Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 6:31 PM
22 online now:
anglagard, AZPaul3, Dredge, jar (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,868 Year: 8,904/19,786 Month: 1,326/2,119 Week: 86/576 Day: 86/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   hush that fuss, everybody move to the back of the bus
nator
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 35 (385015)
02-13-2007 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taz
02-13-2007 6:44 PM


Re: the developing "jewish taliban" and religious and societal freedom
quote:
Continuing our little conversation the other night, wouldn't it be better if they don't get the sexual impulse at all?

Well sure, but I'm not so sheltered to think that eliminating any people having inappropriate thoughts is likely to ever be possible.

I don't care at all about what people think. It's how they act that is of concern.

quote:
But on the other hand, I also sort of don't think I agree with you on this. Just about every major current living religion has a long history of sexual suppression. If you look specifically at the measures these religions have taken, they look like the measures were taken out of the assumption that men cannot control their sexual urges. Muslim women are required to cover themselves from head to toe (the ones that do anyway) because supposedly the assumption seems to be that men cannot control themselves therefore instead of taking measures to teach the men how to control themselves they just cover up the women.

Middle ages christians also had a similar attitude. It was always the women seducing the men...

I can't speak for these men we are talking about, but it seems like it's more than a conscious choice they make about their control, or the lack thereof, over their sexual impulses.


Well, OK, but I ask, "so what?"

quote:
And no, I don't think the gun example is sufficient enough. A lot of people do things at gunpoint they would otherwise never do.

But that's the point.

Replace the gun with a couple of burly bodyguards. Or perhaps a secular police officer, or even a press photographer. Or a big bunch of Jewish grandmothers with frying pans.

When they are sufficiently motivated, people can very easily control their inappropriate impulses.

It's just easier and makes you feel much more powerful to blame the victim and compel the object of your impulses to take all the responsibility for your actions instead of taking it on yourself.

That basic, childish, irresponsible premise has always been the modus operandi of patriarchy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taz, posted 02-13-2007 6:44 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taz, posted 02-14-2007 12:25 AM nator has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 141 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 35 (385020)
02-13-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by subbie
02-13-2007 6:37 PM


Re: the developing "jewish taliban" and religious and societal freedom
Obviously you've never flogged the bishop with the Vulcan salute.

just to bring this rampantly off-topic sub-thread full circle, are you aware of the fact "the vulcan salute" is actually a hand symbol used by ultra-orthodox jews, specifically of the tribe of levi? it made its way into star trek because leonard nimoy (spock) is jewish.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 02-13-2007 6:37 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 33 of 35 (385034)
02-13-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
02-13-2007 9:52 AM


Re: With apologies to The Who
Have to admit that is funny.

What do you think I don't read the threads around here? lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 9:52 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 34 of 35 (385053)
02-14-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
02-13-2007 9:30 PM


Re: the developing "jewish taliban" and religious and societal freedom
nator writes:

Well sure, but I'm not so sheltered to think that eliminating any people having inappropriate thoughts is likely to ever be possible.


You misunderstood me. That's not what I was suggesting at all. I gave my comment in the context of what we were discussing, specifically about me.

I don't care at all about what people think. It's how they act that is of concern.

I agree completely. But remember that these "holy men" believe themselves that they would be unable to control their urges and turn into rapists if they see a woman's leg or hair. While I cannot possibly hope to change what they think but to engage in a debate with them, I do hope that we as a society, or rather they as a society, can find some ways to impose as preventive measures.

One of these ways I hinted at was they be willing to change their doctrine that says something like "men absolutely cannot control their urges..." and educate the men on how to react differently if (god forbids) they ever see a woman's leg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 9:30 PM nator has not yet responded

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 607 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 35 of 35 (385114)
02-14-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by nator
02-13-2007 9:16 PM


Re: the developing "jewish taliban" and religious and societal freedom
How is that a valid comparison. Cooking is learned. Gendered physical characteristics, including strength, are not learned, but inherent.

Every trait has its measure of heritability (assuming that the genetic
factor of a trait makes it more "inherent"), the genetic factor for physical strength determines it better (apparently) than does the genetic factor for cooking (if one exists at all). Thus, it is easier to judge a person for physical strength than for cooking abilities, relying only on sex. Facial hair growth (for this discussion) can also be "learned" - caused by a variability in testosterone during pregnancy (I'm not sure about that), so different women can have different expressions of facial hair, but what I am saying is that the variability is small in relation to cooking ability - and thats why I wouldn't judge cooking ability solely on sex.

How about you replace "cooking" with "ability to grow visible facial hair" and see how you get on with women.

:p :D
(BTW: I love your avatar)

Look, I want to make it clear that I am very, very much in favor of equal opportunity for everyone regardless of gender,

I never though otherwise :)

but it isn't sexist to assume that men, in general, are physically stronger than women, in general. It's the same as assuming that most men will have a lot more ability to grow visible facial hair than most women.

{bold mine}

I think what we are looking for is a gradient of inherency - from very heritable and not very "learned" (like facial hair) to not very heritable and very "learned" (like cooking ability).

Facial hair<-----------------0----------------->Cooking ability

So now we can ask the questions:


  • What measure of inherency must a trait have in order for me to decide (not in general, but specifically upon one person) whether he/she is likely to have the trait, solely relying on sex - and for it not to be regarded sexism?

  • Where in this gradient does "sexual control" stand? (definition needed)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 9:16 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019