The potential for being a man or woman is directly tied to the genitalia one is born with. If one puts the chop to their phallus, they merely become a eunuch. I think that is a clear and already existing basis for a trichotomy. — Merkwurdichliebe

It is not that simple.

Abstract
In human subjects, the sex chromosomes are the X and the Y chromosomes. Normally, a complement of two X chromosomes (46,XX) is seen in females and one X and one Y (46,XY) in males. The X‐chromosome includes about 1500 genes, only a few of which are involved in sex development. The Y‐chromosome contains very few genes, but one gene, SRY, is the most important gene in male sex development. Multiple autosomal genes are also involved in sex development. Abnormalities of sex chromosomes can involve errors in the number of sex chromosomes, such as 45,X0 (Turner syndrome), 47,XXX, 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), 47,XYY or mosaicism. Sex chromosome abnormalities also include aberrations of a single gene of the sex chromosome, leading to a disorder of sex development (DSD). This can result in 46,XX DSD and 46,XY DSD.

:brow: Sometimes I wonder if too much information is a bad thing. I love science but when I look at information like that, I think a rather stick with gut feelings and ignorant human imperfections. One rule, be nice, and don't overthink everything. :lol:

I see. If your notion of “shared meaning” is only intended as a pedagogical device, I entirely agree. Sure, we should look around for all possible perspectives and it is certainly instructive to learn how different people see the same things differently. In fact, we should even go further than that and not end our inquiry by only paying attention to views that are actually held by someone. We should strain our imagination and be open for any conceivable perspective. Most of them would be outlandish, but a few may happen to contain some truth even though no one has yet captured it in thought.

That’s why I don’t quite understand your use of the word “shared” in “shared meaning”. A perspective may be interesting even if it’s not shared by anyone. Fictional characters who have been raised by wolves or monkeys for example, offer an intriguing viewpoint and do feel free to come up with any tale of your own. We absolutely shouldn’t let our mind stiffen to the degree that we can only imagine our own narrow perspective.

But our “open-mindedness” should not be expanded to a point where we think we see multiple truths, and that’s where I think modern popular philosophy has gone astray. — Congau

Wow, I really like that first paragraph!

Perhaps I should not comment on the second one that questions "shared meaning", but... I think democracy is an imitation of the gods. The gods and goddesses evolved from ruling with brute force to ruling with reason. They argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. So while a democracy values shared meaning and cooperation, it also makes room for the outsider. That is the power of creativity, and because the outsider may come with new and valuable insight, our form of government means constant change, unlike religions that are conservative and attempt to hold everything in the past with a defined "God's truth", no more thinking necessary, just obey.

Your last sentence is really beautiful. One of my books on logic says we should honor intuitive ideas, but always check them with empirical evidence. And here is where shared meaning and notions of truth become important. None of us want to be ruled by the mad man, nor to be the looney toon.

Only a woman living in a hyper civilized super protected society built off environmental domination over millions of years could say that domination is pointless. You are both a pessimist and a nihilist. Spoiled brat. — BraydenS

I would love to have the authority of a moderator in my threads. Posts that are disrespectful would be returned to the author for correction. In this case, all that name-calling would have to be deleted before the post would become public. I want my threads to be safe and that means everyone is respectful and protects the dignity of others. No personal attacks, no name-calling.

It has been my experience males do not agree with my feminine concern but tell me I need a tougher skinned. Alligators have tough skins and very small brains. The question of this is, might the world have come out differently if the voice of women had always been as strong as the voice of males and civil meant having good manners. What kind of society do we want to create?

There is a lot of merit in empirical thinking, but not to the exclusion of emotional intelligence - humanity employs both, not one or the other. — Possibility

Unfortunately, our institutions are not in agreement with what you said. In the 60'tys we began training teachers to be impersonal. Government controlled agencies are firm about people being "professional" and enforce emotional distancing and even encourage using drugs to manage emotions. Drugs and being a social worker go together. The drugs help people by "professional".

Autocratic industry is a hierarchy of authority and separates management from labor. A person can be fired for fraternizing with the wrong people.

At the lower levels of labor, life can be brutal. Social status and self-esteem here, depends on being tough enough to handle abuse and on being abusive. It is learning to hold your tongue and be subordinate, and then going home and demanding instant compliance with demands.

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. — Possibility

Oh yeah, I bolded what I am responding too. And I want to say something about being personal. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't being analytical and impersonal a bit male? Empirical thinking embraced by the US Military-Industrial Complex is dehumanizing and we are dealing with the consequences with that now on a national level and the global response to it.

