Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalism: a paper tiger?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 125 (433862)
11-13-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
11-12-2007 10:12 PM


No offense intended.
In your condemnation of lumping....
Me? Condemn lumping? I love lumping!
-
In all seriousness, you were the last person on my mind when this topic came to surface.
I hate being ignored.
Can't win for losing, eh?
-
But I'd like to think I'm one of the cool, hip conservative evangelical Christians... You know, all five of them.
We all wear different hats at times. Sometimes someone is going to talk about one of your hats even while you're wearing a different one.
-
No worries, mate.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-12-2007 10:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 125 (433948)
11-13-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
11-13-2007 6:55 AM


Re: The catch-22
It doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality and I don't think anybody ever claimed it did; it is just included in the list because it isn't plain vanilla sex between a husband and a wife.
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?
How isn't it inherently misogynistic to automatically give the male gender power over the female gender for no other reason than that they have penises?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 11-13-2007 6:55 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 6:36 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-13-2007 7:16 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 125 (433950)
11-13-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
11-13-2007 6:18 PM


Re: The catch-22
who said this guy was against butt plugs himself? Did he help pass that law and continue it?
From my memory, and I can't look it up because I can't remember the guy's name, I thought he was involved in one or the other various initiatives in southern states to ban sex toys.
Also, who said cons, in general, are only for vanilla sex?
They do, themselves. In public, anyway. In private, of course, they're as freaky as anybody else, perhaps even more so.
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.
Well, then you're just not paying attention to what conservatives are saying. Not only do they want rules about having sex before marriage, they want rules about who you can marry, and what you can do to them in bed, married or no.
It wasn't liberals who are responsible for anti-miscegenation laws or anti-sodomy laws. It wasn't liberals who tried to put Genarlow Wilson in prison for a decade for getting an underage BJ when outright coitus with the same girl wouldn't have even violated the law. It's not liberals who are attacking the availability of contraception, so that married people have to choose between yet another child or a life of married celibacy.
So, yeah, the idea that conservativism as a movement declares married sex "hands off" simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
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.
Wow. I have to say - I thought you were Holmes.
But that can't be possible. Between this self-serving armchair evo-psych and your previous whining defense of male entitlement, I must have been completely wrong.
No, but look. You pretend like physical strength and worldlyness represent the optimum traits for leadership, but that may or may not be true. Certainly physical strength is going to be irrelevant - what's he gonna do, beat up the whole other tribe himself? - and it really sounds like you've described not the qualities the tribe would want in a leader, but the traits most likely to be found in the person who would bully his way into leading.
Think about it. A tribe would rather have a leader who could resolve disputes through communication, a leader who could navigate the social interactions of a tribe, and a leader with knowledge about local food sources and crops.
A woman, in other words. (Women do the farming in agrarian societies, typically.) The problem here is that you've mistaken the fact that men often do seize leadership for an indication that men are meant to do so.
Overall leadership, or being the final decision maker, is just one role among many.
Funny that, for all that anti-feminists like you assert that child-rearing is every bit as important as being President, so few men would rather be stay-at-home dads than President.
Why is that? Maybe it's because those two jobs are not equally important?
Let me ask, is there a reason why division of power should, or must be egalitarian across all characteristics?
Because having a penis has nothing to do with how well you can lead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 6:18 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 8:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 125 (433960)
11-13-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
11-13-2007 6:18 PM


Re: The catch-22
quote:
If the only physical difference you see between men and women is a penis, then I have to ask what planet YOU live on.
There exist some women who have more of what people usually think of as "masculine" physical traits than some men. And it isn't just physical traits, either.
Some women are stronger, more athletic, more charismatic leaders, taller, more independent, more aggressive, less emotional, more logical, better at business, better at science and math, more self-confident, more likely to take risks, etc., than some men.
In a patriarchal society, it doesn't matter that a woman might be as good at or better than a man at one, some, or even all of these things.
Patriarchy dictates that being born with a penis, rather than one's abilities or skills, is what determines who is in power.
Even the most amazing, brilliant, skilled, talented female leader in such a society will always be undervalued and marginalized by the males, since she is a woman and therefore not "supposed" to lead.
Therefore, patriarchy is inherently misogynistic. Like I said.
(By the way, I really don't see how your reply explained how patriarchy isn't inherently mysoginistic.)
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 6:18 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 8:23 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 125 (433966)
11-13-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 9:31 AM


