• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
no one called it sexist. but there was an actual implication that you suspected sexism. i will always laugh when people think that the concepts of social and rational have any relevance to one another. but yet you ignored this side of the argument completely and went straight ahead with the feminist agenda. if you're a female, well that could be a self interest thing. i suspect it has more to do with brainwashing by peer pressure.
the values invoked by the proverb are seen in every culture i've ever heard of. it could be that those values were simply carried down through every generation since the pangea-mother culture the rest of us must have spawned from. more likely, we have biological motivations/incentives for acting that way.
when you say that these things are necessarily not the highest calling [and i sense undertones that you discourage the things suggested in the proverb], you say equally that men and women have no need for one another at all.

the truth is, even if protectiveness of females is not something we see in males in their individual relationships, or soulfulness of females in the same, it exists on the large scale all the same.
it's not an insult to either "gender" [i'm pretty sure you mean sex]. it's just humanity.
the only insult is spun by a perspective which holds that women under protection by men are weak.

Agreed.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It is no different than believing in God. My personal beliefs involve God and Goddess, to some degree mirroring the masculine/feminine complementarity we have been discussing here, but I see it as informative rather than normative. In other words, they are archetypes that demonstrate the duality of human attributes, without requiring any 1-to-1 mapping in actual humans (could be the P and Q sets of traits I referenced above). Seeing them as masculine/feminine, male/female makes for some pretty poetry, but that's it.

There are some questions I don't think science will ever answer, because I see the answers as inherently subjective. These include: why are we here? what is our purpose in life? how should we relate to each other and the world around us? what is right/wrong, or good/evil, and do these distinctions even make sense? is there a god/deity/higher power, and if so, what is its nature? does any part of us continue after bodily death, and if so, what happens to it? This last might eventually be explained by science, but my belief for now is that the explanation will not be complete. In short, science attempts to understand objective reality, while spirituality examines subjective purposes. Much of the science/religion debate comes from one trying to operate in the sphere of the other.

Agreed, and I mostly identify with this.

In short, science attempts to understand objective reality, while spirituality examines subjective purposes. Much of the science/religion debate comes from one trying to operate in the sphere of the other.

This is what I've been saying all along. (Over and over...)
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
when you say that these things are necessarily not the highest calling [and i sense that you discourage those behaviors suggested in the proverb], you say equally that men and women have no need for one another at all.
No. I am saying that the fundamental human need of people for each other transcends differences of sex/gender. I discourage anything targeted with such bias. I encourage everyone to give protection where it is needed, and spiritual/emotional comfort and guidance as well.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Yeah, post #30.


What you are saying is that the proverb should actually read:

The role of the feminine attributes of an individuals personality is to balance out the masculine aspects of the personality and allow the individual to have a healthy existance.
The role of masculine attributes of the personality are to allow for the vulnerability to exist by guarding it from the harshness of the world.

?

I feel like that is what you want the proverb to mean despite the fact that it doesn't say that. It dosen't say it literally or through metaphor. It only functions this way if you redefine man and woman so that the terms don't actually refer to the sex of the individuals. Perhaps this is a problem of translation. If you take it as it is written it doesn't apply to all people.

I'm still confused as to why you are uninterested in talking about whether or not what you are saying is actually true. You keep refusing to give any kind of examples which is frustrating because it kind of kills the thread. I guess from my perspective I always want to base my belief in whether or not to holds up to rigorous argument. It's almost like you are shielding your opinions from debate so as not to lose any confidence in them. If you truly believe that are legitimate then to be you should share them so we can have an actual discussion.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
It is no different than believing in God. My personal beliefs involve God and Goddess, to some degree mirroring the masculine/feminine complementarity we have been discussing here, but I see it as informative rather than normative. In other words, they are archetypes that demonstrate the duality of human attributes, without requiring any 1-to-1 mapping in actual humans (could be the P and Q sets of traits I referenced above). Seeing them as masculine/feminine, male/female makes for some pretty poetry, but that's it.
But why even bother with this? Isn't science enough with theoreticals and concrete realities? Also, is there really a dichotomy or just another construct?

There are some questions I don't think science will ever answer, because I see the answers as inherently subjective. These include: why are we here? what is our purpose in life? how should we relate to each other and the world around us? what is right/wrong, or good/evil, and do these distinctions even make sense? is there a god/deity/higher power, and if so, what is its nature? does any part of us continue after bodily death, and if so, what happens to it? This last might eventually be explained by science, but my belief for now is that the explanation will not be complete. In short, science attempts to understand objective reality, while spirituality examines subjective purposes. Much of the science/religion debate comes from one trying to operate in the sphere of the other.
Consider. Humankind are animals/mammals that by sheer accident and the drive for survival, have evolved into mammals that have a higher consciousness. Beyond that, the rest is construct where purpose is what each individual or community makes it. That's the substance of good/evil. It's a matter of abide or not by construct and if your choice is not to abide, there will be human inflicted consequences whether social shunning or punishment.

