Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[sprinkles]

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

I don't know, maybe the fact that it's been said that it isn't about that, and you continue to insist that it is anyway?

 

[rav3n]

I don't know, maybe the fact that it's been said that it isn't about that, and you continue to insist that it is anyway?

That's my take on her WOT. Can you translate her WOT into 'thinking' and logical terms?

 

[sprinkles]

That's my take on her WOT. Can you translate her WOT into 'thinking' and logical terms?

I translate it as "Be a compliment to one another." It's pretty simple really.

Getting into this gender role stuff is getting lost in irrelevant minutiae that detracts from the actual message.

 

[rav3n]

I translate it as "Be a compliment to one another." It's pretty simple really.

Getting into this gender role stuff is getting lost in irrelevant minutiae that detracts from the actual message.

Oh? Who must be complementary?

 

[sprinkles]

Oh? Who must be complementary?

Do I really have to explain this, and find the most gender neutral and logically sterilized way to say it? Are you kidding me? It feels like you're giving us a hard time on purpose. No matter what I say there's going to be room for some stigmatized role to come into play as long as you're looking for them.

None the less. I will use sea life as a sufficiently alien example to get past these useless connotations.

Look at the Goby and Pistol Shrimp relationship. They are two different species that naturally pair up for mutual benefit, and they don't give a crap about constructed roles - they do it because it's effective.

The pistol shrimp is a fierce and strong predator, lighting fast. It's claws literally move like bullets. But, it cannot see well. The Goby is just a peaceful fish, easily eaten - it could be snatched up like nothing by a pistol shrimp. But, the Goby has very good eyes and senses. So, what actually happens is for some reason, the Goby and Pistol Shrimp form pairs. The pistol shrimp digs a house in coral for the Goby to live in, and protects the Goby, while the Goby uses its senses to watch out for predators and warn the pistol shrimp of danger. The pistol shrimp protects the Goby because the Goby is a compliment, and vice versa.

 

[rav3n]

Do I really have to explain this, and find the most gender neutral and logically sterilized way to say it? Are you kidding me? It feels like you're giving us a hard time on purpose. No matter what I say there's going to be room for some stigmatized role to come into play as long as you're looking for them.

None the less. I will use sea life as a sufficiently alien example to get past these useless connotations.

Look at the Goby and Pistol Shrimp relationship. They are two different species that naturally pair up for mutual benefit, and they don't give a crap about constructed roles - they do it because it's effective.

The pistol shrimp is a fierce and strong predator, lighting fast. It's claws literally move like bullets. But, it cannot see well. The Goby is just a peaceful fish, easily eaten - it could be snatched up like nothing by a pistol shrimp. But, the Goby has very good eyes and senses. So, what actually happens is for some reason, the Goby and Pistol Shrimp form pairs. The pistol shrimp digs a house in coral for the Goby to live in, and protects the Goby, while the Goby uses its senses to watch out for predators and warn the pistol shrimp of danger. The pistol shrimp protects the Goby because the Goby is a compliment, and vice versa.

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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 taking something that is analogous as a literal thing. And you're correcting my spelling. This is going nowhere because you just want to pick.

 

[Salomé]

This is excellent. If I may translate this into INTP language, a duality can be represented graphically by two disconnected points - Yes/No; Good/Bad; Honour/Shame; Masculine/Feminine. Some societies are so dualistic that not even their language can cope with shades of grey. An example of this was the Hebrew nation at the times of the Bible. So what we do to introduce shades of grey is to draw a line between the two disconnected points and we can now place little flags, one for each person, on that line according to how masculine or femimine they are. We have our shades of grey. NOW all we need is to define masculine & feminine. That just could be the hard bit .

PS: ... and then we realise that some of our flags really ought to be placed above or below the line. Now what?

As long as there aren't 50 shades. Cos that would be shit.

its so self evident that you(or at least most) dont need some scientific experiment to come to that conclusion.

