Sinned wrote:Moon, I think that we need to know where the graphic came from. I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve it but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it. I think I need some context for it.
I honestly don't know where I got the image from. It was probably something that came up on some odd ball google images search many years ago and I just saved it for some reason.
The website in the corner of the image directs you to
http://www.soulselfliving.com. I actually just noticed it upon your comment, and having visited the site, I can say that in my quick 10 minute viewing I can get behind some of the concepts, being somewhat of a mystic myself. Of course, I won't go as far as to say I endorse it, that would require more research on my part. All that being said, I'll give it a harder look tonight when I wind down for the day.
oldsalt1 wrote:And if that is your opinion of the stereotypical western man you are definitely hanging around with the wrong people
Can't argue with you there!
Caultron wrote:The over-simplication lies in defining the two sides of the chart as masculine and feminine, and then plopping in all sorts of viewpoints and behaviors as one or the other. This is just stereotyping.
Well of course it is! The very nature of the words "masculine" and "feminine" is that to stereotype someone in some way shape or form. It's an adjective. Some people don't get hung up on the semantics, and some do. But
any chart, graph, discussion, etc regarding what
is masculine or feminine
will be stereotypical in nature, because in order to chart any characteristic, one must first define the scope of what the characteristic to be charted entails.
How can we define what is "masculine" or "feminine" without determining what characteristics fit the words?
Of course, I think we may be getting a little too P.C. here. As I've stated in other post, what defines "masculine" and "feminine" is completely arbitrary anyway. We're not talking about matters of race, sex, native origin, etc. Those matters are firm and not fluid. If you're male, you're male, if you're female, you're female. If you have Scottish heritage, you have Scottish heritage. There is no changing that- these matters are what they are. [0]
But...
I believe matters of "masculine" and "feminine" are rather a lot like gender
roles. It is the
western human culture that says that "
males do this" and "
females do that".
But none of this really matters, people should just be who they are, provided they're not harming anyone or anything in the process then to hell with stereotypes, charts, and graphs. The soul is too complex to be mapped out in a jpeg that's small enough to be uploaded to skirt cafe.
Agree with it or disagree with it... I personally believe the chart's main purpose is to make people THINK...
Mission accomplished!
crfriend wrote:Take a closer look at that graphic and imagine what would be produced -- even from the "healthy" aspect -- without balance. On the "masculine" side you'll see a psychopath; on the "feminine" a neurotic. At the low end of both, a sociopath emerges.
I may be wrong on my interpretation of the chart, but I think the idea is to be within the circle, not on any of the other three extremes.
[0] This is not meant to spark transgender debate. I understand that the matter of what is transgender is very long and complex and I'm still trying to learn, and wrap my mind around it. At the end of the day, my current view is gender and sex are two different things- Males have penises, females have vaginas, past that what defines a "man" and a "woman" are a matter of customary gender roles. <--- This is my current understanding, I may be mislead. It is very confusing after all. At least I'm trying.