Well, you are introducing something very different here. The Church is a body, an assembly, of many individuals, both male and female. A Church of MAN does not include the female.

As indivdiduals both men and women discover the fullness of their being, both by establishing a relationship with their spouse and by embracing that of the opposite gender within themselves (see Jung on this).

You keep looking at the relationship as if it were only one way. Man establishing a relationship with his wife/feminine side. You keep neglecting the equally important converse of woman establishing a relationship with her husband/masculine side.

It has to go both ways. Otherwise the woman is not a full person---only a tool for the self-development of the man. One does not consider a tool to be the equal of the tool-maker or tool-user.


Symbolically, yes. I don't subscribe to literal interpretations of biblical mythology. I disagree with the division of form and essence along gender lines. In the first place it is untrue to Plato's philosophy. The form IS the essence. The corresponding term to form is matter, not essence. Matter is the body, form is the spiritual essence.

In the second place, I disagree with Plato anyway. I prefer Aristotle's concept of essence as including both form and matter. And I would say that all three: matter, form and essence are human rather than gendered. That is to say that there is one human essence (or form) in two natures, masculine and feminine. And physically, there is one human material (genome) in two variants, male and female.


Well, duh! Of course. But they should also realize that the conceptions we assign to those terms are not correct. We traditionally say males are aggressive. But many males are not aggressive and many females are. We traditionally say females are nurturing. But many females are not and many males are.

More important than men being men and women being women is both men and women exploring what it means to be human, fully human, and not being afraid to explore being human in ways that have traditionally been the preserve of the opposite gender. Let men be men cuddling a baby as well as throwing a football. Let women be women playing the stock market as well as playing bingo.


Oh I disagree profoundly. God made the masculine as well as the feminine to be good. Jesus' masculine side was just as good as his feminine side. Would you not say that goodness, whether in men or in women, comes from a balance of the male and female within, while the repression or exaggeration of one nature is what leads to problems?



I think we need to recover reverence for the feminine, for that has been repressed under patriarchy while man has been extolled. So, if you mean, the feminine is revered more in comparison with past and current practice, I agree.

But not if you mean the feminine should be revered more than the masculine in an absolute sense. It is balance and equality we are looking for, not an ascendant of the female over the male, which would be as bad as the ascendancy of the male over the female has been.


LOL, yes that is how it usually works. But I also hear women laying a lot of blame on men for their problems too, when it isn't deserved. Yes, I can see the dragon/church as male/female---as a representation of patriarchy, for example, when the male represses the female and forces it into hiding. (e.g. by saying "man" when one means "man and woman" or "human". The female is hidden and not allowed a visible face.) But I do not like the gendering of abstractions such as truth and goodness. These belong to both genders. It is dividing them and assigning them to one gender only that creates false stereotypes.


Again, I would not gender "intellect" and "emotion". These belong to both genders and it is the false assignation of them to one gender only that supports patriarchy. The attribution of "intellect" to males and "emotion" to females provided an excuse for excluding women from education, business and participation in politics. They were seen as "too emotional" and "too irrational" to be trusted in these fields. At the same time, it put pressure on men not to be seen as "emotional" since that was considered "womanly" and "weak".

What we need to do is tear down these false stereotypes and insist that intellect is just as feminine as it is masculine and that strong men can be both manly and emotional at the same time.

On the other hand, I rather like the analogy that the man can only ascend as high as the woman and the woman can only go as deep as the man. That is a great encouragement for men to develop their emotional side, so that both partners can go deeper, and for women to develop their intellectual nature so both partners can go higher.

I don't think women would have a problem with either development. But the social structure of patriarchy makes it very difficult for men. Many men fear intellectual development in women, seeing it as a threat to them, rather than an aid. Many men also fear probing their emotional life, seeing it as a form of emasculation. Depth scares them. They want only to ascend the heights.

Which brings up another point. We need to learn to value depth (and the darkness associated with depth) as much as we value higher things (and the light associated with intellect, reason, truth, etc.)

Long ago, Bishop John Robinson published a little book called Honest to God. It is still available in many bookstores and most libraries. He introduced the concept of God as "ground of our being" largely to get away from the notion that God'dess is always "up there" or "out there" someplace. God'dess as our depth, our source, as dwelling deep in our interior being is a necessary balance to God'dess as lord above, ruler, monarch, soveriegn, lawgiver, judge, etc. And it is a concept with much affinity to the feminine side of God'dess.


to be continued...

....continued

The sea is a symbol of chaos and disorder, of what is not ruled by God'dess. When all is brought into the reign of God'dess then symbolically there is no more sea. (I certainly hope there will still be a literal sea. Can you imagine Paradise without a sea to swim in, without coral reefs to explore, without a beach to find clams in, without a place for seals and penguins and whales and fish and all the other inhabitants of 75% of the surface of the earth?)


If there are no people on earth there is no need for a representative New Jerusalem on earth. For who would the representation be for? Why would the ultimate realization of God be limited to heaven and not include earth?

Let me explain more of where I am coming from here. I am a Christian, so for me, the biblical revelation is normative. In the bible, heaven is not an ethereal other dimensional abstraction. It is not situated in eternity. It is part of creation (made on the second day in the creation account in Genesis 1.) It is as much a part of the natural world as the earth.

YHWH was originally a Sky God, who had an earthly feminine counterpart. As patriarchy displaced the balanced worship of masculine and feminine deities with worship of a single masculine deity, the dwelling place of deity became limited to the sky (=heaven) and earth was seen to be merely for humans, for animals, and devoid of sacredness.

But that is not how it was in the beginning. The bible depicts both heaven and earth as created entities. Heaven has no priority over earth. It is the dwelling places of celestial bodies like the sun and stars, and the dwelling place of gods like YHWH and the angels. And at the end as well, heaven and earth are brought together in renewal. For it is not a matter of "going" to heaven, since the heaven that is is not the heaven that will be. Both earth and heaven will be made new.

If heaven is a place of perfection now, why is a new heaven needed? If our destiny is to "go to heaven" what is a new earth for?

The idea of going to heaven suggests that it is only in heaven we can find God. And that may be true of the god of patriarchy. But the God'dess of Christianity, biblical Christianity, is a God'dess of heaven and earth both, and is to be found both in heaven and on earth. No part of the universe was created to be temporary. An eternity of heaven alone would lack half of creation. The aim of God'dess is not to throw away the earth and bring us all into heaven, but to restore the fullness of heaven and earth as they were first created with God'dess at home equally in both.

Symbolically, now, heaven alone is the dwelling place of God'dess, but we look to the day that the earth will be re-united to heaven and become also the dwelling place of God'dess so that God'dess dwells among us as s/he once did with Adam and Eve. That is the meaning of the petition in the Lord's prayer "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

But doesn't mankind itself denote humanity as whole? Of course if you want to get technical about it, you can't even use the word humanity, without incorporating the word man right in the middle of it.

Actually if you look at it in terms of a man being only a half a human being (male/female), and a woman being only a half a human being (female/male), then the only way we can truly have one human being, is when the two are united and become as one ... "and the two shall become flesh." Isn't this in effect what Adam and Eve were supposed to represent in relation to each other, one human being?

Well, in a patriarchal society where would you say the problem lies? In the way men relate to women or, in the way women relate to men? In which case I would suggest that unless men, since, they continue to maintain the upperhand here, can be persuaded to redress the way they acknowledge women or, lack thereof, things aren't going to change a whole lot.

If you refer to chapter 3 of my book, I suggest that there are six elements which go into the marital relationship, where the first four correspond the masculine and the feminine in both the man and the woman (comparable or, representative to their parents), and the fifth and sixth correspond to the husband (5) and wife (6) which, culminate into the seventh aspect, the marriage itself (7). While perhaps you can see that by representing it this way, nothing is left lacking in terms of the masculine and feminine side in both men and women. In fact both of these aspects must be developed fully in order to achieve the type of (spiritual) relationship I'm speaking about here.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well if you understood that good and truth are correlatives and can't exist without each other, then you would understand that good is what predominates in the woman and truth is what predominates in the man. Which isn't to say a man has his lessor aspect of good (feminine side) and a woman her lessor aspect of truth (masculine side).

Have you seen my thread on Good vs Truth?

However, we mustn't mistake a genetic predispostion from what's been culturally impressed upon us.

Yes, I agree, men and women have plenty that they can learn from each other. However, you still can't say that men and women aren't (typically) predisposed to behave in a certain way.

However, that isn't to say the truth predominates with the masculine and the good predominates with the feminine. "Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence)."

Can't you see that without the essence (which, gives rise to the form), the form would be nothing but an empty shell? Where is the good in that? Where is the good in a can of beans if the can were empty?

Essentially, yes.

As I mentioned in chapter 4 of book, the man's intellect by itself is not trustworthy, nor is the woman's will by itself capable of being ruled over. This is why we have these offsetting qualities in ourselves, in order to balance these tendencies out. Otherwise there would be no point in promoting their equality or, balance.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What about the "beast out of the sea" in Revelation 13? You do realize that this was a vision someone had while they were in the spirit don't you? So what else can it possibly entail, except a sea that exists in the spiritual world? While I suppose that by "sea" it can refer to a "sea of humanity," in which case it might also suggest the collective unconscious, and possibly refer to some form of mass movemovement (political, religious or otherwise) here on earth. However, our unconscious mind is also represented by water, in its various forms. This, I believe is why the Greeks had such an affinity for their gods of the depths, not to mention that they were a sea-faring people.

Yes, what would be the point in us being here if there were no conjunction with heaven? If we don't learn anything (good or bad) what are we to take with us? However, I do understand that those who die as little children are automatically received into heaven, as reiterated by what follows ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Where exactly is it then?

Well the earth is sacred in sense that it's what gave birth to to us which, is why we call it Mother Earth. Yet, like the young salmon which swim out to the sea (hmm ...), it's only a place of departure.

In other words you're speaking of heaven in terms of the physical universe which, I can hardly agree with.

Why is a new heaven needed? Because times change and people change and, in order to keep current and in sync, a new heaven and earth (which, exists directly as a part of that heaven) needs to be created in order to replace the more ancient heavens which now exist above it.

Life on this planet is temporary. Death is permanent. So if there is no life after death, then nothing is permanent, at least for us anyway.

Yes, hopefully the earth below is in sync with heaven above, otherwise we'll be headed for disaster.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Started a new project which is keeping me busy, and we have a federal election this month that will keep me hopping as well.

No, "mankind" buries the idea of womankind. The old grammarians said it meant both genders, but they were all men and never consulted women about it. “Humanity” includes both. If we had to throw out whole words because of a syllable, we would have to ditch “woman” as well since it also contains “man”.

Exactly. But symbolically, it doesn’t necessarily mean one must have a spouse. Since there is femininity in a man and masculinity in a woman (we do have each other’s hormones even), the two can become one flesh, and the person can become whole, by finding the wo/man within, as well as through external contact.

Women should be able to be ambitious, to be good leaders and governors, without being thought of as self-masculinizing, without having to repress their femininity. Men should be able to be tender, compassionate, good, without being thought feeble, wimpy, effeminate, etc. They should be able to express their feminine nature without shame and without losing status and respect either in their own eyes or the eyes of others.

In the way men relate to women. In a patriarchy men hold power over women. Women do not hold power over men. Men hold power even if they choose not to exercise it. Even if they do not realize the power they hold.

It is not that long ago that it was perfectly legal for a man to discipline his wife physically, as if she were a child. It is still perfectly legal in many places for a man to rape his wife. Men still hold 98% of the real and financial property in the world. And this has consequences when it comes to credit, for it is still easier for a man to find the collateral to start a business or purchase a house than it is for a woman. Men still dominate the political arena. Only 16% of the US Congress is female. And men still dominate the business world.

Things are changing, but very slowly and unevenly.

The dominance of men in all the public positions of power has implications in private relationships as well. It sets expectations that the man is “head of the house” and “breadwinner”, while the woman is “caretaker of the house” and “nurturer” both of her husband and of her children. A man who is unable to support his family feels shame. A woman is blamed if the children get in trouble. When a marriage breaks down, the woman is expected to continue caring for the children and the man is expected to provide the funds.

