Disagree. The reason for this kind of cracked, backwards thinking lies in an oppressive society where men and women are forced into certain roles.
Riddle me this, Sauwelios. Is a man with heart considered less than because that is thought to be a feminine or gay attribute, when in reality it is an inherent human quality?
Why do you say vain? On what account do you consider women as vain? Do you see me as vain? If so, then explain. (because if I am vain I want to know why)
Because a woman would experience “a loss of part of self” when trying to detach her emotions (being completely objective and rational) when dealing with a personal problem, which implies that how men and women see and deal with their personal problems (their self) is different. It makes me think that man’s sense of self may not be as grounded as a woman’s when he is able to just “put it aside”. (…or it’s different)
seems to me like that would make it more grounded. if its so easy for women to lose part of themselves…how is that more grounded?
I was just thinking that your emphasis on women being more attached to their sense of self could equally be described as vanity. But it was more of a passing remark than anything. Plus, I don’t know what the “self” is.
Good question, it’s possible it’s the other way (i.e. men’s self is really more grounded). But grounded where; and how?
idk how or where, you’re being very vague with your language. you didn’t say where or how a woman is grounded, so it’s weird that you’d expect me to know that information about men…
all i’m saying is that normally, if you’re comparing two things, one of which is fragile and easily broken while the other is more sturdy, in most cases people would describe the sturdier ones as “grounded”.
I’m not sure but it sounds as if you’re saying that women are fragile and easily broken, whereas men are more sturdy? If so, I’d just like to add that there are many different ways to define sturdy, and to exhibit strength. So while there are certain situations in which men may be more enduring, there are likewise areas in which women are the stronger sex. Speaking in generalities, that is.
I’ll be interested to hear Pandora explain better what she means by a “grounded” sense of “self.”
the context of what i’m saying is pretty explicit if you read our conversation.
“Because a woman would experience “a loss of part of self” when trying to detach her emotions (being completely objective and rational) when dealing with a personal problem, which implies that how men and women see and deal with their personal problems (their self) is different. It makes me think that man’s sense of self may not be as grounded as a woman’s when he is able to just “put it aside”. (…or it’s different)” ← Pandora
She’s saying here that a woman loses part of herself doing something that a man wouldn’t lose a part of himself doing. That’s specifically what I was referring to.
Thanks for clarifying. I’d still like to understand why Pandora believes “a woman would experience a loss of part of self” in being objective and rational. What does that even mean…?
Pandora I’m at a loss to understand losing self-ness simply because men and women have different ways of thinking. Both sexes are capable of empathy as well as pragmatic logical thinking. A man is capable of shedding tears and a woman can be more “logical” than any man.
Yesterday, Og went out hunting and broke the stone point on his spear. He came home empty handed and his family didn’t eat yesterday. He put an old point on his spear but it wasn’t as good as the one he broke. Today, he is sitting on a rock thinking about spear point design and the techniques necessary to produce a superior point. His mate and two children sit in the mouth of the cave, hungry and waiting. Finally, his mate asks why he isn’t out hunting. His explanation that he is busy designing a new point isn’t what she wants to hear. “OK, you have the old point and it will kill something. Get your ass out there and find something to eat for your hungry family. You can design your new spear point when we have full bellies.” Og may be predisposed to thinking in “project” terms, but it is his mate who is being pragmatically logical. “Food first, idiot!” Men may be capable of abstract thinking, but I’ll side with the pragmatic logic of women any day.
I think calling my thinking cracked and backwards is a violation of the forum rules.
Apparently, you believe nature is nothing, nurture is everything. Have any basis for that?
Again (i.e., as months ago), you somehow equate the prevailing of the “mind” over the “heart” with an absence of “heart”. Now as then, I stress that they are not the same.
And to answer your question anyway: No, a man (or woman) without “heart” would be a psychopath, and psychopathy is a sign of poverty (“heart” is a fitness indicator). I am sketching the case of a man with a great “heart”, whose great “mind” however prevails over it. The Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ.
Nature isn’t nothing. My point is that oppression sits on people so heavily that they can be made to believe that certain attributes are inherent to humans when they are actually the result of deep hurts and distress. Thus, boys can be made to give up and suppress their feelings; and girls can be made to give up and suppress their thinking. In fact, all humans are born capable of feeling and thinking without conditions or limits. You may have noticed that infants and children are treated differently according to gender. Girls are held more, treated more gently and caringly, and allowed to have feelings, while boys are held less, treated more roughly, and forced to tough it out more. This all stems from sexism and homophobia, by the way, which are essential in keeping the greater societal economic system in place, one which is brutally oppressive, inhuman, and designed to keep wealth and power distributed unequally.
It kind of creeps me out to think of heart and mind in such clinical darwinist terms, as fitness indicators. It has a nazi-like smell to it. Also, I think that Christ consciousness involves both heart and mind (as nous) irrespective of the kind of consciousness required to be a Roman Caesar, which I would consider to be psychopathic in that a Caesar would have to give up his humanity in order to force the oppression of empire down people’s throats.
