questionreality

First of all, you keep describing your ayahuasca visions and symbolic interpretations as "direct firsthand experiences of the Feminine" but that’s not actually what "direct experience" means. What you experienced was internal imagery and emotional states, which you interpreted through the lenses of Yin/Yang, Jungian archetypes, mythology, Taoism, and your existing ideas about the feminine. That's a personal spiritual experience but it is not direct experience of some external metaphysical feminine principle. You interpreted the symbolic content (that your mind produced) through the frameworks you already believe in. This is no different than members of Santo Daime who claim to see and meet Jesus during their ayahuasca trips. They all interpret it as direct experience and contact with Jesus. In both these cases, the experience is internal, generated by the mind and is shaped by pre-existing beliefs and cultural symbols. The issue is that you are mixing an internal experience with an external metaphysical claim. (Just in case, I am not a materialist, have done my share of psychedelics including 5-meo, etc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And now back to the main point. You keep redefining "femininity" itself in a way that removes it entirely from the real world. You’ve shifted femininity from something observable in human behavior into a cosmic, mystical, archetypal force that only exists in symbolic visions and psychedelic states. That’s your personal metaphysical belief, and you’re free to hold it. But once you define femininity as: - non-empirical -unmeasurable -inaccessible to observation -rooted in altered states and mythology -something "culture gets wrong" by default -something only available through symbolic interpretation Then you’re no longer talking about femininity as it actually exists in human societies. You’re talking about a private spiritual cosmology. And that cosmology has no ability to explain or even acknowledge the very real cultural differences in feminine expression that my original point was about. It’s metaphysical, personal, and symbolic, which is fine, but it can’t be used to dismiss or override real-world patterns of femininity. So when you label cultural, behavioral femininity as "patriarchy costumes", what you’re really doing is rejecting anything that doesn’t fit your mystical model. I was talking about femininity as it shows up in actual women in actual cultures. You’re talking about femininity as an archetypal force that you experienced in your psychedelic journeys. Those two things are completely different, and it just means we’re discussing different subjects entirely - with respect.

You’re doing exactly what pseudo-intellectuals do when they get cornered: 1)You can’t refute the actual point, so you attack "21st century social science" as "neutered". 2)You dismiss rigor and clear definitions as narrow mindedness. 3)You collapse distinctions again because you need "essence = trait = characteristic" for your argument to survive. 4)Then you circle back to the same loaded question I already explained is a bad question. This isn’t good faith argumentation. It’s an attempt to drag me into your frame while refusing to define your own terms. Given that, I will not be engaging with you any further.

You’re trying to collapse two different categories ''traits" and "essence" as if they’re interchangeable, but they aren’t. Not in psychology, not in anthropology, and not in gender studies. A trait is measurable and statistical. An essence is metaphysical and universal. They are not commensurable unless you redefine both concepts to mean the same thing, which is exactly the word game you’re accusing me of. You asked for a list of "woman traits," which is a question that assumes women have some built in universal qualities. That’s why psychology doesn’t frame femininity that way. It’s a pattern of tendencies, not a built in essence. And calling my argument "pseudointellectual" or "feminine" is an example of rhetoric you use to avoid engaging with the distinction I made. If you continue to argue in bad faith and play word games, I will not be engaging with you any further.

The point isn’t that "woman" = a fixed list of traits. Psychology doesn’t treat femininity as an essence, it treats it as a set of traits and behaviors that correlate with women statistically and culturally, not universally or absolutely. Just like a height isn’t a "male essence" but men are taller on average Risk-taking isn’t "male essence" but men score higher statistically Agreeableness isn’t "female essence" but women score higher across cultures None of these mean "all men" or "all women", you understand? Femininity is the set of traits that cultures and psychological studies consistently associate with women more than men. So the question “Give me the list of woman traits” is already framing the topic incorrectly. It assumes femininity must be some metaphysical essence rather than a statistical set of traits historically associated with women

Yup that's a classic, I know what you mean

According to psychology femininity is defined as a set of gender typed traits, behaviors and preferences that tend to be statistically more common in women, but which both sexes can possess. Models such as BSRI, big five personality traits, and evolutionary psychology are used for this. And according to anthropology, it's what culture teaches a woman to be. Socially and culturally defined behaviors, norms, roles, and aesthetics associated with women. Not one empirical discipline defines femininity the way that she did, that's what I am saying.

