lack of evidence’ than examine how we each structure value, potential and possibility, on which our thoughts, beliefs, words and actions are ultimately based. But to me, this is the basis of philosophy. — Possibility

I had imagined that the basis by which someone believed something wasn't a one dimensional thing; like another fact which happened to entail it. I had imagined it as a generating process for that belief; facts are part of it, entailments are part of it, what is seen as relevant to what is part of it, some kind of metaphorical/analogical structure that aids the imagination, and an expectation of how things should be (there's my attempt at a 5). Less a factoid, more what the thread is made of in the instantaneous tapestry of thinking.

Given all that and how deep an attachment to an idea can be, I think it's important to see that there can be errors in connection between and within all of these parts as well as an error of generating belief in something given those as input data.

What are those 5 dimensions in your view?

But that is the value of kindness and gentleness towards strangers: domination. Hospitality paralyzes emnity in the stranger. A desire to view reality any other way than a game of domination reeks a bit of nihilism.

A perfect example, right from this thread:
My granddaughter who takes charge of shelter programs is proud that she can disarm men carrying knives with her feminity. She and I know if a male were sent in to take the knife, the problem would probably escalate. She goes out of her way to be none threatening to maintain peace. How angry can you get with a big cute bunny? :lol: You can identify the women in charge of a shelter, they are the ones who wearing the hat with a spinner thing on top, or a bunny suit.
— Athena — BraydenS

That you see the value/potential of this as ‘domination’ is interesting, and not altogether surprising. First of all, acknowledging that women are not the only ones capable of ‘disarming’ violence with humour, hospitality and humility is an important part of this discussion. The question why not everyone perceives this option (not just men) I think each of us will probably need to ask ourselves.

Secondly, I tend to think of this view as beyond nihilism, if you like. If your ultimate sense of value/potential in existence - this commonly held notion of individual domination, proliferation, survival, independence and honour - is recognised and dismantled for the pointless illusion that it is, then what IS the true value/potential of existence? If, as a women, I cannot but recognise my humility, my interdependence, my mortality, my procreative, physical and mental limitations - if individual ‘domination’ is not an option - then how do I determine my ultimate value?

For me, it is to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s not ‘domination’, but I admit that it does look like it sometimes, depending on your perspective. The effectiveness of kindness and gentleness towards a stranger brandishing a knife looks like ‘domination’ from a point of view which values the capacity to arm oneself with a knife. Athena’s granddaughter may (or may not) even consider it to be a ‘power’ that she possesses over these men, believing her own press, if you like. There is more to the notion of ‘domination’ than evolutionary theory would have us believe.

As civilization complexifies and progresses, everyone will continue to get more feminine, too.
— BraydenS

And eventually, men with superior genetics will be sequestered underground and milked for their semin. Meanwhile on the surface, transgender males will utterly dominate. — Merkwurdichliebe

And this is why I see the ‘masculine/feminine’ dichotomy as ultimately unhelpful.

And this is why I see the ‘masculine/feminine’ dichotomy as ultimately unhelpful. — Possibility

What dichotomy would you propose?

Because an anomaly does not make data. I'm afraid your equation of the general criminal populations with outliers evinces a pretty weak grasp on how to apply statistics.

Albino crows don't mean anything when describing the coloration of crows. You don't say "well, because there are some albino crows, crows can equally be considered black and white."

If student A does 10-20% of his work all year long and student B does 80-90%, you don't say "well, because student A did some of the work, they both should get the same grade."

If you are a doctor and you have a medicine with 80-90% efficacy and another medicine that cured one patient over 400 years ago, you don't tell your patients that the medicines are equally effective.

I could go on, but you (should) get the point. At least I hope you do, because I'm not sure how better to explain this. — Artemis

Just as the albino crow proves crows can be white, an evil woman evidences women can be bad. If there's a statistical claim in this thread it's that women are better than men which could be rephrased as:

1. All women are better than men

or

2. Most women are better than men

Elizabeth Báthory disproves the stronger version of "women are better than men" viz. 1 that all women are better than men. That leaves only 2, most women are better than men, for people claiming women are better than men and notice that, while it does make women better than men in whatever context the statement was made, it doesn't, in any way, support choosing women over men just on the basis of gender and that is the key point isn't it?

it doesn't, in any way, support choosing women over men just on the basis of gender and that is the key point isn't — TheMadFool

Actually, it does. If your argument leads to the conclusion that most women (barring Bathory) are better than men, then yes it does in fact show that we should pick women over men.