And these expectations continue even when women are working outside the home. Most women with paying jobs still do the lion’s share of housework and childcare. Again, there is some change, but very little so far.

The way women relate to men is a reaction to the fact that men hold the power. Change the power relationships and women will respond differently.


Right on. Some things can be changed by legislation—like equal pay for the same or similar work. But mostly, it will take a change in attitude. Changes in the attitudes of both men and women.

I think you need to give a lot more emphasis to the fact that both men and women have these tendencies. And since both men and women have these tendencies, we should utterly STOP identifying them with one gender or the other. I vehemently object to the idea that the rational or intellectual side of human nature is the masculine side while the emotional or feeling side of human nature is the feminine side. Rationality and emotionality are NOT male or female qualities; they are HUMAN qualities.

It is this assigning of human qualities to one gender or the other that is the backbone of patriarchy and the privileging of the male in religion, politics, education and the home.

By assigning rationality or the intellect to the masculine, you imply that women cannot be rational or intellectual. Therefore, it is not worth wasting education on women as they will not benefit from the training of the intellectual faculties. Nor should we permit women to vote because their emotional outlook will interfere with a rational judgment of who is the best candidate. And naturally, women cannot manage business affairs competently, since they are too illogical and too tender-hearted to make sound business decisions.

Now, you, Iacchus, may not subscribe to any of this ridiculous nonsense. But many men do. Many women do. And for many, many centuries this idea that men are rational and women are not has justified the oppression of women.

Only a few centuries ago, men of the church, both Catholic and Protestant, held that women, because of the bias of their emotional nature and their lack of rational faculties, were especially susceptible to the wiles of the devil. And this explained why over 90% of those charged with witchcraft were women.

Read my rant again, carefully. It is this genderization of human qualities that has been used again and again to keep women “in their place” under a man’s power and tutelage. And the same basic reasoning has sustained racism and colonialism. And still does.

Another aspect of separating the human qualities by gender is that those assigned to the more highly valued gender are given greater status. Men have power. Men rule women, children, servants; men own the animals and the land. Men make all the principle decisions in society. So rationality, which is associated with maleness, is seen as very valuable, very good. It is highly prized. But emotions and feelings, which are associated with the weaker sex, are considered signs of childishness and weakness—especially in a man. Men are taught not to cry, not to express their feelings, not to let their emotions get out of control (which also is a code for not letting women get out of control).

But are emotions really that bad, that dangerous? Maybe we should consider that sometimes it is rationality that needs to be reigned in and brought under the control of the heart. Could people with true feelings for others ever have created the weapons systems which threaten us today, even after the Cold War is over? Rationality gave us MADness (Mutual Assured Destruction---the Cold War strategy of nuclear weapons). Only men who have been taught to repress their feelings could conceive of such a system as rational.

And now we are presented with a continuation of this mad rationality in ballistic missile defence. In times like these, what a great good it would be to have healthy emotions at the helm of state instead of a diseased rational intellect.

So, NO, NO, NO, NO----I do not agree that the masculine represents the rational and the feminine represents the emotional. Thousands of years of harm have been perpetrated on this earth against billions of people and against nature because of such associations. It is time, for our hope of survival, to end it.

To be rational is to be human. To be emotional is to be human. And the well-rounded human of either gender will develop both rationally and emotionally. The well-rounded human will NOT refer to emotion as “my feminine side”, because emotion will be restored to masculinity and be valued in both males and females. And intellect will be valued in both women and men. And good leadership will be seen to draw on both intellect and feeling.

That's fine. I wasn't sure how to respond to your post either, with so many things going on with me lately. Not always easy to find the right frame of mind so to speak.

However, at the risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself, you can't have an inside without an outside, and typically this is what the masculine and the feminine entail. The masculine represents the external aspect and the feminine represents the internal aspect. I also agree that both men and women have these tendencies, it's just that typically the masculine predominates more with the man, making him more external, and the feminine predominates more with the woman, making her more internal.

So yes, when you look at something from an outwardly sense, you're typically going to notice the masculine aspect which, is why it's not incorrect to refer to the human race in terms of man, because this is basically what you see. The problem is that it does nothing to belie what's beneath the surface, which is equally important if not more so. Indeed, what does the external life entail, if there was no internal life (life itself in other words) to give rise to it? Which is typically what women represent, in my opinion, the essence of man or, humanity.

Therefore, so long as we continue to focus on the outward appearance of things, through the likes of science, which is primarily a masculine discipline, with its focus on rationalism, and the rampant spread of materialism, both of which deny an inner reality, we will continue to forsake the feminine, which is not good for mankind or, womankind.

Sorry, that's about it for today. Will try and get back to it later, Okay?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Been even longer than I thought I would be. But most of the project is done and the election is only 2 weeks away now.


Who sez? Yes, there is an inside and an outside, but what makes one masculine and one feminine except centuries of oppressive patriarchal tradition? It's not nature, that's for sure.




Again, who sez? Why not be content with external/internal? Why weave masculine/feminine into it? Why does feminine have to be internal? Why does external have to be masculine? Why can we not have a four-fold order:

1 masculine-external
2 masculine-internal
3 feminine-external
4 feminine-internal

But when you say the "masculine" predominates in the man, what are you talking about? Testosterone predominates in a man and estrogen in a woman. But I don't think that is what you mean. You mean, do you not, that "rationality" predominates in the man, (or in the male gender), right?

Don't you see what an insulting slam that is to women?


Yes, it is incorrect. You see what you are taught to see. If you identify the external with the male, if you are taught to call it "man", that is what you will see. You do not "see" woman, or human, because you have buried her beneath a weighty slab of traditional concepts and language. This is oppression. It is man-made (and I mean "man"-made) not natural. This is what we have to un-make to restore the proper natural order and balance.

And a good first step is to stop hiding behind bad linguistic habits and name what is really there, not what we are told to see, and told to be blind to.

What is really there is not "man"; it is men and women both. It is "human". So say it. When we say it, we will begin to see it.


I certainly agree we must stop forsaking the feminine and begin to include it. But part of that inclusion must be an abandonment of confining womankind to her traditional roles such as "interior" "not rational" "non-scientific". Similarly we must stop confining men to the "exterior" and "rational". Women have a right to be just as external. materially oriented and rational as men are said to be; and men to be just as interior, spiritual and emotional as women are said to be.

Repudiating the pseudo-maleness and pseudo-femaleness of these qualities is the fundamental necessity. Let both men and women be fully human, not half-human.

ok. I'll check in when I can.

What elections are you referring to, if you don't mind me asking?

Might I suggest Mam, that the masculine and the feminine are the Yin and Yang which, are inter-twined throughtout all things, no matter what level you care to refer to? In other words even on the inside there's inside and out. So, if you look at it in that sense, the feminine -- is and always will be -- much more highly prized. In which case the mother gives rise to her masculine side (her son) who, ascends to the height of heaven (her intellectual side), who then rules the entirety of heaven itself ... which, is her feminine side or, daughter.

So, can you see the relationship between the Virgin Mary and Jesus who, ultimately assumes the head of the Church? ... and, is wholly contingent upon her "intellectual side?"

Men in general or more rational and women in general are more emotional. However, it doesn't suggest a thing except the possibility of neurosis, so long as we continue to maintain a "lop-sided" view and don't balance these tendencies out.

When you get right down to it men and women are essentially opposites (reciprocally that is), much like the two sides of a two-way street. Commerce cannot be exchanged freely unless allowed to flow in both directions.

Are men capable of getting pregnant and having babies? No. So he had better ensure that the borders are maintained and, begin to stack firewood. And, so long as the woman is free to help, she could do the same.

However, that's just not true.

I have no problem with women who have the inclination to do this, however, it usually comes at the expense of having and maintaining a family. But then again, given the circumstances of the day, it's almost a requirement that women should have to do this.

Men and women were meant to compliment each other, not become at odds with each other, nor were they meant to be "genderless." Now that isn't to say men can't become more like women "emotionally" and, women can't become more like men "intellectually," because if they don't, they will always be at odds with each other. However, their predominant tendencies will remain the same ... men will remain men and women will remain women.

