Women of the world, take over

[FourthBase]

Women aren't devoid of logical intelligence.
I'm pretty sure they have just as much of it.
Some weaknesses here and there, but overall the same.

Men aren't devoid of "EQ" either, but I do think they severely trail women.

[theeKultleeder]

That's right 4B. We are all different mixtures of yin and yang. I was speaking in generalities.

Jung addressed these issues with the anima/animus and the shadow self. Good stuff.

[populistindependent]

Right on. indipop had some valuable points but I detected some memes in there that aren't true in the real world - just talking points.

How so?

I do agree that if women want social equality they can't be selective about it. I also think that changing patterns in family structure is a good thing, necessary even, because look where we went so far - tribalism, then large extended family structures, then the atomic family unit, and now...

Could be, but is that not more in the spiritual realm than the political?

Men need feminine yin to cool and temper masculinity, and women need masculine yang to excite and strengthen femininity. "Too much yang" could describe dysfunctional paternalistic patterns that then spread out into hyper-competitive hierarchical structures. Women are more empathetic and bond differently.

I think a "wedding" of masculine logical intelligence with feminine emotional intelligence just might produce the balanced structures we need in society.

Again, isn't that more of a spiritual, or cultural discussion than a political one? Nothing wrong with that, just want to be clear what we are talking about.

If we make a generalized statement that "women are more empathetic and bond differently" does that not argue for the validity of gender-specific roles?

[FourthBase]

My main point is that we need to be alert to the very strong tendency to look at everything through a modern and decidedly upscale social filter.

Then your main point is outstanding.

Your post reminded me of "The Moral Animal" in which Wright posited that polygamy (in a paternity-aware world, anyway) is not inherently egalitarian like one might assume, but winds up leaving countless underclass males with nothing while a minority of males at the tippity top have an abundance -- and re: "nothing" and "abundance", I'm talking about offspring, reproductive success. Wright went on to posit that serial monogamy is effectively a form of polygamy.

[FourthBase]

If we make a generalized statement that "women are more empathetic and bond differently" does that not argue for the validity of gender-specific roles?

Not the roles, but IMO it does mean that gender-specific talents are valid.
The roles have culturally-enforced on both sides.

[populistindependent]

My main point is that we need to be alert to the very strong tendency to look at everything through a modern and decidedly upscale social filter.

Then your main point is outstanding.

Your post reminded me of "The Moral Animal" in which Wright posited that polygamy (in a paternity-aware world, anyway) is not inherently egalitarian like one might assume, but winds up leaving countless underclass males with nothing while a minority of males at the tippity top have an abundance -- and re: "nothing" and "abundance", I'm talking about offspring, reproductive success. Wright went on to posit that serial monogamy is effectively a form of polygamy.

LOL. I chickened out and edited that remark out thinking it would be too controversial for a newbie in a back and forth discussion. But you caught it and responded.

[theeKultleeder]

Right on. indipop had some valuable points but I detected some memes in there that aren't true in the real world - just talking points.

How so?

Well, your piece is so long and well written. I don't have the energy or the talent to critique it point by point. That is my impression and I'll leave it at that.

I do agree that if women want social equality they can't be selective about it. I also think that changing patterns in family structure is a good thing, necessary even, because look where we went so far - tribalism, then large extended family structures, then the atomic family unit, and now...

Could be, but is that not more in the spiritual realm than the political?

Not at all. HM Wins mentioned psychohistory earlier - good ideas in there IMO. The changing family patterns are squarely in the realm of biopsychology.

Men need feminine yin to cool and temper masculinity, and women need masculine yang to excite and strengthen femininity. "Too much yang" could describe dysfunctional paternalistic patterns that then spread out into hyper-competitive hierarchical structures. Women are more empathetic and bond differently.

I think a "wedding" of masculine logical intelligence with feminine emotional intelligence just might produce the balanced structures we need in society.

Again, does that have any relevance to politics?

Absolutely. "Yin" and "yang" aren't "spiritual" terms. They are terms from ancient Chinese medicine.

