...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.
Just what are these unique qualities of men and women? I guarantee for every one, there are many of the opposite sex who exhibit it. I see people as sacred and beautiful, and individual, without the need to pigeonhole them into gender or other boxes, but then I'm just a garden variety NT.
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?
Why do we need to define roles? Better just to let each person develop their individual gifts and seek personal fulfillment.
nothing in the semantic of that proverb should make you that women are necessarily weak. there wasn't even any implication.
it only says that his "highest calling," i.e. the greatest thing a man can do is protect a woman.
perception is colored by the hyper-feminist culture we live in now.
by the same logic you're using, i could complain about the "unwarranted implication" that men are soulless, or "Sourceless" [not sure what that means to the cherokee].
but i don't, because the implication isn't there. the implication isn't even that a man needs the woman to find his soul/source. it only says that the highest calling of a woman is to help a man in that way.
when are we going to get off this feminist high-horse? not everything is sexist.
You may call it sexist. I call it gender bias. IME that means that one gender is being treated differently from the other without rational basis. Yes, you should complain about assumption that men cannot find the source on their own, or with help from other men; the assumptions are equivalent. If men don't really need this help from women, and women don't really need protection from men, then the proverb is basically saying that the highest calling of both men and women is to do something unnecessary. Sad.
Is it? Possibly. But you can rest assured their arguments would be less values and emotion based.
Much of mysticism was developed prior to science, as mankind's way to explain shit that scared them since they couldn't understand them, hence couldn't control.
As far as balance, my preference leans towards what Salomé stated. Individuation. So. What happens to the lean to built when your balancing partner leaves? Do you fall over and then use a razor blade to guilt them back to support you again?
I think the idea of balance is overrated. It can come across as being a jack of all trades and master of none. I prefer being a master of those things that fulfull me and suit my nature and abilities, while developing sufficient capacity with the rest to function satisfactorily in society. People will always be better at some things than others, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they understand their strengths and weaknesses, and can address the weaknesses adequately.
I am a pagan, and an NT. My comments on that topic will certainly involve less emotion and more reasoning, but are necessarily values based. The increase in humanity's scientific knowledge has pulled more and more questions out of the realm of mysticism into the realm of science. One of my major gripes with religions is when they attempt to explain questions about which we have developed a scientific, empirical understanding. There are some questions which I doubt will ever be answered by science, however, and these properly fall to mysticism, spirituality, etc.
I think the idea of gender harmony falls apart when you realize that the members of a gender don't all have the same traits/functions. Let's use MBTI terminology just to have a similar vocabulary. As an INTP woman I don't think I function the same way as an ESFJ female. An INFP man and and an ESTP man have different functions. They way that we all interact with each other will take different forms that cannot be predicted by gender.
Yes. In my experience, type trumps gender every time, unless I am looking for a romantic partner or a public restroom.
No, embracing the gender binary isn't for everyone. But if you have a gender and you are in a relationship with another gendered person, you will each have individual gender associated differences, which will ideally be in balance with each other. So if you see this as a gender binary, you are participating in it whether you believe in it or not. If you choose to believe it's something else, then your argument is irrelevant.
No. We will each have INDIVIDUAL differences, which ideally will be complementary enough to broaden our horizons, while leaving enough similarity to ensure compatibility.
I see. It certainly would have helped if people had made that clear. I actually agree on this, which is why I took steps to say in my personal reflection that I see it as more complex and holistic. Also if you take into account the culture, it would suggest otherwise. It's true that it appears this way on the surface- I'm just saying proverbs are meant to be looked at more deeply. So I guess it's effective for people who do, and not effective for people who want to evaluate things based on surface clarity.
If you view the quote in the OP as just one perspective among many, the problem largely goes away. Each of us can view gender complementarity (or individual complementarity) in the way that makes most sense for us. We can learn from discussion of alternate viewpoints without having to embrace them.
Bottom line:
I don't believe men and womens' highest callings are different. On the other hand, I certainly don't think every person's highest calling is the same.