Like I said in the beginning, there are OTHER arguments to refute such a notion, but yours does not hold water. It only proves the point, really.

Actually, it does. If your argument leads to the conclusion that most women (barring Bathory) are better than men, then yes it does in fact show that we should pick women over men.

Like I said in the beginning, there are OTHER arguments to refute such a notion, but yours does not hold water. It only proves the point, really. — Artemis

If I say most Germans are good people does it mean that if I meet a German I should immediately conclude that s/he is good? No. Similarly, if I were to say most women are good and I meet a woman am I to immediately believe she is good? No. The idea that most x are y doesn't help me in making decisions when I meet something that is an x.

If you say that most Germans barring Hitler are better than the French, you should upon meeting a non-Hitler German conclude you've met someone who's at least better than a French person.

If you say that most Germans barring Hitler are better than the French, you should upon meeting a non-Hitler German conclude you've met someone who's at least better than a French person. — Artemis

No, you didn't understand my point but the fault is entirely mine. Sorry.

The idea in the claim that most women are good is that if given a sample of women then the proportion of them that are good is more than 50%; I'd even go so far as to say 90% of women are good.

However, what I'm arguing against is that womanhood, i.e. the mere fact of being a woman, has some causal import on morality. It's not that goodness is linked to the X chromosome and so having 2 of them, like all women do, makes one good.

Morality, to my knowledge, requires appreciation of its value just like any subject does and then deeds are modulated based on that which is understood and appreciation is something that is, as far as I can tell, NOT gender-determined. A woman and a man's ability to appreciate value are equal and so, goodness isn't, can't be, a female prerogative and nor is it a man's thing.

The question then is what makes most women good? Could it be, given my explanation of why all that matters in morality is the ability to appreciate it, that this is the case precisely because women are weaker then men and so are unlikely to act in riskier immoral ways? Doesn't this mean that opting for a female-dominated system rather than the existing male-dominated one amounts to nothing? It's like replacing Hitler with Goebbels because Goebbels was "better" but unbeknownst to us that was only because Goebbels wasn't the Fuhrer.

I am impressed. You pulled something out of the dark corner of our minds and shined a light on it. You remind me of a cartoon of a woman stripper and her audience that questioned who is exploiting whom.

I am coming from the thread about economics, so that is what is one my mind. It was common for husbands to control the family's finances, which left the wife with much less power. Banks would not give women loans unless a man signed for them. There were not many ways for a woman to earn a living, and if she did the same job as a man, she was paid less. My father was adamant that in college I study home economics and then I marry and stay home to be a mother and homemaker because men are paid more than women. I value that because it benefits the children and society when the marriage works.

Unfortunately, marriages do not always work, and then being a traditional wife and mother is a very bad thing. Is there something we can do to improve the position of women?

The question then is what makes most women good? Could it be, given my explanation of why all that matters in morality is the ability to appreciate it, that this is the case precisely because women are weaker then men and so are unlikely to act in riskier immoral ways? Doesn't this mean that opting for a female-dominated system rather than the existing male-dominated one amounts to nothing? It's like replacing Hitler with Goebbels because Goebbels was "better" but unbeknownst to us that was only because Goebbels wasn't the Fuhrer. — TheMadFool

I love it! Indeed what makes a woman good? What does that question mean?

I understand the ideal woman of the 1950'tys. That would be a social judgment. I also understand, what motivates me to be good and that is a different answer. Of course, the culturally defined notion of a good woman motivates us to be that, but if the husband is not the Dick and Jane father, and is not being the ideal father and husband, then things turn sour and it can be very hard to be that ideal woman. How the husband treats the wife is just as important as the cultural image of a good woman.

Whoops, now my mind slips to what industrialization has down to how we live together and how we value each other. Autocratic industry is very harmful with its hierarchy of power and authority and exploitation of laborers. Democratic industry treats people as we want to be treated. I would bet my life that if we had democratic industry we would have stronger families and radically reduce all social problems.

Next, I want to say war and economic crashes take a serious toll on individuals and families. Divorce rates go up when the economy goes down, and marriages go up when a nation goes to war. This combination does terrible things to our consciousness and we might want to explore that? An economic crash crashes the self-esteem of men and when they have very little self-esteem they are more apt to be neglectful and abusive. That fact of life can have a very bad effect on women and children. SO DEAR MADFOOL, MAY I SAY OUR GOODNESS DEPENDS TO SOME DEGREE ON PEACE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY. :kiss:

The aim of philosophy is to approach a shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates — Possibility

No, I would deny that that’s the aim of philosophy. What if we were all delusional? What if only one person had a reasonable understanding of reality- I would rather listen to him than the shared hallucinations of everyone else.
Don’t you think philosophy is the search for truth? Or do you think truth is subjective? (Sorry, this goes beyond the subject of this thread.)

Even if you take the psychological approach to philosophy, as in existentialism or phenomenology, the aim is to understand how we as humans construct reality, not how particular humans, like the ones I happen to have a discussion with at the moment, shape their reality.
I can learn more about psychology (and also philosophy where the two branches of knowledge overlap) if I know who I’m talking to. I can improve my understanding of the difference between male and female psychology but that doesn’t give me more insight into the subject at hand.

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? — Athena

Were great warrior queens like Elizabeth !, Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great any less violent than their male counterparts at their time? Was Thatcher known for her pacifism? Do you see any tendency today that countries with female rulers are more peaceful? The dynamics of history are driven forward by human nature, and in that perspective the difference between male and female is probably negligible.

However, what I'm arguing against is that womanhood, i.e. the mere fact of being a woman, has some causal import on morality. It's not that goodness is linked to the X chromosome and so having 2 of them, like all women do, makes one good.

Morality, to my knowledge, requires appreciation of its value just like any subject does and then deeds are modulated based on that which is understood and appreciation is something that is, as far as I can tell, NOT gender-determined. A woman and a man's ability to appreciate value are equal and so, goodness isn't, can't be, a female prerogative and nor is it a man's thing — TheMadFool

Like I said from my very first post, if you want to bring in OTHER arguments, you can probably make a good case that being female should not be a deciding attribute to be in government. I think the arguments you are listing are still very fallacious, but I want to stay on target for the moment.

Your Bathory argument still does not apply or make your case in any meaningful way whatsoever. If two X-chromosomes were to make a person good, hypothetically, then Bathory still does not invalidate that theory anymore than albino crows invalidate the genetic blackness of crows--albino crows and Elizabeth Bathory are both just chromosonal abnormalities and don't disprove the rule.

If it were the case that all women barring Bathory were morally good, then all your other assertions and hypotheticals about morality do not hold water. We would, actually, have very strong reason to think that morality is genetic.

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. — Athena

How do you know the differences that have made it difficult for you are differences that should be accounted for primarily in terms of sex and gender?

Don't some males find it difficult to participate in enterprises dominated by males? Aren't some males sometimes banned from some male-dominated enterprises?

Don't males "think differently" than each other? Don't females "think differently" than each other? Isn't it the case that some males conform to fashionable norms of masculinity, while others don't; and likewise that some females conform to fashionable norms of femininity, while others don't?

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 it's preferable for all of us to pursue solidarity in resisting attempts by anyone to "dominate" or oppress anyone, and preferable for us to pursue solidarity in promoting conditions in which each of us has opportunity to express and cultivate their own character according to their own lights -- within limits we may characterize in terms of humanity, harmony, good will, liberty, tolerance, fairness, compassion, care, respect, and so on.

Demography is not destiny. The fact that you and I each belong to a different set of demographic "categories" is not sufficient to inform our expectations about each other's attitudes and behaviors.

I had imagined that the basis by which someone believed something wasn't a one dimensional thing; like another fact which happened to entail it. I had imagined it as a generating process for that belief; facts are part of it, entailments are part of it, what is seen as relevant to what is part of it, some kind of metaphorical/analogical structure that aids the imagination, and an expectation of how things should be (there's my attempt at a 5). Less a factoid, more what the thread is made of in the instantaneous tapestry of thinking.

Given all that and how deep an attachment to an idea can be, I think it's important to see that there can be errors in connection between and within all of these parts as well as an error of generating belief in something given those as input data.