Existing past death? Who cares. Once we die, it's all moot.

The above to me is so freeing, rather than frightening. Free to be who we wish to be when we're willing to pay the price tag that freedom comes with, whether in labour or some other quantifiable or unquantifiable cost.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
no one called it sexist. but there was an actual implication that you suspected sexism. i will always laugh when people think that the concepts of social and rational have any relevance to one another. but yet you ignored this side of the argument completely and went straight ahead with the feminist agenda. if you're a female, well that could be a self interest thing. i suspect it has more to do with brainwashing by peer pressure.
the values invoked by the proverb are seen consistently in every culture i've ever heard of. it could be that those values were simply carried down through every generation since the pangea-mother culture the rest of us must have spawned from, but more likely, we have biological motivations/incentives for acting that way.
when you say that these things are necessarily not the highest calling [and i sense that you discourage those behaviors suggested in the proverb], you say equally that men and women have no need for one another at all.

the truth is, even if protectiveness of females is not something we see in males in their individual relationships, or soulfulness of females in the same, it exists on the macro scale all the same.
it's not an insult to either "gender" [i'm pretty sure you mean sex]: it's just humanity.
the only insult is spun by a perspective which holds that women under protection by men are weak.

Female soulfulness?

Also, I don't see how something can describe humanity if it is untrue for some humans. It can describe some of humanity, some relationships. I see a great divides between things that are generally correct and absolutely true.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
when you say that these things are necessarily not the highest calling [and i sense that you discourage those behaviors suggested in the proverb], you say equally that men and women have no need for one another at all.

Pray tell, by what operation did you manage to get from the premises to conclusion here?

the truth is, even if protectiveness of females is not something we see in males in their individual relationships, or soulfulness of females in the same, it exists on the macro scale all the same.

I don't think anybody said that they hadn't heard of it, or that it was a construct that didn't exist. Unfortunately, its existence alone does not explain anything about its origins or (least of all) whether it is worthwhile as a way of looking at gender relations. That's the equivalent of me insisting that the fact of a rock's existence is proof that we should worship rocks.

it's not an insult to either "gender" [i'm pretty sure you mean sex]: it's just humanity.

I agree that it's not an insult to anyone. It's merely silliness. And I think your insistence on "sex" instead of "gender" goes against [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]'s qualification that we're talking about energies, not genitalia.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
[MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION]

Very few things apply to all people. Even if you redefined every single word it probably still wouldn't apply to all people.

All we do is find an approximation that we feel is 'good enough'. What level of scrutiny this approximation must entail varies between individuals, so that's yet another thing that doesn't apply to all people.
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION]

Very few things apply to all people. Even if you redefined every single word it probably still wouldn't apply to all people.

All we do is find an approximation that we feel is 'good enough'. What level of scrutiny this approximation must entail varies between individuals, so that's yet another thing that doesn't apply to all people.


False. Truth is truth. Truth is not subjective.

I think this implies the answer to most questions is more complex and takes a longer, more nuanced answer than we generally give but I think that it is worth it for things to be True. I feel the acceptance of generalizations and stereotypes leads to bad things.


EDIT: If truth is subjective it becomes meaningless.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
[MENTION=16048]Pseudo[/MENTION]

Very few things apply to all people. Even if you redefined every single word it probably still wouldn't apply to all people.

All we do is find an approximation that we feel is 'good enough'. What level of scrutiny this approximation must entail varies between individuals, so that's yet another thing that doesn't apply to all people.

Yes, yes, so shit like this which can be treated in a literary (and not scientific, please STFU about that already, people...it's not relevant) way must be judged by how well they speak to human experience. Clearly this particular proverb is not as good as others in that it is not as universally relateable.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
actually yes.
but we'll proceed as if that makes sense.
I am saying that the fundamental human need of people for each other transcends differences of sex/gender.
the concept you're trying to convey only makes use of the word "sex." gender can, and should be left out.
I discourage anything targeted with such bias. I encourage everyone to give protection where it is needed, and spiritual/emotional comfort and guidance as well.
as romantic and utopian as that sounds, it's just not realistic.
there's a reason such a "bias" exists with such social and geographical breadth. i might not know precisely how those evolved ideals fell into place, but the evidence is clear: each sex has different built-in strengths. naturally, to varying degrees and with plenty of exception.

the best teams succeed when everyone performs their role to specification. we succeed as a species under the same conditions.
we fail when everyone trampling over one another trying to attain the same goal like two baseball players cracking their heads against the other's chasing the same fly-ball, under some misguided fear of bias.

i guess you're trying to fight for the underdog here. the proverb does doesn't give a lot of credit to a Joan or Arc or Shakespeare, right?
except that since we're all gifted with mainly the same talents, the most important of which being the ability to accomplish many things in a lifetime, we can see a woman-warrior who further nurtures her protective husband's already strong, poetic soul.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
False. Truth is truth. Truth is not subjective.