Will see you then!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Canadian federal election. Very exciting for a change. First time in a decade that the Liberals are not sure to win. Nor are the Conservatives. Good chance of a minority government.



I know that is the tradition. But what is the basis of the tradition. Traditionally Yang is:
male
father
husband
elder
ruler
commander
general
emperor
rational
hard
aggressive
light
sun
day
dry
rough
firm


Now my question is why. What is Yang about "ruler"? What is masculine about "ruler"? What is Yang about "masculine"?

It makes sense to me to say that Yang is the opposite of Yin, male is the opposite of female and ruler is the opposite of subject. But why do we then tie male and ruler to Yang? And therefore ruler to male?

Why can a male not be Yin? Why can a ruler not be female?

Why are the trio of light/day/sun linked to the trio of Yang/male/ruler? What is male about a photon?

What makes sense to me is to permit each polarity to swing freely between the poles of other polarities. So light is sometimes Yang and sometimes Yin. The intellect can be either male or female. Both a woman and a man can rule and both can be subject to rule. Roughness and softness can be qualities of either gender.

Where is the logic in assigning such disparate qualities and social positions to one gender and not the other? The only thing that gives rise to is false perceptions, rigid gender roles and oppression for those who don't fit the norm.


Why? What reason is there for prizing the feminine higher than the masculine? I want to break the oppression of patriarchy. I don't want to replace it with the oppression of matriarchy. Masculinity deserves as much reverence as femininity. It just doesn't deserve more.


So a woman is saved in child-bearing? Thanks, but no thanks. Why does a woman have to be a mother to get respect? Does she not deserve respect for being herself? Do you know anything about the horrid lives of women in societies where they have no rights until they produce a son? In some societies, they even have no name until they give birth to a son. Then they are known as "so&so's mother". And if they do not produce a son, they can be divorced and thrown out with no support from the husband at all. Needless to say, in such a society there is no place at all for a single woman.

Why do you persist in denying women the freedom to choose how they will be women?



That is prejudice pure and simple. It is the basis for denying women education. It is the basis for denying women the right to manage their own financial affairs. It is the basis for denying women a role in public life. I know much has changed in this regard in North America, but it is still true in many other societies. And such prejudices are still strong even here. They are even strong among women.


No, they are not. Men and women are both human and have much more in common than otherwise. Yes, they are sexually reciprocal for reproductive purposes. But most of the so-called differences are a matter of learned socialization. Change the social rules and perspectives and you open new possibilities for both men and women. The sexual differences should not be exaggerated to the point of saying the genders are opposites in all respects. In most ways men and women are the same, not different.


Could you be more specific? What is not true?


So? What does that matter?

And I notice that no one ever raises this objection when we are talking about men's activities on the exterior. Why not? Why is it ok to separate a man from his children for 8 to 10 hours a day, but not ok in the case of a woman?

Don't children need fathers as well as mothers? Might children not be better off if both parents could spend 3-4 extra hours per day with the children while working outside the home only 5-6 hours? You know, prior to the industrial revolution, most men worked in or near their home. In the rural areas they worked on their farms. In the cities they worked in bakeries, cobbler shops, and grocery stores at street level while living in apartments above their place of business. So their children had ready access to their fathers all day, just as to their mothers. We can't turn back the clock, but perhaps we can turn it forward to provide men with more opportunities to maintain the family instead of placing the whole burden unfairly on women.


Just saw a newspaper report that young men are, in fact, spending more time with their children than their fathers did. And even accepting less pay to allow more time for the family.

I also notice that no one raises this objection when the woman is a sole-support parent who needs public assistance. Then, instead of insisting on the importance of a woman's role in maintaining a family, society flagellates her as irresponsible and even takes away the pittance given her if she chooses to look after her children instead of taking a job.

Oh don't be so namby-pamby. The point is to change the circumstances.


Agreed. But you are still evading the main issue. What does it mean for men to be men and women to be women? If it means maintaining the old restrictive gender stereotypes when there is no actual basis for them, if it means maintaining unjust social structures that harm women on the basis of these stereotypes, well then, maybe you should give more thought to what is really masculine and what is really feminine. How do you know your conclusions are not just traditional nonsense?

