Rationalism: a paper tiger?

Hello, not to start out by disagreeing with you, but I definitely didn't have the same experience you had with progressives and liberals. Some sets within that yes, which may have been the source for your experience, but as a whole I found the busybodies within progs/libs even worse than the conservatives.I tend to think, and you might agree with this once I say it, it's because most cons tend to have some sort of deviation themselves. So they might poke in general, but not so much specifically... unless you make yourself very outspoken... and relatively quick to forgive.A good example might be someone that had an abortion. I've found cons willing to accept and help women that have had one. Progs tend to shut down and isolate women that chose not to have one (for personal faith reasons) or ironically have had one (if the specific progs personally don't like it... i.e. its okay for someone else, not people they know).Its sort of like Monty Python's Meaning of Life, with the Protestants mocking the Catholics next door. They should be more tolerant but instead criticize the choice another group makes, while never actually taking advantage of the freedoms they have. I've found many progs/libs hold the same relation with cons.Does this make sense?On NJ's quote, I think the author missed the point that people do get criticized by others all the time, whether the critics are rationalists or not. And they will always be criticized for wandering beyond the small (or large) window of "acceptable" acts any specific critic holds. Each person will hold a scale of Prude on one side and Slut on the other, and yes another person (being judged) can switch from one to the other, getting nailed twice. That isn't actually inconsistent, it is consistency within a set of parameters.On your last comment, were you suggesting cons gave you problems for being a virgin? So much for abstinence education!

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Isn't it unfair to paint all conservatives with the brush of a few specific ones? That said I certainly was not trying to claim that all or even a vast majority of cons were sympathetic.My statement was that from my experience cons in a general sense (and I suppose I should add on a personal level) were less probing and more forgiving. The reason for this (I speculate) is that most of them have deviations.I'm well aware of bigotry and even violence from specific cons. I'm also aware that it cuts the other way. Is the violence from cons usually worse, yes. Is the snobbery and intolerance from progs worse, from my experience yes. Which is one more common to run into? That may be different from what hits the headlines.As an example of forgiveness, I'd point out that when con politicians and other leaders get outed (for whatever they did), they may lose their leader status, but they generally stay within the community. They do get forgiven. That is a fact usually lampooned in liberal circles. ? All do this? Most? I can agree that what you describe happens but it doesn't mean everybody, and it generally does not happen to people they know, or get to know. They usually throw the hyperbole on complete strangers. ? Again I'm not sure who you are talking about. What you describe could be true for some people, but I'm not even sure I'd consider that a plausible case for most cons. As far as I have seen most generally accept sexual availability of some kind, the parameters (the window) is set around where and how it is made available, not if.And I should clarify, my last statement about NJ's quote, was not specifically about cons. In fact because I was addressing his quote I was more referring to rationalists (who I assume would be taken as libs). His guy was saying that rationalists damn a girl if she does or doesn't, as if to suggest there was some sort of contradiction, and no sense of acceptability. My point is that for most people there usually is a window, a set of parameters, thus too high and too low results in condemnation, but does not indicate what was suggested.Does that make sense?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I live on this earth. I apparently had opposite experiences from you, and so have those I have known.I hope there is something to be learned from this, besides that I must be wrong. I was not attempting to say yours were wrong. As a question, have you spent long periods of time within very conservative communities, as in having to live directly with them, and seen them experience things like abortion or someone being gay? Well to be truthful not all libs are up on information and truth regarding sex. I could go on about this, but its really getting away from the thread. Let's just remember that it was libs who fired the surgeon general for discussing masturbation. If you had been having sex, this very well might have been different, no? Rarely have I heard people, from lib or con, hassling others that haven't had sex about not having it. You are right about marriage being an issue for many cons (heard it from libs too myself) but there are many other sexual variations you can get caught on. Not mine. I might note there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy going on when such acceptance happens, but it does. Reagan? Cheney? I always find it interesting when libs make fun of it, instead of embracing that reality.Edited by Silent H, : lil fix