For whatever reason being a good woman has meant being a caregiver and it is not very caring to attack someone for making a personal statement. For sure a personal statement is not empirical information, but that does not make it invaluable. Germany, that gave us empirical thinking as a national goal, did not take it to the extreme of the US. In Germany, students are encouraged to have different experiences and to share them. Perhaps we want to value each other instead of being overly empirical and dehumanizing each other. I think this is the value of the feminine quality and that humanity needs it.

Women who have chosen to follow the traditional values have faced isolation or exclusion in relation to that position. I went from being a goddess to "justice housewife" and now we all have the freedom of barbarians. Women and children are on their own, no longer valued and protected members of society. However, female legislators are trying to do something about this.

Our leadership has taken children from their families and has left them in a building to fend for themselves, leaving 8-year-olds to care for babies without the help of adults? Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in Franklin's New Deal. Our present first lady is not the strong woman Elenor Roosevelt was. So much for "women's liberation". We have increased opportunities for women, but our national values appear to stink.

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:

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 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.

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.

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

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:

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?

↪Athena The idea of an economic collapse puzzles me a lot. I hear a lot of how Capitalism, doing nothing more than glorifying wealth, single-handedly led to the downfall of Communism; I believe it's written in history books as well. The underlying message therein is that Capitalism or what people seem to refer to as a free market economy is what people prefer for reasons I'm completely in the dark about.

How does one reconcile the positive impression Capitalism and free market economy has with the ease with which such an economic system collapses? Isn't a good economy one that's resistant or even immune to downturns from within or without? — TheMadFool

Sparta is my favorite example of a controlled economy that we do not want! Sparta used an enslaved population to provide all its needs, while all Spartan males lived in a barrack with other men, and women lived in homes. The purpose of women was to breed more Spartan males. But they all eat a terrible diet that was healthy but not good-tasting and had no choice of things to buy or things to do. Except for music. Sparta used music to keep their fighting movements in perfect coordination. I get carried away, the point is we love having a variety of things to buy and do and Sparta didn't have this.

While Athens had a free market and encouraging creativity and the arts. Following the war with Persia, Athens created jobs for people without land, so they could have an income and still have time to participate in government. Athena's temple was a tourist attraction and it was decorated to teach of democracy. Athens had a university that drew people from the known world and commerce increases knowledge as well as the economy. Many small businesses could develop as Athens attracted more people. I don't think Pythagoras realized the music scale but I think he learned of it from someone from China. For sure Pythagoras studied math in Egypt. Point is, commerce and an open economy advance civilization far better than communism.

However, we might want to consider regulating banks and the stock market to improve the stability of our open economy? Wouldn't you be more interested in investing if your investment was less likely to disappear overnight? Some people understand using money to vote with and invest in companies that are good for the environment and do not invest in companies that are bad for the environment. I also think we could shift taxes to the technology that has replaced human labor. Those are wild ideas and may not work, but I don't think what we have today is working. I have been through too many recessions to believe this is the best way to go.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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'm not sure about that. Your government just gave every taxpayer a $1200 dollar check while taking an average of $1500 of each taxpayer's tax dollars to give to corporations, including corporations that deliberately avoid paying the taxes that are now being used to shower them with money. So, your government "helped" you in your greatest time of need by taking a net $300 from each of you to give to its donors, who will give a proportion back to these con artists, which they will spend at the next election convincing you none of this ever happened. And that will work. So... — Baden

That sounds like Bernie Sander's point. We have corporate welfare and some may say this is fascist.
I don't think it is wrong but we need to be honest about it. Oh dear, I feel myself going off on a moral tirade. CEO's should not be paid outrageous salaries. We should replace the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model. We need to get back to our past understanding of human dignity and worth, and put an abrupt halt to the Wrestlemania mentality that has taken over. The place to make the change is public education.

When I say the US adopted fascism, I want to talk about what public education has to do with this. Having a Wrestlemania superstar in the White House is not a good thing but we have educated for this. The German people are awesome, and the US imitated them for good reasons that I would defend, but we should not have replaced our model of education for democracy with the German model of education for technology. I don't mean German education is wrong, but what we did with the German model is not right. We took our culture for granted and that is a mistake. Germany is now a leader in the democratic model for industry and they seem to understand government and the power of the people better the US. Do not leave moral training to the church!
.