Well, I have never really been much into politics, to be honest.

Well the whole Yin and Yang process starts when the sperm strikes the ovum or, even before that, when mommy and daddy decided to get together. Oh my! And now we have little junior who begins spinning around inside his new environment like a little tadpole.

What, and change the nature of the Yin and Yang? You can't have it both ways.

What is male about the positive terminal of a battery supply? Because of the protons, which flow in the opposite direction of the electrons?

Well yes, in this respect everything vibrates (or oscillates), otherwise there would be no means to differentiate.

Mammary glands. And isn't it typical for most animals, mammals anyway, for the female to suckle and rear the young? While I'm afraid most men aren't designed that way. So, it does place the burden on the female in that sense.

Some people may prize the can the beans came in (truth), while typically that's what gets discarded and the beans themselves are what get consumed (good).

Yes, and this is why I'm glad I'm not a woman. Too many vulnerability issues, besides the fact that I hate being told what to do. Sounds like a pretty crappy deal if you ask me.

How rhetorical of you to say, much the like the rest of what you seem to be saying in this thread? By the way, anyone ever tell you you would make a great politician?

Whatever you say. However, I think it's totally irrational to deny that one has an inner-life or, feminine side. Which, is my main gripe against science by the way, which gets so caught up in its analysis, that it in effect shuns anything which is emotional, and won't acknowledge human beings as human beings.

Did you know that when working with electronics you can create virtually the same effect by working from opposite ends of the battery supply? You just have to realize that everything is polarized in the opposite sense, and may require different design parameters. And so it is with the differences between men and women, they are polarized in the opposite sense. I also hate to break the news to you, but if it wasn't for sex none of us would be here.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Only if you insist that Yang is male and Yin is female. Yang is Yang and Yin is Yin. Male is male and female is female. But that does not mean that Yang must be male.

Let's take some less controversial measures so you can see the picture more clearly.

On the temperature scale, hot is Yang and cold is Yin. On the humidity scale dry is Yang and wet is Yin.

Now we see that some things (e.g. desert sand) are both hot and dry. (Yang + Yang). And some things (e.g. ice) are both cold and wet (Yin + Yin).

But some things (e.g. steam) are hot and wet (Yang + Yin) and some things (e.g. cold air) are both cold and dry (Yin + Yang).

In short, when we compare the two scales (temperature and humidity) we get four possible combinations.

That is the way it ought to be when we compare gender with any other scale. We should get four, not just two, possible combinations.

So, when we compare gender and power we should not get only two combinations (male + ruler; Yang & Yang) and (female + subject; Yin & Yin), but two more combinations as well (male + subject; Yang & Yin) and (female + ruler; Yin & Yang).

Same if we are looking at psychology. We should get four combinations: (male + rational, female + emotional, male + emotional, female + rational). It is not logical to say only the first two combinations are possible. That is making a rule that you can only have Yang+Yang and Yin+Yin combinations and no Yang+Yin or Yin+Yang combinations.

That is like saying that only hot things can be dry or only dry things can be hot. You can never have hot things that are wet or dry things that are cold. We can see how silly that is when we look at things without gender. Why do we let such silliness become the norm when gender enters the picture?



No, not because of the protons. Protons have no gender. Because engineers (mostly men) decided to name the terminals in that way. For that matter why do we say protons have a positive charge and electrons a negative charge? No reason. Just because we had to give the opposite charges names to distinguish them and by the toss of a coin "postive" was given to one and "negative" to the other. We could just as easily have called the charge on an electron "white" and the charge on a proton "black". And then called the positive terminal the "black" terminal.




Sure we have to differentiate. But we don't have to assign pseudo-mystical meanings to the labels and then make pseudo-sociological analysis about male and female based on our labelling of differences---and even worse, legislate gender roles based on the pseudo-sociological analysis.

It is perfectly reasonable to differentiate male and female. It is perfectly reasonable to differentiate light from dark. But what is reasonable about saying light is male and dark is female?

