Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:I evade nothing.
Simply reporting the news.
Verify if you must.
Nuttin to prove, honey.

No, no, you are just misreporting falsehoods for your ilk sweetie.

Still, nice to know that you're not here to philosophise just churnalise. That explains your reluctance to answer questions, you must be the trumpette's biggest fan in this respect.

You see what you must see. However, coming from the horse’s mouth rather than your imagination, I’m not here to feed your rather strange, anti-intellectual habits of watery hand flutters and unsupported, knee-jerk nos that dispute the truth not, nor am I here to nurture/enable your aversions to research and thinking.

ForCruxSake wrote:

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: Care to share?

Not particularly. What exactly is the problem this time?

You're disinclination to answer a question asked of you. But thanks for the heads up, I know not to try engage you in future.

Ah now, you're moving the goalposts. As I get it, the original question was:

ForCruxSake wrote:Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

I say yup. You ask me to elaborate. I'm thinking I agree with the guy, why do I need to elaborate? Do we have to agree about every detail to agree?
We all engage others as suits us. Hitting some over the head may be cathartic, but is unlikely to advance any position. Arguing with those that essentially share your territory might reinforce it. In that light: what is your problem?

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

uwot wrote: Not particularly. What exactly is the problem this time?

You're disinclination to answer a question asked of you. But thanks for the heads up, I know not to try engage you in future.

Ah now, you're moving the goalposts. As I get it, the original question was:

ForCruxSake wrote:Had you stopped to consider that those women that led, were constrained by a system built over several generations by men, which during the more 'egalitarian' 2Oth century has been slow to change?

I say yup. You ask me to elaborate. I'm thinking I agree with the guy, why do I need to elaborate? Do we have to agree about every detail to agree?

I took your 'yup' literally, as an affirmation, that you had considered it, not that you agreed. Your answer in response to VT's comment, about women being just as useless at leadership as men, elicited a response that suggested you thought anyone who thought they should lead was probably ill-qualified. I was swinging the point back round to what I think she had originally replied to, which was that women might well be useless in a structure for governance developed over centuries by men.

Your answer didn't suggest you would agree with me or not. It was a little 'off-piste'. I just wondered what you thought. I don't know why you would think that I would assume you agree with me, on such a short response? You haven't said very much either way. It's why I asked. You can seem a little enigmatic.

Back to your 'yup'.... With what I am coming to expect of those on this forum, when coupled with 'What's your problem?' (when I asked you to elaborate), I then thought your 'yup' was a churlish 'yes, I have considered it... bugger off!'. It was a Hobbes' or Harbal moment.

uwot wrote:We all engage others as suits us. Hitting some over the head may be cathartic, but is unlikely to advance any position.

Is that advice... or criticism...about the way I have come to exchange with VT?

I came to the forum to discuss, to learn. I am quite capable of having a pleasant exchange with those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine. I try not to judge. I can be a little self-righteous when I see people hounding, or bullying , others, hijacking a conversation I am in, to do it. I also tend to speak my mind, as civilly as I can, unless my ears are bleeding. Consequently, I am aware that two forum members have targeted me. I'm assuming VT decided I needed teaching a lesson and has appeared wherever I have posted. The nature of her exchanges have been continually pugnacious, and personal. I felt I was being trolled. It escalated.

It isn't cathartic, it's an exercise in self-control. On one thread, I lost it. It's also creative. I had no idea I could insult so colourfully. A lifetime being polite has come unhinged. I imagine it's entertainment for some. I don't know. I just felt the need to defend myself.

uwot wrote:Arguing with those that essentially share your territory might reinforce it. In that light: what is your problem?

Was I arguing with you? Is it even argument if someone is reinforcing your view? I simply asked you to expand on what you might have thought, without assuming you would necessarily agree with me. My problem? You didn't answer.

Clearly you have now, and you say you agree with me but I'm still not sure what it is you agree with? That women could rule, given time to set their own way of governing? Or that ruling in a man's world is a handicap? What were you even agreeing with?

It would have been good to have my point of view reinforced. So far every one seems to have argued against the rule of women. I may well be paying Devil's advocate. I could be swayed either way depending on rationale. It's an open question.

ForCruxSake wrote:I took your 'yup' literally, as an affirmation, that you had considered it, not that you agreed. Your answer in response to VT's comment, about women being just as useless at leadership as men, elicited a response that suggested you thought anyone who thought they should lead was probably ill-qualified.

That was a joke. All sorts of people get into the power game, for all sorts of reasons; some good, some bad. It is certainly true that many men have made it difficult for women to exercise political power, but then it has traditionally been difficult for men lacking privileged backgrounds to gain power. As women have faced, and still face an extra hurdle, one has to admire the determination of many of the women who have achieved power; but there isn't much, in my view, which indicates that women exercise power any better or worse than men.

ForCruxSake wrote:I was swinging the point back round to what I think she had originally replied to, which was that women might well be useless in a structure for governance developed over centuries by men.

I didn't get that sense. I think it should be fairly clear that women have made, and continue to make, positive changes to that structure.

ForCruxSake wrote:Back to your 'yup'.... With what I am coming to expect of those on this forum, when coupled with 'What's your problem?' (when I asked you to elaborate), I then thought your 'yup' was a churlish 'yes, I have considered it... bugger off!'.

I suppose it was. It seem like an impertinent question.

ForCruxSake wrote:It was a Hobbes' or Harbal moment.

Hmm.

ForCruxSake wrote:Clearly you have now, and you say you agree with me but I'm still not sure what it is you agree with? That women could rule, given time to set their own way of governing?

Cripes! Not that. What makes you think there is a ladies' way and a gentlemen's way?

ForCruxSake wrote:Or that ruling in a man's world is a handicap?

It's more a plutocrat's world, but true enough, most of those are men.

ForCruxSake wrote:What were you even agreeing with?

You seem like a reasonable bloke; it didn't occur to me that you might have such, to me, at least, odd views about the role of gender in politics.

ForCruxSake wrote:It would have been good to have my point of view reinforced. So far every one seems to have argued against the rule of women. I may well be paying Devil's advocate. I could be swayed either way depending on rationale. It's an open question.

It's not even a question, in my view.

ForCruxSake wrote:I also tend to speak my mind,

It wouldn't hurt to check that there's something in it worth saying before you do.

I had no idea I could insult so colourfully.

Beige?

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I took your 'yup' literally, as an affirmation, that you had considered it, not that you agreed. Your answer in response to VT's comment, about women being just as useless at leadership as men, elicited a response that suggested you thought anyone who thought they should lead was probably ill-qualified.

That was a joke. All sorts of people get into the power game, for all sorts of reasons; some good, some bad. It is certainly true that many men have made it difficult for women to exercise political power, but then it has traditionally been difficult for men lacking privileged backgrounds to gain power. As women have faced, and still face an extra hurdle, one has to admire the determination of many of the women who have achieved power; but there isn't much, in my view, which indicates that women exercise power any better or worse than men.

Thank you for this. It feels gift wrapped, compared to 'yup'.

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:I was swinging the point back round to what I think she had originally replied to, which was that women might well be useless in a structure for governance developed over centuries by men.

I didn't get that sense. I think it should be fairly clear that women have made, and continue to make, positive changes to that structure.

I was only offering that up to counter everyone saying that women can be just as bad as men. You're right, but it's still a system controlled and structured, largely by men.

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:Back to your 'yup'.... With what I am coming to expect of those on this forum, when coupled with 'What's your problem?' (when I asked you to elaborate), I then thought your 'yup' was a churlish 'yes, I have considered it... bugger off!'.

I suppose it was. It seem like an impertinent question.

Asking you to share your thoughts? If not here, on a philosophy forum, then where?

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:It was a Hobbes' or Harbal moment.

Hmm.

"Hmm"??? Care to share?

uwot wrote: Cripes! Not that. What makes you think there is a ladies' way and a gentlemen's way?

Did you not read the Guardian article that started this thread, about the small community in Tibet where women have developed their own form of governance. Men get to benefit from it, in that they are not tethered to one 'mate'. Relationships last as long as they last. It's different, and I did put that down to women setting the rules... but now you've got me thinking, it may well be influenced by their 'Tibetan-ness', or the environment in which they live... Still, it's women who make the rules, so it must be in part determined by generations of the way women think.

uwot wrote: You seem like a reasonable bloke;

I'm not your typical 'bloke'.

uwot wrote:it didn't occur to me that you might have such, to me, at least, odd views about the role of gender in politics.

You don't think men and women think differently? Or prioritise in different ways?

uwot wrote: It's not even a question, in my view.

Typical bloke.

Walker wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

Walker wrote:Well presented viewpoints with narry a question.

Thank you.

Walker wrote:I have a feeling you're American, at least in spirit, which is where it begins.

No, thank you.

That explains why you're clueless about President Trump.

We are not clueless about Trump! Well, not as clueless as the people who voted him in...

ForCruxSake wrote: Thank you for this. It feels gift wrapped, compared to 'yup'.

My pleasure.

ForCruxSake wrote:Asking you to share your thoughts? If not here, on a philosophy forum, then where?

'Care to share?' is fighting talk, where I'm from.

ForCruxSake wrote:"Hmm"??? Care to share?

Nope.

ForCruxSake wrote:Did you not read the Guardian article that started this thread, about the small community in Tibet where women have developed their own form of governance.

Rumbled.

ForCruxSake wrote:Men get to benefit from it, in that they are not tethered to one 'mate'. Relationships last as long as they last. It's different, and I did put that down to women setting the rules... but now you've got me thinking, it may well be influenced by their 'Tibetan-ness', or the environment in which they live... Still, it's women who make the rules, so it must be in part determined by generations of the way women think.

Maybe so. The thing is, the moment you attribute any characteristic to a contingent quality: gender, race, nationality, 'class', sexuality, religion and whatnot, there is a tendency for the hard of thinking to throw a bucket of either black or white paint over the whole group. However commendable a characteristic may be, some knuckle dragger will exploit it. You can make up any number of scenarios, one being that, yes women do have this cuddly nurturing quality, which is fine and dandy in the Himalayas, but it makes them weak and weepy in the boardroom. Which is precisely the sort of attitude women have to overcome here and now. Then you'll get the religious nuts who believe this community clearly needs a dose of their particular scripture. And then you'll get the troglodytes who will grunt that the men in the community, aren't 'real men'.

ForCruxSake wrote:I'm not your typical 'bloke'.

Well that explains everything. My apologies, sir.

ForCruxSake wrote:You don't think men and women think differently? Or prioritise in different ways?

What, all of them? There have been a number of trials which claim to show how specific attributes are spread across different groups; 'It's in the genes' is the usual trope. Hans Eysenck always springs to mind. Even when the results confirm the anecdotal evidence, the distribution is your usual Bell-curve. In other words, what ever may be true of the group tells you nothing about any individual so identified. The information, even if true, only serves to reinforce stereotypes.

ForCruxSake wrote:Typical bloke.

Hmm.

ForCruxSake wrote: it may well be influenced by their 'Tibetan-ness', or the environment in which they live... Still, it's women who make the rules, so it must be in part determined by generations of the way women think.

uwot wrote:Maybe so. The thing is, the moment you attribute any characteristic to a contingent quality: gender, race, nationality, 'class', sexuality, religion and whatnot, there is a tendency for the hard of thinking to throw a bucket of either black or white paint over the whole group. However commendable a characteristic may be, some knuckle dragger will exploit it. You can make up any number of scenarios, one being that, yes women do have this cuddly nurturing quality, which is fine and dandy in the Himalayas, but it makes them weak and weepy in the boardroom. Which is precisely the sort of attitude women have to overcome here and now. Then you'll get the religious nuts who believe this community clearly needs a dose of their particular scripture. And then you'll get the troglodytes who will grunt that the men in the community, aren't 'real men'.

It's so cute to see the PC twisting themselves into knots to not 'generalise', but they just can't help themselves. No one can.
Oh yes, the old 'real men'. I do recall one particularly PC male on here who insists that there is no such thing as gender (apparently humans are just colourless, genderless blobs of flesh) or cultural habits and mind-sets, describing someone as not a 'real man'. I wonder who that was? And I wonder what he meant by that?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's so cute to see the PC twisting themselves into knots to not 'generalise'...

uwot wrote:Maybe so. The thing is, the moment you attribute any characteristic to a contingent quality: gender, race, nationality, 'class', sexuality, religion and whatnot, there is a tendency for the hard of thinking to throw a bucket of either black or white paint over the whole group.