Re: The catch-22
Who specified "gays and homosexuals"? Anybody who deviates from the conservative's idea of sexual "norms" is targeted by these people.
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.
Cite your source?
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.
I'm all for diversity, but not at the expense of human rights; and moral relativism doesn't mean what you think it means.
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.
Nonsense. The "feeling" is that the men like it that way, the women don't, but they don't have the power in society to change it... See? Easy to understand.
Cite your source.
Why should we do that? In your view, is it even possible for a culture to objectively embrace an injustice against some of its peoples? If we can consider a situation - like slavery - within our own culture to be a great injustice, a moral outrage; why cannot we condemn the same practice in another culture? What prevents me from being opposed to ruthless, senseless barbarity simply because its being perpetrated by people in another country with another language?
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.
When a 9-year-old girl is being held down and is screaming as she is getting her clitoris amputated with a rusty straight razor and no anesthetic, what "interpretation" do you think is necessary to come to the objective conclusion that this is a barbaric practice?
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!
feel free to assume whatever qualifiers are necessary to indicate that I'm talking about the vast majority if not the totality of cases.
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.
where entitled men whine about the diminishing of male privilege and how it's considered bad form to rape women to get what they want. Whatever happened to the good old days when all women were assumed to be prostitutes?
I'd make a joke, but this stands pretty well by itself.
Genuine concern about the plight of women in our society is nothing at all like the steaming load of Nice Guy entitlement you just dropped in your post.
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.
I'm thinking you're referring to "the ones that keep you from getting laid."
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?
I get the sense that I'm talking to someone who bought a wife from China on the internet.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 8:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 125 (433973)
11-13-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 6:36 PM


Re: The catch-22
It wasn't liberals who are responsible for anti-miscegenation laws or anti-sodomy laws. It wasn't liberals who tried to put Genarlow Wilson in prison for a decade for getting an underage BJ when outright coitus with the same girl wouldn't have even violated the law. It's not liberals who are attacking the availability of contraception, so that married people have to choose between yet another child or a life of married celibacy.
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.
Between this self-serving armchair evo-psych and your previous whining defense of male entitlement, I must have been completely wrong.
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.
A tribe would rather have a leader who could resolve disputes through communication, a leader who could navigate the social interactions of a tribe, and a leader with knowledge about local food sources and crops. A woman, in other words. (Women do the farming in agrarian societies, typically.) The problem here is that you've mistaken the fact that men often do seize leadership for an indication that men are meant to do so.
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.
Maybe it's because those two jobs are not equally important?
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?
Because having a penis has nothing to do with how well you can lead.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 6:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 8:21 PM Silent H has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 125 (433974)
11-13-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
11-12-2007 11:33 PM


Re: The catch-22
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.
Sure, that makes sense. By those of a more liberal persuasion, my vehicle has been urinated and spit on, its been keyed, my wife has been physically accosted, etc, etc. These are the types of pressures that conservatives could say they are faced with. But, is it not the same thing in reverse, depending on who it is? Of course. It would be silly to try and say who is more violent, who is more prone to violence, since it is an individual matter.
I've met stark raving mad liberals, and I've met stark raving mad conservatives too.
There is a rise in violence coming from animal activists to be sure.
It seems to be declining compared to late 90's level. But there is still a very active presence. Portland is the west coast hub for ALF extremists.
quote:
Oh, the straight edge scene sometimes gets far worse than that. People have been murdered for smoking a cigarette, or drinking a beer, or eating a hamburger.
Is that true? Murdered? I'd be interested in hearing more about that.
It started to get real bad in Syracuse, NY, where roving street gangs used to convert fire extinguishers filled with pepper spray. They would blast people for smoking a cigarette. In this video, a Reno kid was bludgeoned to death. This certainly doesn't indict all straight-edge kids, many of whom I grew up with. But it does illustrate that any thing that starts out with a good premise can be corrupted.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : fixed link address

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 11:33 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 125 (433975)
11-13-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Silent H
11-13-2007 7:38 PM


Re: The catch-22
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.
That's just nonsense. People are people, H; biological reality holds sway regardless of culture, and every person in every culture faces the same problems - how am I going to be fed today? How can I be safe? Who can I have sex with?
Individual cultures may differ on the details, but every human society seems to solve those problems in roughly the same ways.
And every society seems to have roughly similar problems, as though the same pitfalls are a danger to every human society - the creep of authoritarian bullies, patriarchy, etc.
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.
I'm simply not willing to accept the subjugation of persons in the name of cultural diversity. It's simply not nearly that important to me.
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.
You don't have to be a moral absolutist to believe in right and wrong. As a moral relativist, I accept that "right and wrong" are contingent on the situation at hand.
But just because its contingent, doesn't mean I can't perceive it. Doesn't mean I can't come to a conclusion that a situation is wrong when I know all the relevant facts.
Like you, I'm against jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known, yes; and I'm not quick to pass judgment on a cultural tradition before I do some research about its context and its perception within the culture.
But that doesn't mean I can't ever draw conclusions, and about many cultural traditions, I've done the research and decided for myself. Female genital mutilation is one such situation. Honor killings, widow burning - I've arrived at conclusions from reflection and an understanding of the relevant factors.
Cultural diversity is great, particularly in terms of cuisine, but it's not so great a principle that it should prevent us from pursuing justice even across barriers of culture and language. People just aren't that different.
Boys in the US can still have their penises cut open with no anesthetic besides a mouthful of wine.
I'm opposed to this practice, too, not least of which for being a victim of it.
And is there any indication that it stops women from wanting or engaging in sex at all?
Aside from the fact that, in most cases, sex becomes painful torture?
Have you seen Andrea Dworkin? She's as ugly on the outside as she is on the inside... not missing anything from that!
Hey, that's a mature and respectful way to engage with feminism. "Feminists are ugly and fat!"
Gosh, and you wonder why women don't take you at all seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 7:38 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 9:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 125 (433976)
11-13-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
11-13-2007 8:05 PM


Re: The catch-22
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.
There certainly was a great push to defend them, in all the cases where such laws have come up for review. Even in liberal Minnesota, where an anti-sodomy law came under scrutiny and was eventually overturned, the conservative churches and organizations made great efforts to preserve it.
Go to a site like Latest Articles and do a search for "Lawrence V. Texas", an anti-sodomy case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. You'll hear the decision loudly opposed by conservatives.
Your feminist slip is showing.
There's nothing to slip. I'm a feminist, H, I have no problem admitting it, and I can't imagine why you think it's something I wouldn't be proud to be.
My point is that the leadership role is not the only worthwhile position, male roles would logically develop to allow for top leader status.
Even if that were true, it's still based on the assumption that the males of a tribe would have more interaction out in the world than the women, but there's no reason to believe that's true. The idea that tribal women stay home all day with the children is fantasy, that's not how it works at all.
It can't work that way, you can't support the food needs of a collective when half the population isn't doing any work.
Ahem, its because of role expectation... like I JUST GOT DONE SAYING!!!!
So males are allotted the esteemed role, and women are allotted the role that isn't that important - and you think that's an egalitarian situation? You're just proving my point.
I said egalitarian across ALL characteristics.
Who was talking about all characteristics? Certainly there's some characteristics that make for better leaders.
They just have nothing to do with being male, is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 8:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 8:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 125 (433977)
11-13-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
11-13-2007 7:16 PM


Re: The catch-22
Therefore, patriarchy is inherently misogynistic. Like I said.
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?
Even the most amazing, brilliant, skilled, talented female leader in such a society will always be undervalued and marginalized by the males, since she is a woman and therefore not "supposed" to lead.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 11-13-2007 7:16 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-14-2007 8:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 125 (433980)
11-13-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 8:21 PM


Re: The catch-22
"Lawrence V. Texas", an anti-sodomy case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. You'll hear the decision loudly opposed by conservatives.
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.
it's still based on the assumption that the males of a tribe would have more interaction out in the world than the women, but there's no reason to believe that's true. The idea that tribal women stay home all day with the children is fantasy, that's not how it works at all. It can't work that way, you can't support the food needs of a collective when half the population isn't doing any work.
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.
So males are allotted the esteemed role, and women are allotted the role that isn't that important - and you think that's an egalitarian situation?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 8:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 125 (433984)
11-13-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
11-13-2007 8:40 PM


Re: The catch-22
And I will note, that the support was for it to be around to effect gays more than straight married people.
I remember a large number of churches supporting historic anti-sodomy laws, where their rationale was that "a married woman might be forced to perform fellatio against her will", which of course is pretty ridiculous, but that was a common refrain.
It was not just about gay sex. They were adamant that the rules applied to married people as well, and they thought that was a good thing.
Which really speaks against your portrayal of conservatives staying out of the marriage bedroom. There's really no bedroom they won't butt into, in my experience.
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.
Women are only pregnant for 9 months, and the ability of other mothers to raise one's child frees a woman to do the same things men can do. There's really no reason to believe that a woman would be any less likely to have traveled than a man.
The mental idea of a primitive society where men are out doing things all day while the women stay in huts is a patriarchal fantasy, and it's supported neither by archaeological data nor by anthropological studies of modern pre-agricultural societies.
Where else are they going to go?
Hunting and gathering. It doesn't produce so much food, as a technique, that a tribe can afford to support 50% of adults sitting around idle all day.
And about why guys would more likely want to be president than stay home dads?
Why wouldn't they? Why is it that, as a culture, we don't spare any particular respect for men who stay home and raise children? Why do we, as a society, think of them as less than men, as womanish?
Nothing is stopping women from running for president, or a guy from wanting to (and being) a stay home dad.
As a matter of fact, there are a number of obstacles in society in the way of a female president, as we're seeing in the current primaries. Obama and Guiliani are questioned on their positions, and their policies are the subject of the talk shows.
Hillary - and see, she's the one candidate who everybody refers to by her first name - is the subject of "capital fashion" reports where they talk about whether or not she has a pleasing laugh and whether or not her pantsuit shows too much cleavage (that is to say, any, because apparently a president shouldn't have breasts.)
That's one major obstacle - a media that doesn't take female candidates seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 8:40 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 10:24 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 73 of 125 (433985)
11-13-2007 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 8:13 PM


Re: The catch-22
biological reality holds sway regardless of culture, and every person in every culture faces the same problems - how am I going to be fed today? How can I be safe? Who can I have sex with?
Agreed. 100%. These are biological urges.
every human society seems to solve those problems in roughly the same ways.
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.
I'm simply not willing to accept the subjugation of persons in the name of cultural diversity. It's simply not nearly that important to me.
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.
You don't have to be a moral absolutist to believe in right and wrong. As a moral relativist, I accept that "right and wrong" are contingent on the situation at hand.
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.
Cultural diversity is great, particularly in terms of cuisine, but it's not so great a principle that it should prevent us from pursuing justice even across barriers of culture and language. People just aren't that different.
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.
Aside from the fact that, in most cases, sex becomes painful torture?
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.
Hey, that's a mature and respectful way to engage with feminism. "Feminists are ugly and fat!"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:30 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 125 (433988)
11-13-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Silent H
11-13-2007 9:09 PM


Re: The catch-22
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.
Sure, but across humanity it's the same cake with different frosting. Different notes but always the same tune.
The concept of subjugation of persons, or what counts as that, is YOUR moral concept.
All my moral concepts are mine. That doesn't mean that they're wrong, or that things stop being right or wrong simply because they're not happening to me.
It's racist, it seems to me, to assert that the "poor benighted savages just are that way" when the people of another society face injustice. And I think it's a moral outrage to stand idly by when people are oppressed, in the name of "cultural diversity."
Diversity is great but it shouldn't result in people getting killed. It shouldn't result in good people doing nothing when faced with evil.
Not being willing to accept others from living opposed to your moral code, is clearly absolutist.
You're so wrapped up in the rights of the oppressor you're forgetting about the rights of the oppressed. Oppressed people don't want to live that way. I'm not talking about barging into consensual situations; I'm talking about helping the people who need it, who are begging for it.
HOWEVER, a relativist CANNOT look at another culture and then say their moral system is lacking something that yours has and so must change.
I'm not saying any moral systems need to change. I can't imagine for the life of me how I might get people to change their moral system. I'm neither wise nor patient enough to make the attempt.
But outcomes are objective, and those are what I'm talking about changing. An outcome where young women are being held down and having clitorectomies against their consent is an outcome that needs to be changed, period.
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.
The whole world is my community. Why wouldn't it be? Why, in the year 2007, would my obligations to my fellow human being end simply because we don't share a country or a language?
That doesn't make any sense. If you accept that I have obligations to other human beings, to protect them and work on their behalf when I can, then it doesn't make any sense to exclude those who are different from myself.
How insular and racist to assert that only those who are exactly like myself are deserving of help!
Cultures are about ways of thinking about the world and acting according to those concepts.
Even here in just my house there's two different ways of thinking about the world, two different ways of acting. Two different ways of culture.
Why on Earth should a difference in outlook determine whether or not I help someone? How sheltered I would be if someone's different outlook became a reason for me never to render them assistance, aid, or consider myself responsible for their welfare.
My wife and I are both white, both American, both from the upper Midwest, both from fairly rural towns (me more than her), both educated, of roughly equal socioeconomic status, and we still have radically divergent outlooks about things. Are you saying that I can't even be responsible for my wife? Why on Earth would that be the case?
Its just you can't say that they are objectively wrong.
Watch me, because I'm doing it right now. Female genital mutilation is objectively wrong and its an affront to human rights.
Who are you to tell another person that their way of life has to change because you have passed judgment on them?
I'm a human being who can speak out. That's who I am to tell them. They're a human being who can speak, too, so that's who they are to tell me to butt out, and then it just becomes a function of who wants it more.
For a "moral relativist", you certainly appeal to absolute principles quite a bit. Why, you've all but told me I'm objectively wrong for daring to consider FGM a horror, objectively wrong for violating your precious "cultural diversity."
Who am I to say? I'm a human being with a mouth. Why do I need any further justification? Who's going to stop me? Why should I stop myself when I perceive injustice?
They did not say it hindered their sexuality and seemed to suggest it was just fine.
How would they know? Maybe they think sex is supposed to be painful and bloody every time.
Dworkin has no interest in engaging with men.
Dworkin's dead, and maybe what you're thinking of is her frustration with the fact that nearly every discussion of feminism of which a man is a part becomes all about the man's needs, the man's experiences, the man's sexuality. You know, like you tried to make it.
Maybe Dworkin was simply tired of men monopolizing the conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2007 9:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2007 12:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 125 (433993)
11-13-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 9:01 PM


Re: The catch-22
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 mental idea of a primitive society where men are out doing things all day while the women stay in huts is a patriarchal fantasy, and it's supported neither by archaeological data nor by anthropological studies of modern pre-agricultural societies.
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.
Why is it that, as a culture, we don't spare any particular respect for men who stay home and raise children? Why do we, as a society, think of them as less than men, as womanish?
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.
That's one major obstacle - a media that doesn't take female candidates seriously.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 11:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024