If we make a generalized statement that "women are more empathetic and bond differently" does that not argue for the validity of gender-specific roles?

Ah ha! Yes, in part. But if the bonding-styles of women are integrated into social institutions then gender specificity blurs a little bit.

Gender roles in the past sequestered women in the home and functionally separated them from the world at large. Now, it seems women are trying to integrate a hyper-masculine work ethic and culture, which is wrong-headed. The culture should absorb feminine traits instead, thereby achieving some of the balance I allude to.

At the end of the day, women should breast feed their children and men should do all the heavy lifting. Beyond that, I don't know how we should define gender roles, or even if we should.

[populistindependent]

If we make a generalized statement that "women are more empathetic and bond differently" does that not argue for the validity of gender-specific roles?

Not the roles, but IMO it does mean that gender-specific talents are valid.

The roles have culturally-enforced on both sides.

I urge caution. If we are not careful, we extrapolate a post WWII American suburban reality onto everything and fail to see the source of that post WWII suburbanization, and the power struggle behind it.

The modern American phenomenon of suburbanization is so interwoven with our view of reality, that it can distort our thinking very easily. Moving families off of the land and crowding them into slums - and suburbs are merely giilded slums for those willing to be handmaidens to the empire - is the ongoing rape of the planet and destruction of life that we are witnessing. While most of the people in the world are obviously and physically suffering from this, the bribed and co-opted intellectuals in white America suffer mostly spiritually and enjoy a certain measure of comfort and trinkets and status.

Calling modern sexism culturally-enforced betrays an upper class bias, IMHO if we are not careful. Class struggle, and divide and conquer tactics by the ruling class explain modern sexism better than historical roots or cultural forces do. It puts the blame back on the people to postulate vague, imagined and hidden internal forces, such as culture or psychology or beliefs to be at fault, and diverts our attention from the predations of the wealthy and powerful. Modern gender roles are then to be presumed to be springing up in our individual psyches, rather than rigidly and ruthlessly being imposed on us by the wealthy and powerful for their own purposes, which fall in the realm of seeking power and wealth rather than promoting an ideology or belief system.

The ruling class seeks to destroy culture and destroy tradition. When we blame tradition and culture for our oppression, we are abetting that oppression.

[theeKultleeder]

The ruling class seeks to destroy culture and destroy tradition. When we blame tradition and culture for our oppression, we are abetting that oppression.

I don't know how accurate that statement is. Tradition and culture has made the ruling class what it is.

It could be argued that modern Christianity is only the out-of-place remnant of a medieval social ordering system.

People knew what time it was because the church bells signaled "time to take a break from cultivating my Lord's land to kneel down and submit."

In the realm of "creative destruction" there are always rough spots, but then things settle down into new patterns. Hopefully, "new and improved."

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Beyond that, I don't know how we should define gender roles, or even if we should.

It is being done for and against us.

Gender identity is a human's primary social identity.

CIA has been reinforcing the Men are from Mars Women are from Venus social template to sanction miltarism for decades.

That's what the majority of disinfotainment psy-ops is, gender-based social engineering-
action adventure men overcoming or protecting problematic women.

That's what Disney injects into young minds in the service of the Psychological Strategy Board.

So we had better know not just the reality of gender but the abuse of it, too.

[marmot]

Women of the world, take over this thread!

I'm not a Woman, but my Mistress Goddess is, and she gave me permission to post an image of her worshipful self below. I've only got a moment to say "hi" and to say how I'm glad this thread recovered from last night. I don't presently have the time to read the most recent posts but as soon as I'm free, after my Mistress Goddess is done with me, I'll check back in.

Big day today! First thing this morning I deposited my paycheck in Mistress Goddess' bank account, cleaned her home from attic to basement, mowed the lawn with one of those silent push reel mowers (Mistress Goddess hates the noise!), weeded her Mother's garden (it was a perfect, blue-sky, sunny day here in Pittsburgh), went grocery shopping for Her at five different places, just got in from walking the dogs, I'm about to take a cold shower, clean up and cook whatever she's decided she's hungry for dinner, and then, attentively await further instructions.