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Oh dear god... yes some clarity is in order. I was trying to address the concept of tolerance and acceptance in general, and then used a woman who'd had an abortion as a specific. I was not addressing common con attempts to "help" women REGARDING abortions.What I meant is that if you have done X (name the sin), which cons tirade against, I have found that on a personal level they will generally not ostracize you. You can keep them as friends, unless you keep in their face about it, and they are forgiving of your "defects". Now that may seem a bit condescending, but you still get their help, by which I meant friendship, or other forms of physical support. And the reciprocal point is true, when they have defects they expect the same from you. Kind of like everyone's all in it together.On the opposite side, I've found libs to be generally unforgiving of friends and family that differ from them, and commit an offense they don't like.Maybe its cultural, most libs being urban, and most cons being rural? I dunno. That's just been my experience, so I can't fully support nator's unequivocal endorsement of approaching any specific group for better understanding. Not to say she didn't have such.On your list o' crazy ideas, a korean friend said she had been taught by her mother that getting married would make the pain of periods go away. People will promise the darndest things.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi again, I agree that anecdotes don't mean anything. In respect to your growing up in a catholic community, I would point out that is worlds of difference from a protestant one, and even those all have different flavors.My point was really not to say you were wrong, or negate your experiences. I believe you have had such experiences. I was simply questioning that your statement of your experiences actually argued for the strong recommendation you gave NJ. I think one can find intolerance everywhere, the foci are just different (and the extreme nut cons tend to be more violent). If it was before 18, with an animal, or with a group of people, the libs might very well have. If it was by yourself you can also find those that would have (even if you didn't in your case). I just don't think its fair to paint libs as significantly different in this respect, when the main difference (other than source of ethical position) is what they don't like. Does that make sense?Frankly, you would admit there are some strains of feminists who would have had something negative to say, if it was with a man, right? And recently I learned there are now vegan-sexuals who argue people shouldn't have sex with meat-eaters... sheesh. You have every right to feel disgusted, but I personally don't and I understand what their position might be on that specific subject. I don't find marriage laws equal to direct disenfranchisement such as not being able to be in the military, or being able to have sex, period. That would seem less consistent, while having a child.Of course this is getting off topic and I don't want to drive it more so with a misunderstanding. Just to make sure everyone gets it, I am in favor of gay marriage (if marriage has to be something the gov't does) and I don't like efforts to stop it. I agree that is a very valid interpretation. I wish my experience has been what you describe above. What I have experienced is that most people are hypocrites about something, and when caught, want a second chance. There might be a bit more consistency in the general prog than a con, but the difference is while they ask forgiveness... they give no quarter. The opposite is true... from my experience... from most cons.This may be due as I speculated to urban/rural differences? Or maybe just independent/social type differences. Cons tend to be more social than libs, who tend to be more independent. Someone who lives deeply in a social world would more likely forgive, than someone who is used to independence and can switch social groups with ease.I agree we are both just speculating. Viv la difference!Edited by Silent H, : libs

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You can have one new person every week, or every day, or every hour for years and that still doesn't reach the mass numbers of conservatives there are in the US, or across the world.While your axiom seems right to me, the point I was addressing was whether you can paint all (or most) cons with that brush. I don't think it is fair to say most act that way, particularly toward people they know personally.By the way I'm still wondering why libs (which in this case I am considering my side) lampoon the sexual activity these guys get caught in. Okay the hypocrisy is fine to point on, but why mock the actual kind of sex is if THAT is somehow funny or as you put it... freaky shit. That poor guy with the buttplugs and jumpsuit, that's just his thing. Doesn't everyone have a kink? I just want to remind you of the context. What I said was addressing nator's "recommendation" of a group that a theoretical individual could turn to for understanding. I was addressing the personal level and not the large-scale.If we want to jump to the large-scale then some libs can and do marginalize minorities, just different ones. Every side has its target and feels justified in their bigotry, and more astounding to me, that it should be enforced by law.I suppose I should add that both libs and cons do match up in sexual repression in other areas. Current campaigns against sexual entertainment are pushed by both libs and cons, so are efforts against prostitutes (one of the graphically marginalized and abused minorities). These are examples but there are others.On your point regarding violence, I agree (and stated) that intolerant cons are more likely to use overt violence than libs. Then again I have to start channeling Bill Maher and ask if that is a difference in tolerance or degree of cowardice. They are perfectly willing to have people taken by violent force by OTHER people... when the cause is right.So no abortion clinic bombings do not effect my overall point, nor does that represent tolerance. We are in solid agreement, that violence against, or mandated legal sanction against others is intolerance. That seems too large a brush for me to accept. Conservatives are more than just religious people, and even among religious people there is an acceptance of female sexuality.Are you claiming that they view a woman who has sex within marriage as a slut? And that they view (talking about religious cons here) women who won't have sex before marriage as frigid?Does the woman I have to ask, have to have lived with a conservative? Can she be a conservative?I'm not trying to dispute your point regarding the existence of such types, just the extremely bold strokes. I don't think that's misogyny, per se. Proscription of behaviors does not inherently mean hatred of, nor reduction of, a person or class of people. It can certainly be a part of that, but it is not necessarily so.While I agree that Abrahamic religions are rather patriarchal, it may be valid to argue that their religious proscriptions are about something else altogether. Particularly if/when they allow for power to be held by women in other realms.It may even be based on societal tastes, which got along with the religion, and remain as some anachronistic requirement for who knows what reason. You don't have to hate a person to have some very strange expectations about their behavior. And its not (in this case) misogyny, except where they are reduced to merely sexual objects and that role reduced to nothing.I should clarify I'm expounding my take on that specific charge of misogyny. That a gf may not want you looking at a Playboy, does not mean she is a misandrist.Edited by Silent H, : lil fix

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well... and remember this is based on my personal experience, in today's society, in general, violence is less an aspect of libs than it is of cons. This is not to say there is NO violence from lib nuts, or that the ratio in either population might change... or hey maybe my experience departs from what we'd find in a careful study.There is a rise in violence coming from animal activists to be sure. Is that true? Murdered? I'd be interested in hearing more about that. I never knew what straight edge was till someone said that's what I am (or was anyway). Then the more I met others called straight edge, I was like what a bunch of prying assholes. To be fair not all are totally anti-meat, or smoking, or drinking. But they usually have one of the three and they can be total pricks about it. Same for sex, where I've seen and heard just as ridiculous garbage coming out of their mouths, as any conservative, despite their stated superiority to cons. I'm glad you brought them up. I was sort of heading that way, by starting with vegans and feminists.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This sounds intriguing so I'll definitely give it a read. Just to clarify, I said they are less immediately prying (though that could be shame at discussing certain subjects) and more forgiving of others that had done something. If its a request to do something they don't like beforehand, or a steady doing something they don't like, the cons can be equally dismissive. Okay, this is an aspect of something I was heading for... what does butt plugs have to do with being gay or accepting homosexuality? You can get anal pleasure without a guy being around, and whatever you use does not inherently become a stand in for a phallus. Likewise, if you are gay you can actually hate anal sex. I've known gays that can't stand it and think its disgusting.Actually its sort of funny, the documentary on Bob Flanagan, super-masochist, has him going to meet his brother. The brother admits to having felt demoted as family weirdo when bob came out as a masochist (which appears to be what that dead guy was), and he was just a homosexual, which as he put it "doesn't even like anal sex"... while Bob was having large metal balls shoved up there.I think its a stereotyped connection common among libs. I already agreed that marginalizing people via laws is intolerance. However, so is complete personal ostracizing. Cons tend to help those they know who run afoul of the laws they ironically have set up, while libs cut off and let suffer those they don't like even if it is for something they would not want a law against... and they will legislate against some groups too.Again I want to make clear, not all libs. There are certainly some very tolerant very supportive libs, I'm just saying in general from what I've experienced. I weep for cultural diversity, and moral relativism. First of all this claim is not true, and I assume you meant it as an exaggeration. Second it appears to me to show a lack of understanding, or an attempt thereof, to actually understand the workings of other cultures and the feelings of those in other cultures.This unfortunately is a very accurate depiction of the kind of intolerance I see within libs. It used to be that liberalism involved understanding cultures in an anthrological way, and accepting the different concepts for social arrangement as legitimate, even if odious to our own sensibilities. An act or belief that might signify something viewed from our culture might have no reality in theirs.Now, under a progressive paradigm, especially pressed by feminism, liberals have turned into the same conservative missionaries that raped and murdered past cultures. We deconstruct cultures according to our interpretations of activities, not seeing them as they actually are.I'm not saying there aren't patriarchal societies, even rabidly dominant ones in the style you described. But to paint all of them that way is patently absurd. And it does not actually ask, or believe, what people tell us from those cultures. Look, I have a hard time buying these absolute statements. And I might add that to this feminist concept there is a flipside.Many (I won't claim all) men are pushed to be rugged and successful, and definitely making the first move, be macho and a bad boy, oh wait but not too much, and especially if you're ugly, in which case you better have a lot of money... but don't suggest that you're buying a girl's interest, and heaven forbid you actually do pay for sex, because then you are using the girl, even if she was the one that made the offer to you and you spent a boat load. Of course you better make the first move and keep on going, or you won't have sex... she doesn't want a wimp who's all talk. She likes to see she's driving the guy wild. But hold your horses, don't go too far or its rape, even if she actually said yes and changed her mind right in the middle and didn;t happen to tell you. Once in a relationship, you should be free to show your emotions, but not really because then you're weak and that's a turn off. Of course the girl will want you to change some things, and isn't compromise the right way to run a relationship in an egalitarian context? Oops don't do it easily or in any equal way or you are weak and have lost the bad boy edge she wanted.Madonna/Whore: woman's dilemma,
Nice Guy (or Father Figure)/Asshole(or rapist): man's dilemmaIts all the same. I'm not sure I can agree that patriarchy is misogyny by definition. It can be, but it isn't inherent. The idea that social arrangements (division of tasks/power) should be egalitarian (found equally divided/accessible) based on any specific characteristic, is ethnocentrism. Misogyny is by definition about hate. I don't even have to caveat that claim. And on top of that, cultures that are patriarchal do not have to involve lusts to control and dominate women.You earlier discussed traditional cultures, many of these start as tribal relations. And this from hunter-gatherer origins. There is a definite advantage to dividing labor in these environments. Given the size and lack of necessity for men to be waylaid for periods of time due to pregnancy and child rearing, it makes some sense for them to end up in the more dangerous tasks, which often involved going to meet other groups of hunter gatherers. In the same way it makes some practical sense for women to stay in charge of the camp itself, tending to issues closer to home, and not be the focus of danger. Out of this arrangement it would also logically follow that those who face more danger (and overcome it) as well as dealing with the outside world more (having more experiences) would end up being given the leadership positions.I might tentatively advance the claim that in many cases, the women might not just run the home, but the advanced (elderly women) end up taking on some of the same powers as the men, or at the very least not have to listen to everything they are told.With generations this comes to be social expectation/tradition which is not the same as each young generation of men coveting control over women's lives.I want to stay away from firm statements, which really should be qualified, but I stick with one assessment I have stated in the past. Some forms of feminism are repulsive, and worse still, untrue, and apparently blind acceptance of their tenets by our culture have altered liberalism into a hate machine of ethnocentrism, where it used to be a bastion of cultural understanding and diversity. Other cultures should NOT be deconstructed using our cultural expectations.Sorry for the general rant. I really like cultural diversity. Expectations come from repeated exposure to a situation such that it becomes the norm. A child does not have some weird desire to control their parents (or in this example the mother), if that child is disturbed at suddenly finding mom driving them to school instead of dad who has ALWAYS driven them to school. Nor is it if they eventually come to view that as a Dad task, and carry that with them into their own role as parent.That is how they learned a division of tasks. That's all.I think you'd agree that outside of anarchy, someone invariably must take the leader role of the community, right? Its simply a role that has to be filled for directed community action? There can be expectations that arise regarding characteristics of those filling that position without any will to power from anyone. In fact some people can find themselves thrust into power against their will based on those same expectations. Some lonely guy saying I WISH I were a girl so I didn't have to be here. Why do I have to be king? Yet he is as roped in as they are by the expectations.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood Crash's criticism, because I thought he was referring to gays when discussing the promotion of laws against a particular group. If that was not the case, then my comment does not refer to him, however it looked so similar to other libs who have made comments regarding this guy which DID mean gays. My criticism stands against those kinds of comments.But your comment raises another couple issues... who said this guy was against butt plugs himself? Did he help pass that law and continue it? If not then I don't see much hypocrisy, even if his party has.Also, who said cons, in general, are only for vanilla sex? While it is true that there are many prudes, I would say in general once you are married the rules of HOW you have sex within the marriage come off. In conservative Judaism and Islam there are actually statements that men need to physically please their wives... it cannot be straight missionary style wham bam thank ya mam. It is true that in the past their have been ordinances (by Xian churches and communities) against oral or anal activities, but no indication they were routinely believed, followed, or enforced. And in fact it was the reality of the real use of those statutes, by enforcing them in a biased fashion against gays, that helped overturn such laws in the US.And nowhere did I see proscriptions against wet suits or rubber underwear... maybe leviticus? This is a much more important point. I'm being serious now. I described that path. If the only physical difference you see between men and women is a penis, then I have to ask what planet YOU live on.As I suggested, traditions regarding division of roles (tasks to be done) leads to division of power. These tend to be set early on in cultures (particularly the "traditional" ones Crash mentioned) when the groups were smaller, generally hunter-gatherer.Men have much larger bodies. They are stronger. They also do not lose time during pregnancy and childrearing. Given that reality, division of labor would reasonably be split with dangerous tasks (or those needing swift use of great strength), which also involved long distance travel to other communities getting relegated to men. Women would reasonably take roles taking care of issues closer to the community and home.When people would look for a leader, much like today, they'd look for someone who has greater strength (to beat out bad guys or competitors)to protect them, and greater wisdom (which would come from greater travel/experience). Hence a male would tend to end up in that role.Over many generations that just becomes the expectation, the norm. No one group has to lust for power over another. And females do not necessarily have to feel or understand their position as subordinate. They simply play a different, crucial, role in the community.HARDCORE FEMINIST THEORY, is the prime source of modern beliefs that childrearing and local care-taking is somehow a "lesser", or "less crucial" role in the community. Overall leadership, or being the final decision maker, is just one role among many. HARDCORE FEMINISTS are the ones actually demeaning women in those communities by portraying them as inherent slaves in some active power struggle. They even rob these women of their voice, by denouncing comments from members of those communities that they are comfortable and enjoy their community life.Let me ask, is there a reason why division of power should, or must be egalitarian across all characteristics? Will that really lead to better leaders? Is the division of power based on some other characteristic than sex inherently a power struggle between those with that and everyone else?I get why in modern western society which has taken a path of individualism, that egalitarianism makes sense and why I personally promote it here. I just don't see why it is inherently better, such that it must be foisted on already existing cultures elsewhere, or their dynamics related through the lens of power-struggle theory (of any characteristic).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Nator raised the same point, and I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant the anti-gay laws in specific when referring to what made them hypocrites (all the guys you mentioned other than the dead guy were playing with men).If you meant norms, then my comment was not appropriate as a response to your statement. However I'll say that I have heard extremely similar comments by libs which were just about gay laws. That's why I might have read into yours. In any case, my criticism stands against that.If you meant norms, then I have to ask is there any indication the dead guy was against what he was engaged in? If not I don't see the hypocrisy. I already said my source was my experience and it can differ from other people's experiences. I said straight out I wasn't dismissing nator's experience, and that would include anyone else's. I'm questioning overstatements regarding any population. Okay, I know what moral relativism means. And I also know what diversity and human rights mean.Within the boundaries of OUR culture, which is where human rights as a concept arose, a relativist can legitimately hold that as a personal moral principle and try to influence its expansion.For people in other cultures with totally different view points on what humans life means, what the world is about, the western concept of human rights is simply an alien philosophy. It doesn't make sense.Imposing your concept of human rights onto another culture... as if it is some objective principle they must agree with or they are wrong... is opposite of moral relativism and actively squashes cultural diversity. You would inherently be arguing that they lack a certain correct moral understanding. Cite your source. Let me stop here and say that this is an excellent and important question. I totally understand this argument, and it is valid to ask.Yes it is possible for a community to embrace injustice against members of its own people. However, what counts as injustice differs from one culture to the next, and so judgments of injustice cannot be projected from one culture onto another... UNLESS, that is UNLESS you are a moral absolutist.If I went to feudal Japanese society, I'd see countless acts of what I would term injustice. If one of their society came to ours they'd see the same. Yet neither would agree. That is the reality of cultural diversity. The relativist says you have to actually understand how members of another culture view the world, before you can understand what counts as injustice to them, and that one should tolerate the existence of that culture's standards as valid. There are no absolute rights and wrongs.That said, relativists can defend their own lives (you don't have to step into the cannibal's cookpot because that's what they'd like), and they can interchange information with members of other cultures which might very well change that society over time. Cultures don't have to be preserved in amber. But to insist THEY must do the learning, and conform to our concepts, to force them to change through sanction and browbeating, is pretty ignorant, and intolerant.And regarding their own society, relativists are part of it. They can have opinions and actively try to shape their own culture... but that makes sense. That slavery is a great injustice within one society, and a relativist fights it in their own, does not argue the relativist must view that same act as an injustice in another society. It depends on how that society functions. An OBJECTIVE conclusion of BARBARITY? My guess would be a common western knee jerk liberal propagandizing absolutist interpretation? Ritual mutilation has been common throughout cultures, on both sexes. That poor societies might have to rely on rusty straight razors or no anesthetic is a visceral statement about living conditions, not practices.Boys in the US can still have their penises cut open with no anesthetic besides a mouthful of wine. The one saving grace would be the less than rusty razor. I've seen horrific footage of circumcision (and their results) in african communities using dull stone and metal.In order to understand the practice, I'd go in and ask the people in situ why they do what they do. What significance does it have for them? While some westerners insist that female circumcision is meant to control female sexuality, it may be more about ritualized aesthetics and a general ignorance about WHAT it does to the women... besides the crying when it happens. And is there any indication that it stops women from wanting or engaging in sex at all?I heard that one community when told that it effects the amount of pleasure a woman can have from sex, they changed the procedure to save the clitoris (nevermind that it is still a reduction in SOME pleasure).Its a cultural practice. Until we understand what it means to them, projecting sexual power struggle scenarios (which weren't even correctly constructed for OUR culture) should be avoided.But I'll bite. If researchers went in and found the men forcing women to accept circumcision, both young and old railing against the tradition, while the men rubbed their hands in glee at their suffering... refusing any anesthetic or clean, sharp blades, as it would ease their pain... then I'd have to say it was an inherently unjust and cruel practice.If you know anything about modern anthropology/archeology you should be able to hit me with an interesting question off of this... but I ain't gonna give it to ya! Vast majority if not totality is pretty much an absolute statement. But as an aside you say things like every and all, which is definitely absolute. I am assuming its hyperbolic, figure of speech sort of thing, but the amount of these kinds of statements makes it hard to accept your claims sometimes. I'd make a joke, but this stands pretty well by itself. The plight of women... that's another good one.My point was to show that both sexes face expectation issues in society which lead to complaints. This had nothing to do with entitlements. Frankly I don't buy either as inherent or overwhelming.But by all means if YOU think women are frigid if they don't have sex and sluts if they do, feel free to beat yourself up. Have you seen Andrea Dworkin? She's as ugly on the outside as she is on the inside... not missing anything from that!But no, the real answer is that a certain section of feminists proposed a radically false theory (quite unscientific too) about power relations and concepts of human society/gender. Ironically they accepted almost verbatim the sexually repressive (prudish) concepts of the patriarchal religious groups they rail against, and used that as a foundation to flip power toward women.Thankfully there are other sections of feminists that did not embrace that ideology and attack them furiously. Neither do they insist on cultural monotheism. Am I to assume that they aren't getting laid because of the first group as well? Sayyyyyyy, that's an idea! Did that turn out well for you? Heheheh.All I said is the truth: there is no single, inherent, absolutely correct division of powers. There are many valid concepts, even putting women in charge, or just women who look like Andrea Dworkin. The idea that only egalitarian division of power (based on any characteristic) IS the only right way, or best way, is ethnocentrism.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

First of all most cons today... which is what I am talking about... are not supportive of miscegenation laws, nor has there been some huge push for sodomy laws. And on top of that, not all cons are hyper religious, or prudes. On your last point, you know couples can have sex in ways where they don't have kids, and don't use contraception, right? Not to say I support anti-conception attitudes, just saying that the stock dilemma isn't real. This was a plausible mechanism for patriarchal systems to form in small, traditional societies. That's anthropology/sociology. EvoPsych would have involved it somehow getting hardwired into our brains such that we have cues from that necessary condition for survival. First, strength could be used to bully one's way to the top, but then by numbers they could tumble you (as you ironically pointed out one couldn't do to another tribe). The concept, and one can see it pretty commonly even today in our society, strength is seen as confident and comforting... protecting. Not that they have to be able to kill everyone in another tribe. But many would probably like to say my top guy can beat your top guy. And it would lend confidence to the people who face danger all the time.Your feminist slip is showing. A person that deals with other communities on a routine basis and sees more of the world, usually ends up being the more worldly, and can communicate disputes within and OUTSIDE the tribe. I do agree that women play some very substantial roles within their communities. My point is that the leadership role is not the only worthwhile position, male roles would logically develop to allow for top leader status.Think of it this way, you had some lady who spent all this time networking and understanding the nature of the local community. Then she's supposed to make decisions on how to deal with people from other communities she hasn't even met? Regarding dangers she may never have even faced? Coordinate the soldiers of the tribe when she hasn't had any fighting experience?In small clan/community settings that just wouldn't make as much sense. She already has experience that could help more on the home front. Ahem, its because of role expectation... like I JUST GOT DONE SAYING!!!! By the way the number of stay home dads is increasing, and becoming acceptable. It takes a while for normal expectations to change.Does everything YOU do honestly involve seeking power over women? Apparently having a penis has nothing to do with how well you can read either. I said egalitarian across ALL characteristics. You can find all sorts of different divisions of power. It is more than just a penis that separates man and woman.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Misogyny is a hatred of women. Patriarchy does not require hatred of women, just as Royalty (division of power based on lineage) does not require a hatred of all other families but them.I explained how a small society could generate a tradition, based on division of roles, that males fill the top leadership role. In any leadership position it often gets more specific than that, but I suppose feminists just see a penis and that ends all further inquiry.Traditionally patriarchal societies have been shown to accept women leaders, when sufficient male leadership is unavailable, or a woman has stood out.Yes that is not often or the rule. Maybe in some it never happens. Your statement that some individual women can be stronger, smarter, etc is true. Within a homogenous community that is usually less likely, but it can happen. That still does not argue that expectations, including by the female growing up in that community would be different when the tradition was based on general divisions.Why would they bust up the system that is working, just because one person shows some characteristics beyond the average of her group? You seem to have a hidden premise of their developing special insight into your egalitarian expectations, but I'm not sure why.In group dynamics that are heavily sectioned, such a person would likely rise to the top of her section. Just as the guy who may be a bit fat or lazy (compared to the other hunters), would not get a pass to work with the women. Especially... and this is something you seem to have overlooked, that woman is likely to get pregnant at some point.Now she might protest that she won't, but is a community really going to believe that, especially in places without contraception? In every patriarchal society? You really feel safe making that assertion? And even if I were take it as valid, I will repeat my point that viewing an inability to take the top leadership role as having been marginalized or undervalued is an ethnocentric view point.If she was top of the people within her section, as the culture divides work, how is she being undervalued? You seem to be the one undervaluing her status by making invalid comparisons, ones that we would make in the way WE divide work.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I have studied that very closely actually. Yes many conservatives did oppose the decision (with Scalia acting the maniac). That does not paint all cons with that position. And I will note, that the support was for it to be around to effect gays more than straight married people. Okay, I explained why the men would have more interaction out in the world. Since women get pregnant (and please don't say that's men's fault), they would generally not get apportioned roles that require traveling long distances, or facing danger. That's not just important to the men, it's important for the survival of everyone.Yes the women would work in helping gather and, perhaps more importantly, processing the food. That would keep them in closer to the community. Men without food preparation duties, child rearing duties, and being more able to take on opposing warriors would be more likely to range farther and interact with other communities.As far as staying home all day with the kids. These societies are not like ours. Where else are they going to go? Unless out hunting/gathering, or meeting other groups, everyone stays home. And because of the realities of life, you keep having kids to ensure the community exists at all. You were talking about the US right? And about why guys would more likely want to be president than stay home dads? What has that got to do with allotment? I said role expectations. Most men in our society see males as filling leadership roles outside the home, more than everyday inside the home, because that's what they grew up with.Nothing is stopping women from running for president, or a guy from wanting to (and being) a stay home dad.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Agreed. 100%. These are biological urges. That does not show much education about human societies. If you mean roughly that food gets grown (or hunted, or gathered), and shelters are built, and people have sex... then yes they are all roughly the same.However, societies actually involve people interacting WITH each other. In that messy reality all sorts of divisions of labor go on, and ideas about life get generated, which in turn effect how people view those biological urges... how one validly goes about obtaining them.Totally superfluous constructs and rituals (traditions) can be generated. It happens and they grow to be norms and different ways of viewing the world emerge. What counts as quality of life and justice can be completely different between two cultures. The concept of subjugation of persons, or what counts as that, is YOUR moral concept. Not being willing to accept others from living opposed to your moral code, is clearly absolutist.You are free to be one, just be careful when you start knocking other absolutists, like say the ones trying to pass laws to enforce their morality to save you from what they view as subjugation and defilement. I totally agree with you that you don't have to be an absolutist to believe in right or wrong. I'm trying to make that clear. You can have a moral code that you strongly believe in and have that apply to yourself, as well as trying to shape those immediately around you in your community.HOWEVER, a relativist CANNOT look at another culture and then say their moral system is lacking something that yours has and so must change. The concept of relativism is that there is no universal right or wrong, and that other cultures are EQUALLY VALID. To impose any aspect of your own, or think you have a right to change theirs because they need your morality's protection, is cultural arrogance... even if the act seems grotesque to you.Oh yeah, and I would agree that you don't have to like other cultures. Its just you can't say that they are objectively wrong. This is the future of liberalism that I loathe. Cultures are not different languages, food, and clothes. Those are mere physical differences. Cultures are about ways of thinking about the world and acting according to those concepts.Your concept of pursuing justice across cultures, is exactly what the missionaries were about. Burnt out everything they saw as wicked and injurious to the people. These are real people with real cultures. Who are you to tell another person that their way of life has to change because you have passed judgment on them? If you would not accept a priest coming in to save you from your ignorance of true justice, and the wicked harm you are doing, why should anyone have to suffer your concepts. Because yours is right?That's sheer arrogance. I sympathize with not liking elements of other cultures. Not wanting them to be a part of our system. But draining another culture down to its ability to please you with their food? Ohhhhh, the humanity. Is that true for most women? Do you have studies for that? I watched a doc with women (in one community) that explained why they thought it was a natural part of life. It was a ritual reflecting the acts of the gods which brought forth life. They did not say it hindered their sexuality and seemed to suggest it was just fine. Other than the cases where the vaginal area is sown up, why would it remain torture?Again, if its clinical conditions, I don't see that as an indictment of the ritual. Uh that was a joke in counter to your insult. I was playing along, not starting it. As far as engaging with feminism, I do with the parts that are not militant fascists channeling victorian era sexual morality. Dworkin has no interest in engaging with men.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm not going to debate your experiences with cons. I totally believe what you say they've been, as well as Nator. I'm just saying that isn't always a uniform experience. Not sure if you've seen the short exchange between NJ and me but clearly we've seen some specific communities which perhaps you have not... Have you ever been around straight edge groups? Hardcore vegans?The only complaint I am having with some of your statements is that they paint to broad a stroke. Conservatives are much more disparate than you portray, and even within the religious types they don't stay the same. You sometimes being up correct but currently outmoded movements.As far as our discussion about communal power division among traditional cultures, I'm going to stop here. It is quite clear that you haven't had much exposure to anthropological material on them, or any clear idea under what conditions many actually live. I'm not wasting my time at EvC anymore.Just so you understand why I am walking away... on top of disregarding my explanation to repeat incredulity at something I already explained, you repeat feminist doctrinal analysis in place of actual studies. The following was the last straw... The beginning is a straw man, and the last part of the sentence is laughable given your running premise. Exactly what archeo/anthro studies of modern or older pre-agricultural societies argue that existing power structures are almost invariable patriarchal, shaped by power grabs by men to control women?I mean you admit to liking classic hardcore feminist doctrine, fine. But then don't start lecturing me on what anthropological studies say. They have helped debunk feminist theories all along. Sheesh.I realize you are probably busy with school... and by the way success with your program that is cool... but I would heartily recommend you actually spend time digging into authentic anthro studies of cultures. Well I was trying to suggest, we develop our expectations of men being active politically and not staying at home to raise children from habit. Its what we tend to have grown up with (immediately or communication with others in the culture) and so anything else seems foreign and strange. It doesn't have to be intentional or designed. To be honest I think the media's giving her more credibility than she deserves. I thought she was something years ago, but at this point she has as much cred as McCain. Of course that is my opinion.I agree that they play off stupid topics because she is a woman, just like they play off stupid topics because Obama is black, Romney is mormon, and Giuliani is gay... whoops okay not the last one.Then again she invites it. No one forces her to go on women's coffee-klatsch style talk shows. She is milking every minute of it. Essentially any talk regarding "feminine issues", good or bad, improves her standing by getting her name out and excluding everyone else.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard