@bfchessguy said in #10:
> Should not we presume it would *** be *** pretty hard [...]
> Should not we presume it would *** be *** pretty hard [...]
It's interesting to note ancient metaphysical systems all consider the physically manifested universe, the one we can know with our own 5 senses, as being 'female' in the sense that a higher, even more powerful effulgence considered 'male' in the same sense because life emerges forth when the father's essence enters into the mother. This is very very old school and can still found today in the east. Consider the Shiv-Shakti cults of historic Afghanistan even up till the present day.
Why is a common greeting in North India still today 'Sita-Ram' ?
How did the West get it all backwards ?
How did we learn to look through the wrong end of the telescope ?
Why is a common greeting in North India still today 'Sita-Ram' ?
How did the West get it all backwards ?
How did we learn to look through the wrong end of the telescope ?
My mind keeps jumping to The Laugh of Medusa by Helene Cixous. Great paper, try reading it. Not exactly about positions of power but a good idea of what makes men different from women.
To answer your question, it would be a lot more passionate and neutral towards everyone. Long story short, men, me included, are a-holes who think they are superior (for more information on why, read the work of Sigmund Freud. And before someone makes the joke, no, he did not say that young guys want to have s*x with their mother, that is the combination of 2 separate theories that refer to different stages of life). Women on the other hand are more loving and don't consider themselves superior. I haven't read to much about female psychology, so not to sure why it happens this way, but as a guy, I can confirm that most guys are dickheads that think they own this world. All guys out their, don't you dare pretend you haven't at least once fantasized about saving your friends from a terrorist attack.
To answer your question, it would be a lot more passionate and neutral towards everyone. Long story short, men, me included, are a-holes who think they are superior (for more information on why, read the work of Sigmund Freud. And before someone makes the joke, no, he did not say that young guys want to have s*x with their mother, that is the combination of 2 separate theories that refer to different stages of life). Women on the other hand are more loving and don't consider themselves superior. I haven't read to much about female psychology, so not to sure why it happens this way, but as a guy, I can confirm that most guys are dickheads that think they own this world. All guys out their, don't you dare pretend you haven't at least once fantasized about saving your friends from a terrorist attack.
Here’s a pertinent passage from The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom (an insightful, if disturbing book): churchandstate.org.uk/2017/09/women-not-the-peaceful-creatures-you-think
@Dukedog said in #1:
> Assuming women held all positions of power and authority (and assuming they would want to) what do you think the world would be like?
> Better,worse? Would the old adage that power corrupts remain in play and things would be much the same?
I'm a woman. I think all people are equal in all regards and I'd have no problem with a woman leader. I would also have no problem with a transgender leader or non-binary leader, etc. I care more about their qualifications and whether they keep their promises than what gender they identify as.
I would hope if we had more diverse leadership, generally, that the world would improve but I don't think diversity alone can fix everything (but it is important for folks to see those like themselves in leadership roles). Corruption would likely exist in some form, regardless, but that's why a free press is important to hold those in power accountable.
> Assuming women held all positions of power and authority (and assuming they would want to) what do you think the world would be like?
> Better,worse? Would the old adage that power corrupts remain in play and things would be much the same?
I'm a woman. I think all people are equal in all regards and I'd have no problem with a woman leader. I would also have no problem with a transgender leader or non-binary leader, etc. I care more about their qualifications and whether they keep their promises than what gender they identify as.
I would hope if we had more diverse leadership, generally, that the world would improve but I don't think diversity alone can fix everything (but it is important for folks to see those like themselves in leadership roles). Corruption would likely exist in some form, regardless, but that's why a free press is important to hold those in power accountable.
@pawnedge said in #14:
> Here’s a pertinent passage from The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom (an insightful, if disturbing book): churchandstate.org.uk/2017/09/women-not-the-peaceful-creatures-you-think
I have read the passage. Though it does contain some interesting points, there are (at least) two points which leave me doubtful.
The first one is when he claims that Livia's motivation is basically the same as the mother gorilla's. I mean sure you COULD view it this way. But the fact that you could view it this way doesn't mean that it actually is the truth.
The second one is when he quotes two poets who both say that to get success towards the ladies you have to fight and kill other men. One thing these two poets have in common is they are both men. So they're expressing men's expectation of what women's interests are, rather than directly women's interests. The fact that (some) men think that women like machos doesn't imply that women in general in fact like machos.
> Here’s a pertinent passage from The Lucifer Principle, by Howard Bloom (an insightful, if disturbing book): churchandstate.org.uk/2017/09/women-not-the-peaceful-creatures-you-think
I have read the passage. Though it does contain some interesting points, there are (at least) two points which leave me doubtful.
The first one is when he claims that Livia's motivation is basically the same as the mother gorilla's. I mean sure you COULD view it this way. But the fact that you could view it this way doesn't mean that it actually is the truth.
The second one is when he quotes two poets who both say that to get success towards the ladies you have to fight and kill other men. One thing these two poets have in common is they are both men. So they're expressing men's expectation of what women's interests are, rather than directly women's interests. The fact that (some) men think that women like machos doesn't imply that women in general in fact like machos.
@polylogarithmique said in #16:
> The second one is when he quotes two poets who both say that to get success towards the ladies you have to fight and kill other men. One thing these two poets have in common is they are both men. So they're expressing men's expectation of what women's interests are, rather than directly women's interests. The fact that (some) men think that women like machos doesn't imply that women in general in fact like machos.