Mammary glands are biology. But mammary glands don't impair a woman's ability to reason, to conduct business, to learn calculus or to drive a truck.
Just as having a penis does not impair a man's ability to love children, appreciate music, learn nutrition or knit booties.

Biology defines sexual and reproductive roles. There is no reason it should define social or professional roles. There is no reason biology should be an excuse for restricting either men or women to particular activities which can be done equally well by both genders.



But there is no reason to say the can is the truth while the beans are good. You can just as easily say the can is the good and the beans are the truth. And while one discards cans, one ought never to discard either truth or good.

After all truth is good and good is also truth. You can't have one without the other.


Of course it is irrational to deny that people have inner lives. But it is also irrational to say the inner life is feminine and not masculine. Just as it is irrational to say that hot must be dry and not wet or that wet must be cold and not dry. Inner and outer are a different frame of reference than male and female. Both male and female exist. Both inner and outer exist. But there is no reason to identify the poles of the two scales as if they were measuring the same thing.


But in electronics you are working with only one scale. When you start identifying every scale with sexual differences you are just getting silly. Worse, you are supporting a way of thinking that has consistently hemmed women in to a restricted role in social life both by custom and by law. And also deprived men of the richness of life in different ways.

It would be irrational to deny sexual differences where they are important as in reproduction and infant nutrition. But to extrapolate from that the idea that women are unfit to be editors of newspapers, doctors, firefighters, politicians, landowners, bankers, wrestlers, etc is even more irrational. Or to say it is shameful for men to prepare and serve food, wash floors, tend the sick, care for children, and any other sort of "women's work".

It is irrational to say women are not rational or to say men ought not to express their emotions. It is irrational to value women ONLY for their reproductive capacities when they have so much more to offer. It is even worse to ingrain this irrationality into social custom and law. Carried to the extreme, women end up being denied the right to show their face in public, or even to be in a public place without a suitable male escort (father, husband or other near male relative).

Sex is very important. As you say, none of us would be here without it! But there is no rationality in making it the measure of everything. Photons do not have gender. Temperature does not have gender. Inner and outer do not have gender. Goodness and truth are not defined by gender. God'dess does not have gender (or s/he has both genders--take your pick).

Given the history of patriarchy, any system of religion, philosophy or mysticism which rests on universalizing gender through what is not gender-related has to be treated as actually or potentially oppressive of women. And not good for men either. For the welfare of the oppressor is also impaired by the suffering of the oppressed, though that may not be immediately obvious.

About all I can tell you is that life is all about the play of opposites and, that the happy medium exists somewhere in between ... where, balance is the key.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hey, I can agree with that. All I am saying is that you don't have to tie every opposite to gender.

Recognize that we do have opposite genders---and isn't that great! But that other opposites (heat/cold, light/dark, inner/outer, public/private, aggressive/docile, tough/gentle, powerful/weak, etc.) are not gender-related.

History shows that when we tie all opposites to gender we end up imprisoning men and women both in roles to which they are not necessarily suited in terms of their personal temperament. And more often than not, we end up narrowing sharply the possibilities for women to develop their potential as human beings.

The problem here is that there's a difference beween differentiating between things and stereo-typing them. And, just because people are prone to stereo-typing -- and, I agree that they are -- should not preclude us from discerning the truth of the matter. So you have to be very careful when you start advocating change, so the whole thing doesn't flip-flop and swing completely in the opposite direction. But then again maybe that's unavoidable, considering people tend to be reluctant to change?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Hi, just another I idea I posted on another forum regarding Jesus being a homosexual ...

So perhaps you could see why I would suggest the wife is more highly favored in the relationship. Whereas if men were much more like God (the Husband), they would be far more dutiful and respectful towards their wives. And neither would it denigrate men to a lessor standing than women, since they're allowed to identify more directly with God (His masculine aspect), in which case it puts men and women on equal standing.

Heaven is all about the relationship between God and the Bride in other words, and expressly promotes that which is feminine or, that which is interior to our nature. Also, I think if people truly understood the relationship with religion, it would entail the notion of romantic love, where the husband and wife are joined most interiorly ... and become one flesh so to speak.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?