What are those 5 dimensions in your view? — fdrake

I think these errors you mention are in the various ways that we structure all the events of our lives in relation to each other - in terms of perceived relative value/potential, time, space, direction and distance. Ideally, we refine the accuracy of these relational structures by increasing awareness of experiences that challenge them, especially with regards to value/potential. But this leads to prediction error or suffering (pain, humility, lack/loss): the recognition that we require more effort, energy and attention than current predictions indicate. It is when we pull back from interactions to avoid these experiences of suffering that we fail to perceive the errors in how we conceptualise reality - especially in relation to how things should, could or would be.

Actually, it does. If your argument leads to the conclusion that most women (barring Bathory) are better than men, then yes it does in fact show that we should pick women over men.

Like I said in the beginning, there are OTHER arguments to refute such a notion, but yours does not hold water. It only proves the point, really. — Artemis

Ah, around the world it appears women pay more attention to the welfare of children than men. Those interested in economic development have determined business loans for women will get more for the buck than giving the money to men, because men are apt to spend on themselves and neglect the children's needs. Women may do that too but they are more apt to put the needs of the children above their wants. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures

Were great warrior queens like Elizabeth !, Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great any less violent than their male counterparts at their time? Was Thatcher known for her pacifism? Do you see any tendency today that countries with female rulers are more peaceful? The dynamics of history are driven forward by human nature, and in that perspective the difference between male and female is probably negligible. — Congau

Hum, you didn't mention Amazon women or the Celtic queen Boudicca. There is no defender better known than the mother bear. Women are capable of defending, but I don't think they are the empire builders that men are.

As for the women you mentioned, they were operating in male-dominated cultures. I can relate to the ambition and loved building forts in a field and imagining myself a great leader. But then I became a mother. True some women can become mothers and remain unchanged, but I am not one of them. The change occurs on a cellar level in response to hormones and repeated behaviors. This does not mean a woman will never pick up arms and defend her cubs, but she less likely to leave home and fight for the booty they can get by looting others, or take an army into war to expand an empire.

I think it's preferable for all of us to pursue solidarity in resisting attempts by anyone to "dominate" or oppress anyone, and preferable for us to pursue solidarity in promoting conditions in which each of us has opportunity to express and cultivate their own character according to their own lights -- within limits we may characterize in terms of humanity, harmony, good will, liberty, tolerance, fairness, compassion, care, respect, and so on.

Demography is not destiny. The fact that you and I each belong to a different set of demographic "categories" is not sufficient to inform our expectations about each other's attitudes and behaviors. — Cabbage Farmer

I can see the problem with my mention of the bonobo. That female domination does not mean forcing anything on the males. It means defending each other so none are brutes taking advantage of others. The females are not dominating, it is their idea of how to live together than dominates. This is contrasted to chimps where brute force rules.

The difference between bonobo and chimps falls into the argument of human nature. Male bonobo behave differently because bonobos are organized differently. They are organized differently because their supply of food is different. Where bonobo live there is enough food for the females to stay together, and together they defend each other. Where chimps live the food supply tends to keep them separated and individually the females can not defend themselves, so brute behavior rules. This is to argue human nature might be as brutish as we once thought and it is possible for humans to be gentle and cooperative. But to get there, females need to have the united power to change the rules we live by. Individuals do not dominate. It is the female social agreement that rules.

The aim of philosophy is to approach a shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates
— Possibility
No, I would deny that that’s the aim of philosophy. What if we were all delusional? What if only one person had a reasonable understanding of reality- I would rather listen to him than the shared hallucinations of everyone else.
Don’t you think philosophy is the search for truth? Or do you think truth is subjective? (Sorry, this goes beyond the subject of this thread.) — Congau

Yes, I think philosophy is the search for truth, which is a universally shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates. I think you misunderstand me - I’m not arguing for majority rules. I don’t think we can ever really be certain that we’re aware of every possible perspective. But if we did, and found that only one person had a different understanding of reality, then we should still listen to him in relation to the perspective of everyone else, and test the differences in how we interact with the world. That’s the only way to be certain of truth, either way.