That's not addressing my point at all though. You’ve shifted completely into your own mythological system where “femininity” is a cosmic force you experienced on psychedelics. That’s fine as a personal new age belief, but it has nothing to do with real world cultural or psychological femininity. Everything you've described such as mother nature battles, patriarchy as a war against hurricanes, ayahuasca revelations, stage green catabolic cycles, etc - is your symbolic world. These are subjective experiences, not objective data. Thus they can not be universal explanation for gender expression. You are basically treating your personal spiritual experiences as if they’re objective truths that override observable cultural patterns. You can’t just redefine femininity as a mystical force, then dismiss real world differences between women in various societies as “patriarchy costumes” because it doesn’t fit your cosmology

That's a good point, except that now a days in Eastern European countries they are no longer having many babies. Birthrates have been declining, but the women there on average are still way more feminine than in western countries. You would be surprised at the difference once you travel to such places and directly experience it for yourself. That of course requires living there for sometime, which would be eye opening to say the least.

With all due respect, it seems like you are using a very personal definition of “feminine” that isn’t grounded in anthropology, psychology, or culture. It looks like your own symbolic framework, or system, which is fine, but it’s not a universal definition of femininity. Also, framing men’s understanding of femininity as primarily sexual is actually a stereotype. Men learn femininity first from their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, teachers, colleagues, etc. These are relationships where sexuality plays zero role. Those relationships shape a man’s concept of femininity far more deeply than attraction does imo. And many women themselves would agree that women in certain cultures (like Eastern Europe) express femininity more visibly. My original point was an empirical one. There are observable patterns of behavior, aesthetics, speech, social norms, etc. But you reframed it entirely into a model of “deep feminine vs springtime feminine,” and then dismissed those concrete cultural differences as “patriarchy shaped fake femininity.”

In countries like Russia, Ukraine and in Eastern Europe in general the society is more patriarchal than in western countries, yet the women there are way more feminine on average than in the western world. (I lived in both just in case). How do you explain this? Something tells me what you said cannot be entirely true, there has to be other reasons, including cultural.

So now you are reverting to whataboutism? Really? Why do you assume that only the right-wingers have a problem with his assassination? It doesn't matter whether you are on the left or the right - if you support assassination of a political candidate you for sure don't support democracy, or at the very least don't understand what it is and how it works. I knew you were biased, but didn't know that you could be this blinded. I can now see why this forum has such a strong echo chamber and groupthink. I really can't believe what I have just read.

It automatically makes me a Trump supporter if I am not okay with his assassination? You are more lost than I thought - holy shit

How do you not understand that political violence is an undemocratic act? How is having one guy with a gun take away the candidate from a ballot that half of Americans support okay? On one hand you bring January 6th up, and on the other hand you are fine with assassination of political opponents. You are no different from the those who thought it was fine to overthrow the government on that day. Not to mention that it would be extremely shortsighted - there is a very good chance there would be assassination attempts coming in the way of the candidate/president that you support. The fact that I even have to say these obvious things, and even people like @Leo Gura don't have an issue with it tells me this subforum is more fucked than I thought.

The fact that you (and many others here) don't see the problem with assassination of political opponents and think that Trump deserves to be killed, proves my point once again that I made about leftists and the leftist echo chamber that blinds many people on this sub-forum. You are no better than right-wingers in that regard, stop lying to yourself.

Dawkins defines "god" in dualistic sense - as he said he doesn't believe in the man who sits on the sky and forgives sins, listens to prayers, etc. He clearly rejects this concept and he is correct to do so. Yet he does say that there is something mysterious in the universe - so he is still open to the possibility of mysterious force, just not "god in conventional sense. Most people miss this, but how you define "god" when discussing this concept is very crucial.