No, that is not accurate. I want to see males and females interacting cooperatively in a society in which males are not the predominately powerful group, but both males and females have equal power over their own lives.
the problem here is that you only perceiving power at the courser level of authority and money. One of my neice's is very book smart and focusing on being national top ten in her profession. I told her less "book-motivated" sister once, smart girls get the corner office, but girl geniuses figure out how to dispatch a man
to haul ass every day and do it for them. This is much harder than it looks.
Just as you and I went over in the other thread about rich and poor, the reality is that one group unjustly holds power over the other.
You are seeing power in a superficial way. Low entropy families are matriarchal by definition, as the males serve and protect the females as the first impulse of expressing their quality. She does not have to worry about pragmatic issues, as he is taking care of these things and is happy to do it.
Same goes for the low entropy rich. There are two kinds of rich people. Rich people who have found a way to serve the community and are serene in this, and unhappy rich who continue to invest in materialism.
But it is not that way because it is an optimal arrangement, but only because the powerful camp held some short term (little picture) advantages to attain that power.
right, the rich are rich because they are crooks or were lucky. That is largely true in many countries of the world, and largely untrue, in fact, most untrue, in America.
By the way, how far did you go in school? How many businesses have you attempted? A business can be something as simple as dog walking or painting or window washing. Don't you think your position in society might have something to do with your decisions and effort?
We have two differing visions for the future of humankind. In your vision, men remain dominant decision-makers and women merely act as a supporting caste
[link is to a punk song FYI], tucked away and buried in domestic worlds.
most women who get the corner office have the shocking realization that its a high entropy pressure cooker, and that having a Beamer in the garage is not a good trade-off for missing the kids birthday party. Or not having kids at all. Or watching the husband drift into someone else's life. Wow, bossing people around and firing them and getting screwed over by your colleagues and management...this is great fun.
It relates to overweighting the importance and significance of material power versus the true richness of personal life.
Perhaps I am using a faulty lens, but I see a retrograde paternalism to pervade most of your sermons here.
under the MBT lens, I see it as matriarchial. Keeping the trains running on time is a lessor responsibility to keeping the social wheels of intimate life running efficiently.
You want the individuals who currently have power to keep that power, and everyone to be blind to inequality and pretend it does not exist. In my interpretation of your views, if someone does not have power, that is the correct arrangement.
Its like when Tom talks about the power of the macho bully...its an impression of power at the surface, whereas the apparently meeker nerdy guy actually has personal power to make things happen in the world, which becomes increasingly evident as their life plays out. Its the same with women. Some women have the direct power of the corner office and big investment portfolios.
Then there is this other group who mated with low-entropy-high-effectiveness husbands, and they have a different, I would say deeper power. They still maintain their medical licenses and do cataract surgery a couple of days a week to stay in practise, but that is not the focus of their lives.
Maybe you didn't go lefty enough in your youth to see the fundamental inequalities pervading our social systems and hindering justice.
I was a raging socialist in my youth and opened a street hostel for the homeless. People who are not left in their youth are somehow ill-formed later in life, and get stuck as tough paleo-conservatives rather than compassionate conservatives, or are stuck in the theoretical extreme of libertarianism.
I see it all the time in real life; I'm not making up some leftist propaganda. Anyway, perhaps your old guard thinking is helpful for our evolution, as it represents an obstacle we should oppose.
actually, you are the old guard and I am the revolutionary. I am reaching beyond the fear paradigm and representing Tom's model of cooperation and love between fear groups rather than war.
In my vision, I see it as possible that men and women will share equally in decision-making, as is only just.
no, we just do what she wants, unless we think it will harm her or the family, then we have long discussions to convince her. In a low entropy family, the woman is the boss. This is profitable in the big picture, as women generally have less ego and are more attuned to the things that really matter.
This is also an investment in her waking up if she has not done so. When she wakes up, she then surrenders some of her decision space and asks, well, what do you think? Or, please take care of this (like, perimeter security) and don't bother me about it. When cooperation and loyalty is presumed, the dynamic is completely different than your fear based paradigm.
If a decision impacts several "groups" of people, then all groups should have an absolutely equitable contribution to the decision. The only instance in which one "group" should have the sole power of decision-making is when that group is the only one affected. And in our intensely interconnected society, those instances will be extremely rare.
When Bob is effective and loyal (low entropy), she does not need to wage corporate warfare herself, she has him for that. That being said, the prudent female hedges. Also, some females are constructed for corporate warfare and all the types of work in between, and they should be encouraged to find their own equilibrium. Its all about figuring out what IS, and then permitting everyone to have it all, or as much as possible of it all.
Incidentally, here is a link to a decent article popular on BBC right now: What If Women Ruled The World
Its like the fact that women congressmen of both parties get together socially whereas the men increasingly do not. This is typical and profitable regarding the role of women in societal problems, especially when the core problem fear and lack of cooperation.
The woman who is in a position to do so, with an interest in neatening society up, who has run out of problems to manage in her own family, should get involved in town politics and chase the moneychangers out of the Temple, and work her way up the political food chain. Those with less decision space should ally with such a woman and work on her campaigns. This is good rich MBT life experience, and part of the process of building a life that is engaged with real things and real people.
Just always keep in mind that good intentions are not enough. Much damage is done to the poor by the ill informed good intentions of middle and upper class women (and men) who do not understand business and economics. A person who cannot run a hot dog cart is unlikely to be a helpful player in the business of regulating an industry. There is a lot of data that suggests that Robin Hood economics is a lose lose proposition for all parties, including the target population you are trying to help.