Quite so, vegetariantaxidermy, I should have added 'the PC'.

uwot wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It's so cute to see the PC twisting themselves into knots to not 'generalise'...

uwot wrote:Maybe so. The thing is, the moment you attribute any characteristic to a contingent quality: gender, race, nationality, 'class', sexuality, religion and whatnot, there is a tendency for the hard of thinking to throw a bucket of either black or white paint over the whole group.

Quite so, vegetariantaxidermy, I should have added 'the PC'.

You've displayed your point well, by providing another group someone here seems to be throwing black paint over. I like that.

uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: Thank you for this. It feels gift wrapped, compared to 'yup'.

My pleasure.

ForCruxSake wrote:Asking you to share your thoughts? If not here, on a philosophy forum, then where?

'Care to share?' is fighting talk, where I'm from.

Where are you from? Where I come from it's a prompt to show that someone isn't actually bored of what you've said so far.

Uwot wrote:The thing is, the moment you attribute any characteristic to a contingent quality: gender, race, nationality, 'class', sexuality, religion and whatnot, there is a tendency for the hard of thinking to throw a bucket of either black or white paint over the whole group. However commendable a characteristic may be, some knuckle dragger will exploit it. You can make up any number of scenarios, one being that, yes women do have this cuddly nurturing quality, which is fine and dandy in the Himalayas, but it makes them weak and weepy in the boardroom. Which is precisely the sort of attitude women have to overcome here and now. Then you'll get the religious nuts who believe this community clearly needs a dose of their particular scripture. And then you'll get the troglodytes who will grunt that the men in the community, aren't 'real men'.

It's a good point, well made but it shouldn't stop you from attempting to explore how, and if, those contingent qualities hold any meaning for a circumstance or event. The fact the hard-of-thinking may hit things over the head with a club of generalised stupidity, shouldn't stop you from thinking, if you're not hard-of-thinking. That's why I put up the post. It sounds like you are avoiding having your own take on the subject by dragging up other people's possible takes on it.

Uwot wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:You don't think men and women think differently? Or prioritise in different ways?

What, all of them? There have been a number of trials which claim to show how specific attributes are spread across different groups; 'It's in the genes' is the usual trope. Hans Eysenck always springs to mind. Even when the results confirm the anecdotal evidence, the distribution is your usual Bell-curve. In other words, what ever may be true of the group tells you nothing about any individual so identified. The information, even if true, only serves to reinforce stereotypes.

That a group anywhere in the world has developed an organised way of running a community, based on the rule of women, deserves investigation or exploration. I get that you are scientific in your approach to thinking, but the way you express yourself suggests you have a less than rigid, 'on point' way of thinking. You seem a little bit more able to let yourself go in the way you write. All I'm asking is for *your* opinion on what may be going on, not a correct observation.

You mentioned earlier about women having to overcome ideas of feminine conduct in the boardroom. Women are different in the boardroom to how they may show their true selves in any other form of contact. The rules of how to conduct yourself in business has been defined by men. That's not a criticism. Whilst women were in the home over many generations, men ran business. My original hope for the post was that people might think in an original way. Be a bit creative about what the world would be like if those rules were reversed and the rules had been, or were, set by women.

Clearly not the forum for this kind of thinking. Many people here don't think. They fight and, in fighting, resist thinking. I just want a bit of colour beyond the usual crap that takes place here.

ForCruxSake wrote:Where are you from?

A place northeast of Dorking called London.

ForCruxSake wrote:Where I come from it's a prompt to show that someone isn't actually bored of what you've said so far.

Then that is what I shall take you to mean.

ForCruxSake wrote:...if you're not hard-of-thinking.

I do my best.

ForCruxSake wrote:That a group anywhere in the world has developed an organised way of running a community, based on the rule of women, deserves investigation or exploration.

I have four sisters. Believe me, it's been done.
If anthropology is your thing, then absolutely; but it is a very small sample and one which, as the article suggests, is likely to disappear with no obvious resistance from the subjects.

ForCruxSake wrote:I get that you are scientific in your approach to thinking, but the way you express yourself suggests you have a less than rigid, 'on point' way of thinking. You seem a little bit more able to let yourself go in the way you write.

Force of habit. Or maybe my genetic/cerebral architecture. Nurture? Nature? Dunno. Even I find myself infuriating.

ForCruxSake wrote:All I'm asking is for *your* opinion on what may be going on, not a correct observation.

Well, the article doesn't put much meat on the bone. It would be interesting to know about their mythology and scientific theories. There are, or were, cultures that didn't equate sex with reproduction, I can't remember the details, but I think it was some Polynesian group, the men of whom would go exploring the South Pacific, come back a year or two later, thrilled that they were the father of a newborn. Paternity does complicate things, which, come to think of it, may be why Plato recommended that children be brought up communally in the Republic.

ForCruxSake wrote:You mentioned earlier about women having to overcome ideas of feminine conduct in the boardroom. Women are different in the boardroom to how they may show their true selves in any other form of contact.

What do you think that says about men in the boardroom?

ForCruxSake wrote:The rules of how to conduct yourself in business has been defined by men.

The rapacious and sociopathic, as a rule; please don't lump us all in with that lot.

ForCruxSake wrote:That's not a criticism. Whilst women were in the home over many generations, men ran business.

Well, one or two ran businesses. The rest did the dirty work, usually for as little as the boss could get away with paying. Others were piled up in front of machine guns so the people (usually, but not exclusively, men) with the crazy ideas didn't have to stop a bullet themselves.

ForCruxSake wrote:My original hope for the post was that people might think in an original way. Be a bit creative about what the world would be like if those rules were reversed and the rules had been, or were, set by women.

We can all wonder. The current experiment with liberal democracy was, and despite going a bit pear shaped at the moment, remains our best hope, in my opinion. It is the best defence we have against psychopaths running the place, but it really needs to be worked at.

ForCruxSake wrote:Clearly not the forum for this kind of thinking. Many people here don't think. They fight and, in fighting, resist thinking. I just want a bit of colour beyond the usual crap that takes place here.

Hmm. (And before you ask: no.)

ForCruxSake wrote:Ok, this scenario works for a small community, in Tibet, but I am wondering how it would impact on a global level? Could it be tweaked? Had it been a global precedent going back, say, a millenia, how might history have been affected?

This is a bit of creative exercise, one where those that post are asked to let themselves go a bit, have a bit of fun.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... plnews_d-2

This trend of men declaring that they are women, and then competing in women’s sports, sure does sound like a bias against women. Even high-schoolers, with all their wisdom of who they really are, are doing it.

Boys are saying they are girls, and then they are playing with the girls. And, they are winning.

Why not just skip all the drama and do away with male sports, and do away with female sports?

Just have, sports.

Why not?

Because. Women would lose most of the time, if not all the time.
That’s no fun for women.

It’s not even fun for men, because no guy brags about beating a girl in sports.

If women ruled the world, men would not be competing in sports against women simply because women would always get the booby prize.

Walker wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:Ok, this scenario works for a small community, in Tibet, but I am wondering how it would impact on a global level? Could it be tweaked? Had it been a global precedent going back, say, a millenia, how might history have been affected?

This is a bit of creative exercise, one where those that post are asked to let themselves go a bit, have a bit of fun.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... plnews_d-2

This trend of men declaring that they are women, and then competing in women’s sports, sure does sound like a bias against women. Even high-schoolers, with all their wisdom of who they really are, are doing it.

Boys are saying they are girls, and then they are playing with the girls. And, they are winning.

Why not just skip all the drama and do away with male sports, and do away with female sports?

Just have, sports.

Why not?

Because. Women would lose most of the time, if not all the time.
That’s no fun for women.

It’s not even fun for men, because no guy brags about beating a girl in sports.

If women ruled the world, men would not be competing in sports against women simply because women would always get the booby prize.

Now this is being creative! So thank you for that....But...it's reducing the rule of women to a question of sport. That physically, men can 'best' against a woman.

Surely society is about more than the physical force used to create it? Ruling is about being in control of the brute force not actually having to be the brute force?