User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    While power imbalance is a reasonable claim, misogyny implies sistematical hateful behavior, which is essentially the notion that the author challenges.
    I really don't care what people want to call it. Debates over semantics are a waste of time. The point is that men have had far more power in society than women for millennia, with the result that the resources, opportunities, and personal sovereignty of women have been seriously constrained. This has varied in degree and specific manifestation over time and in different cultures, and is not justified by traditional divisions of labor. Societies, both modern and historical, which have operated on other models show that this is neither universal nor encoded in our genes/biology.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  2. #12
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Observing others being treated as lesser and choosing to be complicit instead of speaking against it would seem to qualify, would it not...?
    Arguably unfair (many women gladly give in power in exchange for being provided for), but not hateful.

  3. #13
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I really don't care what people want to call it. Debates over semantics are a waste of time. The point is that men have had far more power in society than women for millennia, with the result that the resources, opportunities, and personal sovereignty of women have been seriously constrained. This has varied in degree and specific manifestation over time and in different cultures, and is not justified by traditional divisions of labor. Societies, both modern and historical, which have operated on other models show that this is neither universal nor encoded in our genes/biology.
    No disagreement here.

  4. #14
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Arguably unfair (many women gladly give in power in exchange for being provided for), but not hateful.
    This might be acceptable were it entirely voluntary, uncoerced by laws, economic necessity, and the way women and men have been raised from babyhood for eons. Most people don't hate their household pets, but also don't accord them the same regard as the humans in their lives. Treating women merely as pets (or work animals) of higher standing is no favor.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #15
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This might be acceptable were it entirely voluntary, uncoerced by laws, economic necessity, and the way women and men have been raised from babyhood for eons. Most people don't hate their household pets, but also don't accord them the same regard as the humans in their lives. Treating women merely as pets (or work animals) of higher standing is no favor.
    Especially because in many cases through time women protested vehemently and were met with accusations of witchcraft, heresy, insanity, malady, or any other reason that would frame the woman "incapable" of being a reasonable being.

    This is not to say it has been a long intentional march of hate on the part of men, but neither has it been entirely without culpability. To be fair, many women now and I'm sure some in the past are as complicit in systemic discrimination against other groups as many men once were against women.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This piece confuses division of labor with division of power. The first is understandable; the second inexcusable.
    Power has not ever been something females needed to get their genes into the next generation because that has never been the limit on their reproductive capability. Power has been a something males sought because it lead to more reproductive opportunities (Ghengis Khan is probably the best example of this). Do you believe evolution and natural selection are "inexcusable"?

    Obviously selective pressures have changed in the 20th and 21st centuries, and we're seeing a corresponding rebalancing of power. I don't see any of this as "inexcusable". That's applying a moral judgment to an amoral process, which I think is more than a bit silly.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #17
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Power has not ever been something females needed to get their genes into the next generation because that has never been the limit on their reproductive capability. Power has been a something males sought because it lead to more reproductive opportunities (Ghengis Khan is probably the best example of this). Do you believe evolution and natural selection are "inexcusable"?

    Obviously selective pressures have changed in the 20th and 21st centuries, and we're seeing a corresponding rebalancing of power. I don't see any of this as "inexcusable". That's applying a moral judgment to an amoral process, which I think is more than a bit silly.
    Males could just as easily have tried to win female sexual favors through subservient and useful behavior, instead of wresting it by force. In fact, many cultures have been working against this urge for millennia, and often not the ones most observant of women's rights. Male maximization of reproductive opportunity does not equate to a strongly unequal power dynamic.

    In any case, evolution and natural selection are natural processes and, as you say, amoral. How we respond to them is quite another matter. In most other spheres of life we are not willing to let nature "take its course". We try to cure diseases rather than let them kill and disable; we restrain our mating and sexual instincts rather than let them rule us; we engineer plants and animals to resist disease and promote growth. Not only do we reject for the most part social Darwinist attempts to engineer a "better human" by sterilizing the disabled or killing them altogether, more and more we attempt to help the "evolutionarily disadvantaged" live as full a life as possible.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #18
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    In any case, evolution and natural selection are natural processes and, as you say, amoral. How we respond to them is quite another matter. In most other spheres of life we are not willing to let nature "take its course". We try to cure diseases rather than let them kill and disable; we restrain our mating and sexual instincts rather than let them rule us; we engineer plants and animals to resist disease and promote growth. Not only do we reject for the most part social Darwinist attempts to engineer a "better human" by sterilizing the disabled or killing them altogether, more and more we attempt to help the "evolutionarily disadvantaged" live as full a life as possible.
    I don't think they are amoral.

    Let's look at things in perspective. Our efforts to cure diseases have some limits. Many antibiotics that we take today were developed in the 50s, 60s and 70s. We only invest in such things to the extent that they fuel profits. If we restrain our sexual instincts, it is probably mostly to serve self interests. We engineer plants and animals in service of corporate profits and not to serve humankind.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #19
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I don't think they are amoral.

    Let's look at things in perspective. Our efforts to cure diseases have some limits. Many antibiotics that we take today were developed in the 50s, 60s and 70s. We only invest in such things to the extent that they fuel profits. If we restrain our sexual instincts, it is probably mostly to serve self interests. We engineer plants and animals in service of corporate profits and not to serve humankind.
    But this is exactly my point. These are deliberate human actions. Evolution, on the other hand, is a natural process just like weather patterns or natural disasters. It makes no sense to speak of them in terms of morality. The most destructive hurricane is not evil or immoral, it just is. The human response, on the other hand, can be characterized by its morality.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #20
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Males could just as easily have tried to win female sexual favors through subservient and useful behavior, instead of wresting it by force. In fact, many cultures have been working against this urge for millennia, and often not the ones most observant of women's rights. Male maximization of reproductive opportunity does not equate to a strongly unequal power dynamic.
    Sure, they could have, but that would have been less efficient. It takes more time and energy (per partner) to cultivate a relationship with each potential partner than it does to become powerful and have your pick of available women.

    In any case, evolution and natural selection are natural processes and, as you say, amoral. How we respond to them is quite another matter. In most other spheres of life we are not willing to let nature "take its course". We try to cure diseases rather than let them kill and disable; we restrain our mating and sexual instincts rather than let them rule us; we engineer plants and animals to resist disease and promote growth. Not only do we reject for the most part social Darwinist attempts to engineer a "better human" by sterilizing the disabled or killing them altogether, more and more we attempt to help the "evolutionarily disadvantaged" live as full a life as possible.
    Our behavior is also a natural process. Everything is natural. This idea that humans somehow exist outside of nature is profoundly arrogant.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. A Brief History of MBTIc
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 12:17 AM
  2. The history of violence
    By Sahara in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-07-2007, 06:23 PM
  3. A Short History of Nearly Everything?
    By Usehername in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 09:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO