Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[greenfairy]

How does this correlate with validation of the social construct gender binary?

Do you have any basis for the belief that I am justifying this? If you knew me in person you would know that this is nonsense. I think you are over simplifying things and jumping to conclusions. As for the original quotation, it would be fairly easy to research Cherokee culture and decide for yourself how balanced the genders were.

You certainly have a valid point in saying that the quotation itself may be conducive to an overly simplistic application of gender roles; but background information would probably point in a different direction for what the reality was in their particular culture.

 

[greenfairy]

Firstly, it's complement, not compliment.

Next, it assumes there are specific traits within each species where with the human race, gender roles are constructs. Her WOT relies on gender roles to create a need between two 'species' to coexist. This foundation is corrupt. Once the foundation for any hypothesis is corrupt, the entire house of cards folds.

You're right in that I disagree that gender roles are purely social constructs. I do agree that they should never be forced, and I specifically stated this. They naturally arise and they are here for a reason. People just take them to extremes and try to force associated behavior. It is this control of people that is the problem, not the roles themselves.

 

[greenfairy]

The difference between thinking and feeling. Warm and gushy stuff stands on its own, I suppose.

No, you're requiring things to be spelled out rather than trying to understand things intuitively and holistically. And you are arguing against binary ways of thinking, yet you employ it in your arguments by rejecting arguments which use the opposite ways of thinking. Thinking versus feeling is to a great extent just a logical construct and not very descriptive of real people and real circumstances. Thinking can take many forms, and feeling sometimes doesn't have to be analyzed for it to be useful and produce good results.

 

[greenfairy]

The reason I decry gender roles is because it's a construct that's non-beneficial to either biological gender. It also fails the logic test, in that so many of the human race don't fall within its constructed guidelines, where within a Venn diagram, you'll find that there's a substantial subset of men and women who intersect in talents and traits.

And don't forget, since each person has both feminine and masculine, men can lead women to their souls and women can protect men. (And as [MENTION=5684]Elfboy[/MENTION] mentioned, men can protect each other.)

It's exceedingly silly to suggest that women aren't capable of protecting themselves. It's also exceedingly silly to suggest that all men remain stoically detached from their emotions, needing women to attach them to what's inherently within them.

While we are capable of doing anything we put our minds to, we could still use some help, and we like to feel safe. And though men are perfectly capable of living however they want, and being in harmony with themselves, many of them find themselves fighting a lot of external battles and disconnecting with themselves; and they could use some healing and nurturing.

Evidently you didn't read my post as carefully as you think.

 

[greenfairy]

Hence the NF nature of this thread and the concept. It's fluffy shit floating alone on a cloud, no logical legs to stand on.

Life isn't all logic. Emotions and human relationships exist, and they get messy. And cleaning everything up isn't always neat and logical either. That's why each of us has both a thinking and a feeling function, because no matter what your type, these issues are relevant to everyone, and so is feely stuff. You don't have to be a feeler to feel, and have successful relationships. maybe you should develop your feeling function and then you could wrap your mind around these vague sounding concepts more easily.

 

[greenfairy]

Ugh, carry on with this bullshittery of a thread. Perfect for NFs.

You don't have to read it, you know. Maybe you should find something more stereotypically NT to do instead of read things into people's posts which aren't there and then call people illogical because of it. (Oh wait, that is stereotypical NT. But not very socially successful NT.)

 

[greenfairy]

Yes, yes, so this proverb can be mined for meaning if you strip away all of the literal elements that make it unique from any of the other funny little bits of "wisdom" we always hear. "Protect the ones you love" and such. Why do it, though?

...Because then you can get into Taoist philosophy and Divinity being manifested in human form? Which is beautiful? Because celebrating women and men's unique qualities is empowering? Maybe I'm a rare NT who likes thinking of women and men as sacred and beautiful. Or not an NT.

Basically to examine something with critical thinking for more than is obvious.

 

[greenfairy]

Note to self and everyone everywhere who is in the business of giving advice and wisdom: don't speak to NT's with proverbs, mysticism, anything vague, or anything they have to use a function other than logic to figure out. And there we have the thread in a nutshell, folks. We've all learned something today.

 

[CzeCze]

MAKE ME BISCUITS DAMN IT. AS LONG AS THERE ARE BISCUITS ALL IS WELL

[MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION]

Ummm...youre welcome?

 

[CzeCze]

Well I for one commend [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION] for defending her OP to the last breath. hope you stick around the forum :applause:

Wait unless you posted some rule breakers in these 15 threads, in which case, somebody better report them so we know about em.

 

[sprinkles]

Note to self and everyone everywhere who is in the business of giving advice and wisdom: don't speak to NT's with proverbs, mysticism, anything vague, or anything they have to use a function other than logic to figure out. And there we have the thread in a nutshell, folks. We've all learned something today.

Yeah they're all like

And I'm just like

 

[RDF]

Note to self and everyone everywhere who is in the business of giving advice and wisdom: don't speak to NT's with proverbs, mysticism, anything vague, or anything they have to use a function other than logic to figure out. And there we have the thread in a nutshell, folks. We've all learned something today.

Don’t use touchy-feely New Age motivational posters to suck people into a discussion on pagan yin-yang theories. People are going to resist the latter by focusing on the deficiencies of the former.

If you want to discuss pagan mysticism, just present it as an intellectual discussion of exactly that, and whoever shows up will focus on that alone.

 

[sprinkles]

Don’t use touchy-feely New Age motivational posters to suck people into a discussion on pagan yin-yang theories. People are going to resist the latter by focusing on the deficiencies of the former.

If you want to discuss pagan mysticism, just present it as an intellectual discussion of exactly that, and whoever shows up will focus on that alone.

What? What's pagan or mystical?

I mean yeah, some people get pretty far out and new agey or religious about it but it was really just some philosophical beard stroking dudes talking to each other about stuff. I mean we don't even know if Laozi was a real guy or if it was like five different people that wrote the TTC.

It's also rather hard to translate it, even for Chinese, because classical Chinese is more poetic and illustrative.

 

[RDF]

What? What's pagan or mystical?

I mean yeah, some people get pretty far out and new agey or religious about it but it was really just some philosophical beard stroking dudes talking to each other about stuff. I mean we don't even know if Laozi was a real guy or if it was like five different people that wrote the TTC.

It's also rather hard to translate it, even for Chinese, because classical Chinese is more poetic and illustrative.

I don’t know anything about pagan mysticism myself.

I’m just figuring that post No. 30 (greenfairy’s wall-of-text post on yin-yang theory) was the real center of the thread and that greenfairy started off with the New Age visual in order to soft-pedal the pagan theory and appeal to a wider audience. IMO, greenfairy would have done better to start off with the wall-of-text post.

To spell it out: Starting off with the light crowd-pleaser visual stuff and then using it to introduce heavy theoretical stuff later on in the thread smacks of bait-and-switch; most regular posters can smell that a mile off and tend to react poorly to it.

I’m just pointing all this out as a friendly tip to greenfairy, by the way. Greenfairy has been making some excellent posts and contributions, and I would hate to see her get discouraged over a minor thread misfire that’s easily corrected.

 

[Rasofy]

I think the proverb has its merits....applying Helen Fisher's theory, I can see a sort of see a correlation between the feminine role and the negotiator temperament - estrogen dominant- , as well as a correlation between the masculine role and the director temperament - testosterone dominant - (and they're supposed to be a great match for each other).

I think there's a reason why men are usually the ones who go to war. And it's not physical strength - you don't need much of that to pull a trigger. I believe we men have a sort of subconscious belief that women are meant to be protected - and it's not a patronizing feeling, it's more of a role optimization. For the most part, men have a much stronger aggressive instinct than women, whereas women have a much stronger nurturing instinct than men.

Obviously, not always men take the masculine role, and not always women take the feminine role. So then, how should we define a masculine/feminine role? I don't know, you tell me. But one thing is for sure, Inferior Fe/Fi women go nuts everytime one assigns women a role that's widely regarded as feminine.

 

[sprinkles]

I don’t know anything about pagan mysticism myself.

I’m just figuring that post No. 30 (greenfairy’s wall-of-text post on yin-yang theory) was the real center of the thread and that greenfairy started off with the New Age visual in order to soft-pedal the pagan theory and appeal to a wider audience.

IMO, greenfairy would have done better to start off with the wall-of-text post. Starting off with the light crowd-pleaser visual stuff and then using it to introduce heavy theoretical stuff later on in the thread smacks of bait-and-switch; most regular posters can smell that a mile off and tend to react poorly to it.

I’m just pointing all this out as a friendly tip to greenfairy, by the way. Greenfairy has been making some excellent posts and contributions, and I would hate to see her get discouraged over a minor thread misfire that’s easily corrected.

I don't really see that as pagan or mystical, though. I don't know why people go all wonky over that stuff. I thought it was a pretty good post.

Can't someone say 'spirit' or 'Divinity' without it all being about ghosts and aliens and stuff? It could really mean a lot of things.

 

[rav3n]

Or not an NT.

Fucking finally!! Hip-hip hurray for this thread!

 

[MacGuffin]

What's up NFers???

 

[RDF]

I don't really see that as pagan or mystical, though. I don't know why people go all wonky over that stuff. I thought it was a pretty good post.

Can't someone say 'spirit' or 'Divinity' without it all being about ghosts and aliens and stuff? It could really mean a lot of things.

No argument here. I'm just saying: Put it up front, so that people know what they're getting into right from the start.

 

[RDF]

Fucking finally!! Hip-hip hurray for this thread!

What's up NFers???

I like the concept of an NT pushing mysticism. I would like to see more.