Really, this is Critical Theory run amok !
> The second one is when he quotes two poets who both say that to get success towards the ladies you have to fight and kill other men. One thing these two poets have in common is they are both men. So they're expressing men's expectation of what women's interests are, rather than directly women's interests. The fact that (some) men think that women like machos doesn't imply that women in general in fact like machos.
Really, this is Critical Theory run amok !
@pawnedge
I also read the excerpt and found it interesting. Alpha Male lions are known to kill all cubs in the pride who are are not their own thus extending their biological dominance to the whole society .It is interesting to note that such behavior is cross sexual and found in other species than the primate. Is it possible that such is a darwinian survival strategy,the selfish gene so to speak?
Of course the myth of the gentle sex is just that,a myth.
I also read the excerpt and found it interesting. Alpha Male lions are known to kill all cubs in the pride who are are not their own thus extending their biological dominance to the whole society .It is interesting to note that such behavior is cross sexual and found in other species than the primate. Is it possible that such is a darwinian survival strategy,the selfish gene so to speak?
Of course the myth of the gentle sex is just that,a myth.
#16:
> the fact that you could view it this way doesn't mean that it actually is the truth.
Sure. And sharing around half our DNA with bananas doesn’t mean evolution really happened. :-P Look man, the fact that we tend to behave the same way animals do is probably not a coincidence. ;-) I mean what are the odds? This stuff is ancient. It predates trees. For example, the dominant lobster swells up, and the dominated lobster hunkers down. Guess what? The same hormones responsible for that are present in humans, and they have the same effect on us (if to a less visible degree).
> they're expressing men's expectation of what women's interests are, rather than directly women's interests.
Two words: sexual selection. Men are as they are because women made them that way — by refusing to mate with “weak” men.
> The fact that (some) men think that women like machos doesn't imply that women in general in fact like machos.
Women in general absolutely do; ask any pickup artist. Of course there are exceptions, but they only prove the rule. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ How many girls have you successfully picked up? Compare numbers with a PUA sometime, then get back to me.
I mean, if you want to pretend that women are somehow exempt from the drives that affect all the rest of nature (as in not just men, but the entire animal kingdom from insects on up), and are magically all just angels and saints, then enjoy that fantasy. As for me, I reckon they’re just as bad on average, if not occasionally worse than any man.
There’s a channel on YouTube called Man Talk. It professes to be satire, but you should watch some of his videos sometime, and/or read some of the comments. See what you think. Personally, I’d advise you to, you know, stop putting the [kitty] on a pedestal. But it’s your trip, bro. Whatever makes you happy. :-)
> the fact that you could view it this way doesn't mean that it actually is the truth.
Sure. And sharing around half our DNA with bananas doesn’t mean evolution really happened. :-P Look man, the fact that we tend to behave the same way animals do is probably not a coincidence. ;-) I mean what are the odds? This stuff is ancient. It predates trees. For example, the dominant lobster swells up, and the dominated lobster hunkers down. Guess what? The same hormones responsible for that are present in humans, and they have the same effect on us (if to a less visible degree).
> they're expressing men's expectation of what women's interests are, rather than directly women's interests.
Two words: sexual selection. Men are as they are because women made them that way — by refusing to mate with “weak” men.
> The fact that (some) men think that women like machos doesn't imply that women in general in fact like machos.
Women in general absolutely do; ask any pickup artist. Of course there are exceptions, but they only prove the rule. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ How many girls have you successfully picked up? Compare numbers with a PUA sometime, then get back to me.
I mean, if you want to pretend that women are somehow exempt from the drives that affect all the rest of nature (as in not just men, but the entire animal kingdom from insects on up), and are magically all just angels and saints, then enjoy that fantasy. As for me, I reckon they’re just as bad on average, if not occasionally worse than any man.
There’s a channel on YouTube called Man Talk. It professes to be satire, but you should watch some of his videos sometime, and/or read some of the comments. See what you think. Personally, I’d advise you to, you know, stop putting the [kitty] on a pedestal. But it’s your trip, bro. Whatever makes you happy. :-)
I think, when it comes down to it, women aren’t any better or worse than men, they’re just different. ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ The average woman tends to care more about people, where the average man tends to be more interested in things. This is why you see more female nurses and more male engineers, even in Scandinavian countries, where gender equality is supposedly most fully realized. (However ironically, the differences between men and women tend to be exaggerated in those countries, which defies expectation. But I suppose it’s similar to the way, when you have a lot of siblings, they all try to be different from you. Equality of opportunity ≠ equality of outcome.)
But whereas everyone talks about the tyrannical father — who forces his kids to grow up too quickly — no one ever talks about the overbearing mother — who tries to protect her children out of having lives of their own. ;-( And it seems to me that if you give either of those archetypes supreme power, you’re just asking for trouble. If history has shown us anything, it’s that balance is best. And I mean, does anyone actually dispute that?
But whereas everyone talks about the tyrannical father — who forces his kids to grow up too quickly — no one ever talks about the overbearing mother — who tries to protect her children out of having lives of their own. ;-( And it seems to me that if you give either of those archetypes supreme power, you’re just asking for trouble. If history has shown us anything, it’s that balance is best. And I mean, does anyone actually dispute that?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.