I think this implies the answer to most questions is more complex and takes a longer, more nuances answer than we generally give but I think that it is worth it for things to be True. I feel the acceptance of generalizations and stereotypes leads to bad things.

Well prove it then, or join the club. Thinking isn't enough when it comes to objective truth. Therefore, if we are to apply rigor, you must not only think or generalize this, you must prove it to be true, otherwise you are leading to bad things and contradicting yourself as well.

If there's even one case where a generalization leads to a good thing, then your statement is false.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Pray tell...
no.
I agree that it's not an insult to anyone. It's merely silliness. And I think your insistence on "sex" instead of "gender" goes against [MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]'s qualification that we're talking about energies, not genitalia.
i apologize for not having familiarized myself with this thread in full.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What you are saying is that the proverb should actually read:

The role of the feminine attributes of an individuals personality is to balance out the masculine aspects of the personality and allow the individual to have a healthy existance.
The role of masculine attributes of the personality are to allow for the vulnerability to exist by guarding it from the harshness of the world.
Yes, that is pretty much it.

I feel like that is what you want the proverb to mean despite the fact that it doesn't say that. It dosen't say it literally or through metaphor. It only functions this way if you redefine man and woman so that the terms don't actually refer to the sex of the individuals. Perhaps this is a problem of translation. If you take it as it is written it doesn't apply to all people.
Fair enough.

I'm still confused as to why you are uninterested in talking about whether or not what you are saying is actually true. You keep refusing to give any kind of examples which is frustrating because it kind of kills the thread. I guess from my perspective I always want to base my belief in whether or not to holds up to rigorous argument. It's almost like you are shielding your opinions from debate so as not to lose any confidence in them. If you truly believe that are legitimate then to be you should share them so we can have an actual discussion.
Well, I was using the theory of biological differences to support my philosophical and spiritual thoughts on the matter, which I think make sense in and of themselves. Some people disagree, and that's fine. The philosophy was the point of my thoughts on the matter. I'm going to agree with you that it's a valid viewpoint that gender differences are purely physical. I said my piece and I'm not going to push it.

But if you want to discuss biological differences, here's a thought: Some systems of thought suggest that people are purely physical beings, that all psychology, thought, emotion, and personality stem from physical phenomena such as hormones, electrical impulses, and survival needs. We are material beings. Some people take the opposite viewpoint and suggest that we are purely spirits inhabiting a physical body. Personally I think the answer is a little of both. So; if you are a materialist, you would have to believe that physical states influence psychological states and behavior. Correct? If true, then physical differences in gender would necessarily influence psychological states and behavior to some extent.

The question is how much. That I don't know, and is highly individual.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Female soulfulness?
i'm trying stick with my interpretation of the proverb without typing the same expression over and over... i get bored :)

Also, I don't see how something can describe humanity if it is untrue for some humans. It can describe some of humanity, some relationships. I see a great divides between things that are generally correct and absolutely true.
then the only thing we should say is that all humans are composed of carbon.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Non-rational is irrational.

Wrong.

Irrational means contradicting rationality. Non-rational means rationality doesn't apply.

It's like this:

rationality<---------->irrationality


non-rational
 

Pseudo

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
2,051
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
actually yes.
but we'll proceed as if that makes sense.the concept you're trying to convey only makes use of the word "sex." gender can, and should be left out.
as romantic and utopian as that sounds, it's just not realistic.
there's a reason such a "bias" exists with such social and geographical breadth. i might not know precisely how those evolved ideals fell into place, but the evidence is clear: each sex has different built-in strengths. naturally, to varying degrees and with plenty of exception.

the best teams succeed when everyone performs their role to specification. we succeed as a species under the same conditions.
we fail when everyone trampling over one another trying to attain the same goal like two baseball players cracking their heads against the other's chasing the same fly-ball, under some misguided fear of bias.

i guess you're trying to fight for the underdog here. the proverb does doesn't give a lot of credit to a Joan or Arc or Shakespeare, right?
except that since we're all gifted with mainly the same talents, the most important of which being the ability to accomplish many things in a lifetime, we can see a woman-warrior who further nurtures her protective husband's already strong, poetic soul.

I think what [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] was actually saying is not that men and women in relationships fulfill the same roles, but that the role they fulfill within the relationship is not determined by gender.

If the man provides the nurturing and the women provides security they will avoid the "head cracking" of your baseball metaphor.
 
Top