Ahhh Woman!!!

[populistindependent]

Gender roles in the past sequestered women in the home and functionally separated them from the world at large.

Not so. That is characteristic of the last 50 years, in the white American suburban model. For tens of thousands of years families around the world lived on farms and in coooperative agricultural communities, and what you are describing is not consistently accurate in that traditional model.

Now, it seems women are trying to integrate a hyper-masculine work ethic and culture, which is wrong-headed. The culture should absorb feminine traits instead, thereby achieving some of the balance I allude to.

Agreed. So then, it is something other than psychology, spirituality, attitudes, culture and the like - all aspects of personal development and analysis - that is to blame. I would suggest that we look at class struggle, at power and economics, that we look at corporate captialism run amok, that we blame those who have the wealth and power to control society and the direction it is headed, rather than to look for internal and personal causes among the poor and powerless - us.

We are among the privileged few in the world, such as that privilege is. Our slums are pretty comfy. But the ongoing global process, the root cause of our social and political problems, is one of driving people off the land and into slums, destroying tradtional culture, and rendering both the resources of the land and the people who once were sustained by them into "assets" for the benefit of the few.

[populistindependent]

I don't know how accurate that statement is. Tradition and culture has made the ruling class what it is.

I think they make themselves what they are. They have the wealth and power to do so. I don't think we can blame tradition and culture for the ravenous and greedy and destructive behavior of the few.

It could be argued that modern Christianity is only the out-of-place remnant of a medieval social ordering system.

Modern Protestantism and Catholicsm are almost opposites in terms of social, cultural and political outlook and underpinnings.

People knew what time it was because the church bells signaled "time to take a break from cultivating my Lord's land to kneel down and submit."

Catholicism persisted before, during and after feudalism without any changes.

In the realm of "creative destruction" there are always rough spots, but then things settle down into new patterns. Hopefully, "new and improved."

I fear that idea of creative destruction very much. It is a feature of the modern mindset and has caused destruction, grief, torture and murder on an unprecedented scale. The ever-promised "new and improved" seems farther away than ever.

I would like to see the people of the world get a break from creative destruction myself.

[theeKultleeder]

Gender roles in the past sequestered women in the home and functionally separated them from the world at large.

Not so. That is characteristic of the last 50 years, in the white American suburban model. For tens of thousands of years families around the world lived on farms and in coooperative agricultural communities, and what you are describing is not consistently accurate in that traditional model.

Now, it seems women are trying to integrate a hyper-masculine work ethic and culture, which is wrong-headed. The culture should absorb feminine traits instead, thereby achieving some of the balance I allude to.

Agreed. So then, it is something other than psychology, spirituality, attitudes, culture and the like - all aspects of personal development and analysis - that is to blame. I would suggest that we look at class struggle, at power and economics, that we look at corporate captialism run amok, that we blame those who have the wealth and power to control society and the direction it is headed, rather than to look for internal and personal causes among the poor and powerless - us.

We are among the privileged few in the world, such as that privilege is. Our slums are pretty comfy. But the ongoing global process, the root cause of our social and political problems, is one of driving people off the land and into slums, destroying tradtional culture, and rendering both the resources of the land and the people who once were sustained by them into "assets" for the benefit of the few.

Oh, sure. Cooperative agrarian cultures - but "feminism" arose out of post WWII culture, so that is where we are now.

And we should be careful of relying on the glories of the past. If you were/are a woman, I very much doubt you would want your marriage arranged or to be treated and traded as chattel.

And, well, I happen to believe the present position of the "elite" arises from individual psychologies interacting to produce culture. It is a two-way causation; although the top-down aspect of modern media-consumer-culture appears to exert heavy influence on "us," it does not cause or create one's individual psychology - it interacts with it.

[theeKultleeder]

People knew what time it was because the church bells signaled "time to take a break from cultivating my Lord's land to kneel down and submit."

Catholicism persisted before, during and after feudalism without any changes.

Precisely