Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[greenfairy]

Thoughts?

I think this is lovely.

It could be said that things of this nature have a bit of a heterosexual bias, but it could just as easily be platonic; and man or woman could be whichever of the feminine or masculine polarities you identify with (doesn't have to be biological).

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Blah. What about our soul?

 

[greenfairy]

We're already in touch with our souls. I guess more than men according to some.

 

[Coriolis]

It could be said that things of this nature have a bit of a heterosexual bias, but it could just as easily be platonic; and man or woman could be whichever of the feminine or masculine polarities you identify with (doesn't have to be biological).

I don't see a heterosexual bias, just the unwarranted implication that women are weak.

 

[greenfairy]

I don't see a heterosexual bias, just the unwarranted implication that women are weak.

Fair enough. It is true that women are physically weaker than men though on average, and men do more of the physical harm; so it is reasonable to expect a good man to protect women from other men. Imo.

 

[Coriolis]

Fair enough. It is true that women are physically weaker than men though on average, and men do more of the physical harm; so it is reasonable to expect a good man to protect women from other men. Imo.

That depends on how you see physical strength. Women tend to have better endurance, and weather disease and illness better. If men tend to be the aggressors and women the targets, it would be nice for men to develop some self-policing strategies, but that is different from saying women need their protection. Statistics might show that there is more black-on-white violence than the reverse, but we would not conclude from that that blacks have an obligation to protect whites.

 

[Orangey]

Why would anyone want that to be their highest calling? Aiming a little low, aren't we?

 

[sprinkles]

Who says protecting someone must imply weakness?

It can also imply value.

In WWII the US Marines went from the doctrine of "The BAR gunner covers the movements of the riflemen" to "The riflemen protect the BAR gunner."

They had to protect the BAR gunner, not because the BAR was weak - it was quite powerful in that age. Therefore they had to protect it because enemies would make it a point to take out the BAR man since he's powerful.

 

[Thursday]

I think that is a grand statement. However, I would like to see a little flexibility concerning gender roles.

 

[Rasofy]

Made more sense before firearms.

 

[WALMART]

My sister, her friend and I actually discussed gender roles tonight.


I will always see myself as a protector of the woman I love, just as I envision her grounding me in reality.

But maybe not.

 

[UniqueMixture]

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

 

[Cellmold]

That depends on how you see physical strength. Women tend to have better endurance, and weather disease and illness better.

They also live longer....on average anyhow.

 

[Lark]

Thoughts?

I think this is lovely.

It could be said that things of this nature have a bit of a heterosexual bias, but it could just as easily be platonic; and man or woman could be whichever of the feminine or masculine polarities you identify with (doesn't have to be biological).

Interesting.

It seems to me like your enjoyment of this was effected by thinking of it as exhibiting a heterosexual bias, or at least it was something which you had to acknowledge or highlight.

I like it BTW, I heard about it before when I listened to a psychology podcast which featured a vietnam vet who was discussing trauma and consequences of having fought a war, he was a native American.

 

[Society]

We're already in touch with our souls. I guess more than men according to some.

i believe the major difference between thinkers and feelers, underneath the Jungian definitions, is that thinkers are more likely to accept emotional dissonance then cognitive dissonance, thus creating a sense that thinkers are more "out of touch with their souls" because they experience a more difficult time accepting feelings that are not in tune with what they think, while feelers have a harder time accepting thoughts that are not in tune with what they feel. the flip side of these disadvantages are that thinkers can be perceived as more "one with their rational being" while feelers can be perceived as more "one with their emotional being" (while in truth both having merely opposite difficulties in being "one" with all aspects of their reality in the first place). because souls are more associated with one's emotional being, the later can be considered more spiritual.

therefore it stands to reason that "women are more in touch with their souls" is a generalization which stems directly from a the higher feeler to thinkers ratio in women and in men, and because in the past, lower populations meant minorities in general where less significant, meaning rather then being perceived as a minority you would have being perceived as an isolated case within a village or settlement that does not truly reflect on the range of your gender as a whole.

but today, as part of the recognizable and quite sizable NT minority within womankind, you are disqualified.

now grab that spear and let's get bore hunting with the rest of the thinkers so that the women will have fur to cover their pregnant bellies for the winter.

 

[Pseudo]

Hmmmm. I'm not that offended by the idea of men protecting women (i don't think it necessarily inplies that women are lesser than men) but I don't know how I would even begin to "lead someone to their soul". If anything this seems a little biased towards women. We serve as mystical conduits to the "source" and men are just around to be our bodyguards.

 

[Antimony]

Thoughts?

I think this is lovely.

It could be said that things of this nature have a bit of a heterosexual bias, but it could just as easily be platonic; and man or woman could be whichever of the feminine or masculine polarities you identify with (doesn't have to be biological).

Actually, it may be referring to the gender, not the sex, of man and woman. Culture studies show that many different groups of people find distinctions between the two. Thus, you can have two people who are sexually the same, but differently in regards to gender.

 

[Salomé]

Thoughts?

I think this is lovely.

It could be said that things of this nature have a bit of a heterosexual bias, but it could just as easily be platonic; and man or woman could be whichever of the feminine or masculine polarities you identify with (doesn't have to be biological).

Wouldn't that kinda negate the whole idiotic promotion of inane gender stereotypes though?
And wouldn't that kinda defeat the objective?

 

[Giggly]

I like it.

 

[FDG]

I don't like it. Why would men naturally not be in touch with themselves, excepting socialization?