Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[Qlip]

I have this feeling that if greenfairy were INFP, she'd would be very angry right now. At least, even with my secondary Fi.. I'd probably be very heated up if this were my thread.

 

[Ginkgo]

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

^Totally agree.

 

[Salomé]

Ah, but if I am INFP, then it's a shadow function, which means you still use it better than I do! Probably.

I abuse it wonderfully.

 

[zelo1954]

I guess what I see that you've done here is to employ a duality, masculine and feminine. Their attributes are somewhat arbritrary, but most dualities are. I can see how it was beautiful in a certain time and space. But I'm more of a fan of uniting and shifting dualities than enforcing them.

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?

 

[rav3n]

I can't relate to the concept of the opening post since it assumes victim status for women and the inability of men to synch and process emotional states. Autonomy that's not steeped in Fi-Si (social construct binary) values, can't relate.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[INTP]

So, none then?
Thought so.

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

Externally, the most sexually dimorphic portions of the human body are the chest, the lower half of the face, and the area between the waist and the knees.[5]
Males weigh about 15 % more than females, on average. For those older than 20 years of age, males in the US have an average weight of 86.1 kg (190 lbs), whereas females have an average weight of 74 kg (163 lbs).[6](lol americans are FAT)
On average, men are taller than women, by about 15 cm (6 inches).[1] American males who are 20 years old or older have an average height of 175.8 cm (5 ft 9 in). The average height of corresponding females is 162 cm (5 ft 4in).[6]

On average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[7]

As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[8] This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body.[9]

Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.

men also run faster than women on average: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081011160130AAKjEb7

not to mention that an average male is more skilled on fighting than an average female.

 

[sprinkles]

I look at it like Yin and Yang. Everyone has both, most have more of one than the other.

So, even though Yin is feminine, dark, yielding, and associated with water, that doesn't mean that someone with Yin is a woman.

 

[greenfairy]

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?

That's part of the picture. But it's not linear. It looks like this:

Which is what dualism is missing. My version I call polarity, because they are two sides of one whole.

I look at it like Yin and Yang. Everyone has both, most have more of one than the other.

So, even though Yin is feminine, dark, yielding, and associated with water, that doesn't mean that someone with Yin is a woman.

Yes.
I make this clear in my WOT if one reads it carefully.

 

[greenfairy]

I can't relate to the concept of the opening post since it assumes victim status for women and the inability of men to synch and process emotional states. Autonomy that's not steeped in Fi-Si (social construct binary) values, can't relate.

I think that once again, if you read my WOT carefully, it will be obvious that this is not the case in my interpretation. If you are simply talking about the original thing I'm posting about, I could see how it might look that way. However, something that is thought of as a proverb by Native Americans would probably not have such a simplistic meaning. I think that's illogical.

 

[Randomnity]

I look at it like Yin and Yang. Everyone has both, most have more of one than the other.

So, even though Yin is feminine, dark, yielding, and associated with water, that doesn't mean that someone with Yin is a woman.

The problem is that "yin and yang" is still assuming very distinct "feminine" and "masculine" people. But there can certainly be 2 people in a relationship who are both "feminine" (of any sex) or "masculine", or people who don't really identify with either sort of "energy" (*hand raised*, barf), or people who are both "masculine" in some areas and "feminine" in other areas (or times of life, or situations, or etc).

Once you accept that truth, then talking about "Yin person should do this and Yang person should do that" is pretty silly. Why do we need to separate people into arbitrary categories instead of saying "everyone should support, protect and inspire their partner as needed"?

 

[sprinkles]

The problem is that "yin and yang" is still assuming very distinct "feminine" and "masculine" people. But there can certainly be 2 people in a relationship who are both "feminine" (of any sex) or "masculine", or people who don't really identify with either sort of "energy" (*hand raised*, barf), or people who are both "masculine" in some areas and "feminine" in other areas (or times of life, or situations, or etc).

Once you accept that truth, then talking about "Yin person should do this and Yang person should do that" is pretty silly. Why do we need to separate people into arbitrary categories instead of saying "everyone should support, protect and inspire their partner as needed"?

Of course that's what everyone should do.

This concept is less about telling people how to act because of some predefined energy, and more about saying why things work the way they do. Fire doesn't burn because somebody told it to, and water doesn't put it out because somebody told it to.

Masculine or feminine in this sense is how someone is, not how they should act according to some predefined role.

 

[zelo1954]

... Which is what dualism is missing. My version I call polarity, because they are two sides of one whole.

That's cool. You've come up with the Einstein version whilst I was still in Newtonian mode

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=206]Randomnity[/MENTION]

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

 

[rav3n]

I think that once again, if you read my WOT carefully, it will be obvious that this is not the case in my interpretation. If you are simply talking about the original thing I'm posting about, I could see how it might look that way. However, something that is thought of as a proverb by Native Americans would probably not have such a simplistic meaning. I think that's illogical.

I read your WOT. Apologism for a lot of fluffy nonsense in order to validate the gender construct.

 

[sprinkles]

I can't believe we have our panties in a knot over this.

I bet you people suck at parties.

 

[zelo1954]

[MENTION=206]Randomnity[/MENTION]

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

Thank you Sprinkles. You got me exactly

 

[rav3n]

I can't believe we have our panties in a knot over this.

I bet you people suck at parties.

If you're talking about my response, there's no panty twisting. Just blunt NTJness. This site hasn't really seen me with my panties twisted.

 

[sprinkles]

If you're talking about my response, there's no panty twisting. Just blunt NTJness. This site hasn't really seen me with my panties twisted.

Ah ok. Misunderstanding I guess.

It's just kind of... I don't know. To me it's kind of like the people who go on Youtube to see someone expressing themselves in a painting or something and they go "You're doing it wrong!"

 

[rav3n]

Ah ok. Misunderstanding I guess.

It's just kind of... I don't know. To me it's kind of like the people who go on Youtube to see someone expressing themselves in a painting or something and they go "You're doing it wrong!"

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