Men don’t detach themelves from the situation as they are never as emotionally involved as women in the first place. Women are carried along by their emotions - like leaves in a river - not dispassionate observers of the river itself.
This is about physical nature and how a woman’s slighter build and feminine essence makes her less grounded in material reality and more driven by the emotional currents of her internal biology which are far stronger than a mans given her evolutionary role. Hence, she is poorer at all tasks that require a physical interaction with the environment than a man.
In order to be pragmatic and detached you must have a strong sense of self in the first place otherwise you will lose touch with reality and your judgments and observations will devolve into solipsism. When you say women are more in touch with their ‘sense of self’ I think you are simply saying that they are more emotional than men. Women do not really possess a ‘self’ or a marginal one at best, as even this is a concept created by men, as all theories of the mind have been.
Hence a man does not ‘objectify’ his self, he objectifies the world, since other selves are part of this world they also become objects for study.
The modern economic system exists entirely because it protects women, gays and blacks from the consequences of their actions and their natures. It is the white man who makes concessions to these groups for his own economic betterment and convenience.
But eventually nature will have to be heeded, as cultural and genetic decline inevitably sets in, and one must act to redress the imbalance.
How would I know, I’ve never been a woman. I also have no idea whether my experience of self is alike or different from anyone else’s. How could I…? I can suspect of course, and find similarity through converse with others, but cannot know.
We are all unique and special snowflakes, but cannot take credit for it. What individuality we possess stems mostly from initial genetic variety, and the simple property of having occupied the particular positions in space and time that we have found ourselves to occupy ever since we came into existence.
The self anyway, to me, is not a thing so much as a cipher through which life is lived, like the filter on a camera, but er, with more dimensions and hmm, legs perhaps.
Pandora,
I don’t necessarily think that a woman experiences a ‘loss of part of self’ when it comes to detaching her emotions, Pandora, though at first, it might appear to seem that way. Anyway, I see this event as an ‘individual’ thing. A man who is aware and honest would probably have the same experience as a woman who is aware and honest. I think any ‘individual’ who tries to ‘detach’ to ‘let go’, actually experiences more of his/her true self because they become more ‘centered’ and have an experience of becoming freer.
Humpty,
It’s being more grounded because we are losing the false self. Becoming ‘centered’ is not self-centered as in vain. And when we lose that false sense of self, though we are ‘grounded’ we are more apt to soar because we are freer. We need to learn to walk before we can fly.
I tend to think that it’s somewhere in the middle. If we are aware of our own fragility, we are more apt, or may be more apt, to ‘pay attention’, to use reason and logic; both man and woman are capable of using it or not, in order to avoid those pitfalls, like the tree that sways and bends in a storm. The tree that ‘thinks’ itself as so sturdy may be the one that breaks or is uprooted from the ground.
seems like ur contradicting yourself. you start off by saying “I think any ‘individual’ who tries to ‘detach’ to ‘let go’, actually experiences more of his/her true self because they become more ‘centered’ and have an experience of becoming freer,” but then you say that the sex (male) who’s better able at detaching and letting go is less in touch with his/her true self and is less grounded…
women also apparently have a hard time remaining logically consistent apparently.
I don’t see much difference in the way[s] men and women come to a logical conclusion. Perky boobs or a big ol’ ding dong will pretty much shut down any logical train of thought, after that anything left to talk about seems to become trivial. Profound? 
Humpty"
Point out to me where I say that the male, in being able to detach and let go, is less in touch with his true self and is less grounded? I said that both male and females, as individuals, are capable of this. Why do you see it as a negative that man can do this?
When I said this: ‘The tree that ‘thinks’ itself as so sturdy may be the one that breaks or is uprooted from the ground’. I wasn’t referring to men per se but to any ‘individual’ - both man and woman 
- who does not at times see their self as capable of breaking down. If men and women as ‘individuals’ are ‘aware’ of their true self, they will realize that they can at one and the same time, be weak and strong. And that is being logical.
The key word here I think is awareness and men Do become more in touch with their true self and stronger and more grounded when they know they are capable of both being strong and weak and act on that. And sometimes it is the stronger man or woman who is willing/not afraid to show their vulnerability, though not necessarily acting on it. Perhaps it is even the man who ought to be more aware of this since ‘individuals’ have been conditioned unfortunately to expect inner strength and logic and reasoning more from him, which is just plain silly. And thus a man may be betrayed through not only his own conditioning, but his own myth of self. Let’s see the whole picture. Tell me, is a man or a woman any less or more human than the other to you? Does psychology have the final word or one’s own becoming… and transcendence. That is where the Self lies.
Where is that Not logical or reasonable?
And again I regret to have given you a forum for your ungrounded assertions.
Yes, reality creeps you out.
Ah, the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy!
Yes, that’s how you think: black and white: the Christ is all good, the Caesar is all evil/bad. Like I said, I regret to have given you a forum for your mere opinions.