Excellent argument.
Nothing "self-evident" should ever be challenged to assess whether it's based on fact or errant assumptions. :rollseyes:

I mean, I'm pretty average (you might say I'm exceptional, I couldn't possibly comment) and I've had "average" men try to do "stuff" to me. And guess what?
They didn't succeed.

Women are not passive, helpless victims. Go take a gender studies class or something. Probably more helpful than yahoo answers/Wikipedia.

 

[rav3n]

You're taking something that is analogous as a literal thing. And you're correcting my spelling. This is going nowhere because you just want to pick.

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

 

[sprinkles]

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

I can and have done the same things on here but the difference is I'm actually able to change gears.

Funny that you talk about thinking and feeling yet decry gender roles. It amounts to a lot of the same deal.

 

[rav3n]

I can and have done the same things on here but the difference is I'm actually able to change gears.

Funny that you talk about thinking and feeling yet decry gender roles. It amounts to a lot of the same deal.

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.

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.

 

[sprinkles]

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.

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.

Yet it's already been said that it isn't literal or meant in that way. You still keep going back to the literal sense.

It's starting to look like this:

"It's silly to suggest x"
"We aren't suggesting x"
"But it's STILL silly to suggest x!"
"And we STILL aren't suggesting x!"
"But don't you get it? It's silly to suggest x!"
"We get it, and we aren't suggesting it."
"BUT IT'S STILL SILLY TO SUGGEST X!"

 

[rav3n]

Yet it's already been said that it isn't literal or meant in that way. You still keep going back to the literal sense.

It's starting to look like this:

"It's silly to suggest x"
"We aren't suggesting x"
"But it's STILL silly to suggest x!"
"And we STILL aren't suggesting x!"
"But don't you get it? It's silly to suggest x!"
"We get it, and we aren't suggesting it."
"BUT IT'S STILL SILLY TO SUGGEST X!"

Do you have any idea how much you're flipping in and out of any attempt at logic? I doubt you do or you wouldn't be doing it.

 

[sprinkles]

Do you have any idea how much you're flipping in and out of any attempt at logic? I doubt you do or you wouldn't be doing it.

Do you have any idea how much this isn't a logic thing to begin with?

You may as well argue that we aren't speaking Spanish. Of course we aren't and we never intended to.

 

[rav3n]

Do you have any idea how much this isn't a logic thing to begin with?

You may as well argue that we aren't speaking Spanish. Of course we aren't and we never intended to.

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.

 

[Randomnity]

[MENTION=206]Randomnity[/MENTION]

It just occurred to me that you can think of this as a simplified MBTI dealie.

...yes, the issue is when you start saying that every relationship has a T and an F, or that "Fs need to help Ts find their soul" and "Ts need to protect Fs from the big bad world", which is more or less the original proverb.

It's not the categorization I object to, it's the implication that every relationship is yin AND yang and that each has a different responsibility.

 

[sprinkles]

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.

Make a formal hypothesis that it requires these 'legs' and then prove this hypothesis, or join the club.

 

[sprinkles]

...yes, the issue is when you start saying that every relationship has a T and an F, or that "Fs need to help Ts find their soul" and "Ts need to protect Fs from the big bad world", which is more or less the original proverb.

It's not the categorization I object to, it's the implication that every relationship is yin AND yang and that each has a different responsibility.

That's not the implication being made so don't worry.

 

[rav3n]

Make a formal hypothesis that it requires these 'legs' and then prove this hypothesis, or join the club.

I've already broken down the logic. There is none that it stands on. That you continue to make irrational assertions without backing it up with anything worthwhile, is irrational.

 

[Randomnity]

That's not the implication being made so don't worry.

Uhhh ok, I guess I just imagined all the talk about yin complementing yang and that both are needed for balance and the original proverb assigning different roles to men and women (yin and yang if you prefer).

Alright, carry on then.