Oh, and the Fed just dumped $1.5 trillion into the stockmarket to keep it afloat. But... it's crazy to think you could ever afford a proper health care system. :chin: — Baden

Oh yeah. Maybe we will change our minds about that. :lol:

What is the rule about politics in this forum? I like the way Joe Biden keeps referring to the importance of paying attention to science and pointing out the problem of ignoring it.

↪Baden We'll probably have to take your country down the toilet with us. — frank

:lol: Yes, but when properly treated, shit makes good manure and can grow wonderful vegetables.

How does one reconcile the positive impression Capitalism and free market economy has with the ease with which such an economic system collapses? Isn't a good economy one that's resistant or even immune to downturns from within or without? — TheMadFool

:love: I am so loving this discussion! You guys are great!

Hitler gave German prosperity when all industrial economies had collapsed. Many believed fascism is the answer to economic collapse and the US adopted fascism. With that said, I hope you all remain cool and don't freak out on me. We need to be analytical about this not hysterical.

Universal income is just one check in a larger picture. Basically a "cradle to the grave" social welfare system that pays your rent for a small home, gives you unemployment benefits that you can live and has universal free health care does have positive and negative aspects. First, you don't have beggars on the streets. Or at least, the beggars aren't citizens of your country. You do have a safety network and you won't find yourself living out of your car or on the street. You have also lower crime rates. Criminals really want to be criminals, hardly anybody is forced to crime.

All those are great things. But there are really negative things too. The biggest problem is this kind of system can alienate people from the society. It really spreads apathy and low self esteem. Think about it. Imagine growing up in a family that were both of your parents haven't actually worked in their lives and your grandparents haven't worked either. It is really difficult then for you to educate yourself and get that job. And if the job is working at McDonalds or as a cleaner, you'll notice that actually you won't have much more money to spend than before when being unemployed, only now you have to spend a lot of time in work. The stay home and play with your X-box, surf in the social media or hangout with your other unemployed friends is a "real" option. And when people all around you are unemployed, you get accustomed to it. Many will opt for that. Usually people look for jobs only so long, but once your too old, don't have that great CV, your done.

Would I take a society with the welfare option to one without it even if it has negative consequences? Yes, but then my society works and there's not much corruption. How the system works in reality and not just on paper is very important also. — ssu

Reality check. Who provides that housing? We have just gone through a housing crisis and the fat cats bought up the housing dirt cheap and have sent the cost of housing sky high. Homelessness increases when the economy gets better because the cost of living increases. In many places there is no longer available land and cities are forced to shift from single-unit housing to multiunit housing. From experience, we know bad housing planning can lead to hell for those who have to live in it. Giving people an income does not exactly resolve the housing problem.

As for criminals, yes, that is my concern about not having structured lives. Yes, :love: I am very concerned about people being alienated! Oh YES, apathy and on self-esteem! YOU REALLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. :cheer:

Has everyone seen or read Brave New World? Our best efforts for Utopia tend to lead to hell. But, :grin: with what we know now, we might do better?

It only makes sense if you eliminate all other entitlement benefits. At least, economically.

As to whether people will become lazy or apathetic is irrelevant really. As if some Protestant work ethic were an all good or categorical imperative. — Shawn

:love: Okay love we have to talk about that Protestant work ethic. It isn't just the work ethic. :lol: It can be a real pain in the ass if the husband is home all day. :gasp: I suppose I should get serious, but really, It might not be good if our days are unstructured and we have too much time on our hands. On the other hand, when I was in high school and the dinosaurs still walked the earth, a teacher warned us we should start planning for a time when technology made it unnecessary for us to work. Please, don't tell me jobs have increased. Living wage jobs have not increased for those who are not specialized in high tech and that technology has removed jobs. We no longer have a labor-intense economy but we continue to function as though we need human labor.

We used to tax the land when incomes depended on owning land. Taxing people's income is relatively new and even when we started doing this, most working people didn't pay taxes. Not until after WWII did just about everyone have to pay income taxes. If we go back to taxing the source of income, that means taxing the technology that has replaced human labor. Does that sound right?

If we figure out how to have a low labor-intense economy, I think we still need to consider how we will structure our lives.

I am surprised the unemployment level is that low.

Hum, it has been a long time since anyone has mentioned Universal Basic Income. What do you have to say about that? I don't think I am in favor of it. Perhaps that is because I do not know enough about it. But it is my observation that we need our lives to be organized and if we could eat for free some of us would become very unorganized and unmotivated to do anything more than act on our urges at the moment and I do not think that leads to enjoying life.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

....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.

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:

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.

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

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

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