Even if you take the psychological approach to philosophy, as in existentialism or phenomenology, the aim is to understand how we as humans construct reality, not how particular humans, like the ones I happen to have a discussion with at the moment, shape their reality.
I can learn more about psychology (and also philosophy where the two branches of knowledge overlap) if I know who I’m talking to. I can improve my understanding of the difference between male and female psychology but that doesn’t give me more insight into the subject at hand. — Congau

I would say that how we as humans construct reality is relative. I cannot hope to know who I’m talking to with any certainty - especially on a forum such as this. But I can improve my understanding of truth by including and striving to understand those perspectives that appear ‘delusional’ in relation to my own.

How do you know the differences that have made it difficult for you are differences that should be accounted for primarily in terms of sex and gender?

Don't some males find it difficult to participate in enterprises dominated by males? Aren't some males sometimes banned from some male-dominated enterprises?

Don't males "think differently" than each other? Don't females "think differently" than each other? Isn't it the case that some males conform to fashionable norms of masculinity, while others don't; and likewise that some females conform to fashionable norms of femininity, while others don't?

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 it's preferable for all of us to pursue solidarity in resisting attempts by anyone to "dominate" or oppress anyone, and preferable for us to pursue solidarity in promoting conditions in which each of us has opportunity to express and cultivate their own character according to their own lights -- within limits we may characterize in terms of humanity, harmony, good will, liberty, tolerance, fairness, compassion, care, respect, and so on.

Demography is not destiny. The fact that you and I each belong to a different set of demographic "categories" is not sufficient to inform our expectations about each other's attitudes and behaviors. — Cabbage Farmer

The answer to your first question is knowledge of hormones and how the brain functions. When males have the same hormones as women and nurse babies, they will be like females and when females watch a football game and are flooded with testosterone and also have the receptors for testosterone, they will be like males. There are individual differences in the levels of hormones and sensitivity to them, so some males may be less aggressive and some females may be more aggressive. But it doesn't stop here. It is also a matter of brain development as a result of repeated behavior and thinking. The neurons in our brains atrophy if they are not used and grown if they are used.

A male's acceptance into male groups and a female's acceptance into female groups is not guaranteed! Our acceptance into a group depends on many things. Our brains are far more limited than we like to admit. We can accept extremely few people into our lives on an intimate level. We can have about 500 hundred people in our lives on the associate level. That means we know their name and a few facts about them, but this not near as much as we know about people on the intimate level. We can accept larger populations such as the notion of those who live in our state share values that may be different from people in another state, but this is really abstract like being one of a race, a nationality, a religion is abstract. But where our place is in each of these groups is an individual matter. Our own families may reject us.

Yes, women can think differently from each other and men can think differently from each other. How different they are, depends on childhood experiences and social agreements and one's place in society.

As in the explanation of chimps and bonobo,what can dominate may not be individuals but social agreements, and here is where the male and female difference plays an important part. Should we organize society with "family order" or "military order"? The old world order was family order. The new world order is military order applied to citizens. Are we honored mothers or "just housewifes"? Is it good to be feminine or intolerable? Are we liberated if being feminine is demeaned and unacceptable? How can I experience who I am and have social acceptance?

I had imagined that the basis by which someone believed something wasn't a one dimensional thing; like another fact which happened to entail it. I had imagined it as a generating process for that belief; facts are part of it, entailments are part of it, what is seen as relevant to what is part of it, some kind of metaphorical/analogical structure that aids the imagination, and an expectation of how things should be (there's my attempt at a 5). Less a factoid, more what the thread is made of in the instantaneous tapestry of thinking.

Given all that and how deep an attachment to an idea can be, I think it's important to see that there can be errors in connection between and within all of these parts as well as an error of generating belief in something given those as input data.

What are those 5 dimensions in your view?
— fdrake

I think these errors you mention are in the various ways that we structure all the events of our lives in relation to each other - in terms of perceived relative value/potential, time, space, direction and distance. Ideally, we refine the accuracy of these relational structures by increasing awareness of experiences that challenge them, especially with regards to value/potential. But this leads to prediction error or suffering (pain, humility, lack/loss): the recognition that we require more effort, energy and attention than current predictions indicate. It is when we pull back from interactions to avoid these experiences of suffering that we fail to perceive the errors in how we conceptualise reality - especially in relation to how things should, could or would be.
an hour agoReply — Possibility

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

Whoo, that sharing of ideas is something worth getting out of bed and joining! :lol: what is happening here is a lot different from what happens in other forums I have been in. :up: