"Women's Issues" are "Side Issues?"

2004 posts / 0 new

Comments

Zenzoe,you cannot remember what Ms Kavita Ramdas said,and you have been using it through out this thread? "The 1% isn`t the cause of sexism",is this what she is saying and you forgot? Does she also say to women of other cultures( than the West),that they should be proud and use their traditions? I can agree with everything she and Ms Vandana Shiva say about sexism,but i see no solution in their logic. The solution of changing people minds by saying no, show sucess in people who have the power to be responsible.With the gap between the haves & have-nots getting bigger by the minute,there is not to many responsible people that can just say no? Compare religion,how many people believe in doing right,but still do wrong? Ms.Shiva talk about the 1% western concept of power and control,this is universal,we all have that survival of the fittest mindset.That come from the first law of nature,"self preservation"! But we live and learn,the more we learn,self preservation start including ants,natural foods,women,clean water,have-nots,etc... Ms Shiva make the case for the 1% being the reason for a lot of problems and for them to obey the first law of nature,they need to expand their thinking in a natural positive way. The rich get richer and poor get poorer,what`s the solution? Just say no? We need a system where all the people can have "economic justice and freedom! We have that system,we can do more than say no,we can live as "Adam & Eve". How do we get rid of sexism without getting rid of the reason? Or system???

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Concerning the unsettling subject matter we have had to deal with recently, Zenzoe, this is a welcome reminder that men and women will be so much more healthy when they are allowed to live their lives freely and at home in an environment of their making.

I did not read the conversation btw you and college, but I thought I would mention that I saw Jan Brewer's face on Yahoo! with a headline indicating that AZ has outlawed state funding of Planned Parenthood and others. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sns-rt-us-usa-abortion-arizonabre84402y-20120504,0,5376213.story?track=rss This violates womens' Constitutional rights by adversely affecting their access to legal health services. It is discriminatory legislation attacking women. It does not merely target Planned Parenthood but by eliminating such institutions as Planned Parenthood seeks to eliminate a major option for women's health services.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote tayl:

How do we get rid of sexism without getting rid of the reason?

You're right, Tayl. It's not about getting "rid of sexism." That aggressive approach, as Dr. Shiva has indicated, is an impoverished approach. It is impoverished, because it has lost its integrity, integrity in the sense of "unbroken completeness or totality." To be complete, to be whole and unbroken, an approach needs to include its most vital components; and, in the case of "the system," where sexism thrives, it lacks a balance between male and female values, or principles. The roots of sexism, in other words, thrive, because only the masculine principle has value there, and the feminine principle —think "spirit of"— has been denigrated, that is, lost. The balance is lost. That's where the impoverishment lies. Thus, the roots of the weed sexism thrive in a ground depleted of organic, whole nutrients, and only other weeds can thrive there along side of them. But you don't need to get rid of sexism; you only need to provide a whole, organic ground for our worldview, where healthy things can grow and make room for more healthy things. The weeds go easily, once you take care of the ground.

We see the aggressive, cultural approach all around us: To treat cancer, we wage a war on cancer cells, killing normal cells in the process and nearly killing the patient too; to grow food, we develop monocultures, destroying the life of the soil, and we use herbicides and pesticides that become necessary, once we've killed nature's processes; to handle crime, we make drugs illegal and wage a "war" on them, to create more crime and incarcerate more and more people; to develop and run an economy, we make profit our god, benefiting a few and injuring the rest.

Therefore, you're right if you're saying you cannot wage a war on sexism. I would agree with that. To do that would be to avoid the main problem.

I'm sure you agree, it's an approach, a mind-set, tayl, that drives the madness. The mind-sets of cultures have changed many times in history, manifesting in many different ways. There's no reason today's mind-set, today's approach to economies, or social issues, or whatever, cannot change too. In fact, soon it will become even more apparent to everyone that we're out of balance, and the intelligence, wisdom and strength of the nurturing and caring aspect needs to be included in the formula. Either that, or we'll destroy our species.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Others, besides Shiva, see it similarly, perhaps using different words and concepts. For example, Don't Think of an Elephant author, George Lakoff, designates the conservative worldview as deriving from a "strict father" mentality, while the liberal worldview derives from a more nurturing-parent mentality. "Strict father," to the feminist, means the same as "masculinist," and nurturing means the same as the feminine principle, although I would insist that the feminine principle includes balance between male and female principles as the best way.

Quote Nimblecivet:

Concerning the unsettling subject matter we have had to deal with recently, Zenzoe, this is a welcome reminder that men and women will be so much more healthy when they are allowed to live their lives freely and at home in an environment of their making.

I did not read the conversation btw you and college, but I thought I would mention that I saw Jan Brewer's face on Yahoo! with a headline indicating that AZ has outlawed state funding of Planned Parenthood and others. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sns-rt-us-usa-abortion-arizonabre84402y-20120504,0,5376213.story?track=rss This violates womens' Constitutional rights by adversely affecting their access to legal health services. It is discriminatory legislation attacking women. It does not merely target Planned Parenthood but by eliminating such institutions as Planned Parenthood seeks to eliminate a major option for women's health services.

Thanks for your comment, NC, and for the link. Naturally, I agree. And, as I observe the look on the face of Jan Brewer, hoping not to be accused of being sexist myself, I can't help thinking, Now there's a face devoid of the feminine principle. I mean, not that I couldn't be caught in a momentary bitchy-witchy look, but, her face seems to mirror what her policies represent: A total lack of a nurturing spirit; total masculinist mind-set. Well, it's true, women don't age as well as men, and I don't want to be too unkind, but, oye... woman, where have you gone, what have you done with your soul?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:
On the other hand, one can't deny the reality that sometimes we are vulnerable and need protection from our stronger brothers. And any moral support is always welcome.

Being physically smaller through no fault of their own does not make women any less deserving the full compliment of rights. Similarly, small men-who couldn't hurt a fly-deserve to be able to live free of oppression. Just because I, for instance, am naturally equipped to go around bullying people does not give me the right to do it. You and every other potential victim has my moral and my physical support. It's the least I can offer. We must all recognize what we can offer the greater good and give it, whatever that is. That's why the one percent are traitors.

When this country needs teachers, the learned step up. When this country needs strong young men to go die for a cause, they step up every time. When this country needs money, though, those with the most manipulate and corrupt the system for the purpose of lessening their own societal obligation. They are traitors. They take the one thing they can uniquely provide and they greedily ignore the greater national security their money could provide.

Women and men, rich and poor, are both vulnerable, at times, though. We also have our strengths and we all need others, for some things. If you need something killed or something heavy picked up, a man is often a good choice. If you are not well and need comfort, there is no substitute for a woman's touch. Are there physically powerful women and are there men who are capable of nurture, yes. These are really human qualities. There is no virtue or fault that is exclusive to one sex or the other, vulnerability included

In fact, nature is incapable of giving anything to women that men do not also have. Similarly, men have a manly version of everything womanly. Men have nipples because they must exist in women, for obvious mammalian reasons. Women have orgasms because nature needed men to have them, in order to stay sexually motivated. No human virtue or fault is exclusive to either sex. We are human, for better or for worse.

No problem with any of that, thank you very much! Except for one thing: Women have orgasms because they like them. In nature, if it works, it gets to stay. If nature needed only men to be movitated for sex and reproduction, we'd have nothing but rape; women say Yes, or even pursue sex, because orgasm reinforces their interest. But, because women bear the consequenses of sex more than men do, they tend not to be driven strictly by selfish satisfaction.

My point was not to say that the female orgasm is unnecessary or less important. In fact, by certain biological definitions, an adaptation that has current usefulness needn't have any historical usefulness, so the point of the trait evolving is less important than what we do with it now. All I was saying-and most scientists agree- is that the female, being the default sex, must posses a female version of any qualities that men are to receive from nature.

The female orgasm, by the way, may have not been necessary for the continuation of the animal species, Homo Sapiens, but it may certainly be necessary for the same animal's civil present and future. Either way, I'm always proud of myself when I can initiate one in my wife and I never tire of trying.

I'm not sure how women pass on the giant male ego to their offspring, but whatever you guys are doing, it's apparently working.

I admit I'm actually rather envious of men for that reason: how nice it must be not to have to worry about pregnancy or being diverted from one's chosen path in life just for having had a night of happy sex. Nature isn't fair; but it is in our nature to devise ways to make life fair. And that's what birth control is all about. Thus, birth control is a social justice issue as important as any other.

I agree that birth control is one of the only ways that civil humans can compensate for the inadequate job nature has done of creating gender equality. Don't be jealous of men, though, for our ability to hump and leave. I don't think you understand the other half of the male coin. The ironic male condition of the almost painful desire to copulate accompanied by an equally powerful self doubt.

High school was torture for me, as I was surrounded by objects of my desire who didn't seem to desire me at all. There's nothing like rejection to make a man-boy think he's got some kind of anti-woman disease that makes him repulsive to the opposite sex. I didn't realize it, at the time, but my disease WAS self doubt. Chicks seem to dig a guy who actually believes he deserves their love. What a crazy idea that pathetic losers won't get lucky a lot!

It seems that women have to hone their rejection ability but men have to thicken their skin. Some times, however, we let it grow so thick that we either no longer desire women-out of self preservation- or just use them because we no longer care what they think of us. Both situations are ticking time bombs that do nothing for the civil evolution we so badly need, as a species.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Zenzoe,i disagree.We need to make war on "anti-life" matter and spirit.How we make the war is, "art in progress". Men use to drag a women into the cave,that was "mating" back than. Now we need a contract to mate,what`s next?? Solutions,we all learn from somebody or something? They who control the message control the people,any ideas on how to control the message? How do we know all men are created equal? What can make this belief a reality?? How do we make humanity "organic"? My answer would be,"keep an open mind" to solutions!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

The female orgasm, by the way, may have not been necessary for the continuation of the animal species, Homo Sapiens, but it may certainly be necessary for the same animal's civil present and future. Either way, I'm always proud of myself when I can initiate one in my wife and I never tire of trying.

When you say, "may not have been necessary," D_NATURED, do you mean to imply that at one time the female orgasm did not exist, and that it evolved, or adapted? Perhaps, I misunderstand. However, I think it would be safe to say, in case you do mean to imply such, that the female orgasm has been present in Homo sapiens from the start, and even before that. It's even present in other primates.

I ask, because this reminds me of some of my other readings on the subject, and I know that the notion of the female orgasm as being incidental to evolution and adaptive for male-centric reasons is out there and still being accepted, even though that's been pretty well debunked by new research.

It's true: Sociobiologists have hypothesized that the female orgasm is an artifact or an adaptation, that is, as it is understood from a male-centric bias. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, said female orgasm “...is a by-product of the clitoris developing from the same embryonic tissue as the penis,” ("the penis comes first) thus, “females have orgasms because males do.” An anthropologist by the name of Donald Symons wrote that, “orgasm may be possible for female mammals because it is adaptive for males,” and the “ability of females to experience multiple orgasms may be an incidental effect of their inability to ejaculate.”

Some male sociobiologists, armed with their male-centric bias, had the gall to contend that female orgasm evolved for the “upsuck” effect of it, so orgasm might help semen move up the uterus to its destination. Oye! The problem with all of this male-centric crap is that it assumes that the male is the standard and the female is the variant from the standard.

However, once female biologists put their minds to the task of understanding female sexual behavior among primates, and human female orgasm, you got a different approach to the subject. For example, Dr. Sarah Hrdy proposed that it may predispose females to seek multiple partners and copulations —which they do, both human and animal species— or to confuse paternity, or for pleasure, or for testing partners as to whether they will be good long-term prospects. You can look it up, but for a fascinating look —if you haven't already read it— at how male bias has influenced the way many people view female sexuality, I refer you to the book, The Mismeasure of Woman, by Carol Tavris, and her chapter entitled Bedtime Stories, specifically regarding the “myth of the coy female.”

The thing is, if there's a uterus and a clitoris, orgasm exists too. I doubt we would have evolved at all, as a species, were females to be without those. And I trust your wife can manage it herself, even if you don't feel like trying at the moment. ;-)

I'm sorry so many boys feel rejected by the girls they're attracted to. But I think one of the problems may be that boys have been (I don't know if this would be true about you as a boy) conditioned to only be attracted to the pretty girls, and they tend to ignore girls who might not be so flashy. Thus, their selection pattern sets them up for rejection, because people tend to go for others with the same degree of attractiveness. Of course, there are exceptions. I was always attracted to nice, intelligent guys, I must say, even shy ones. I couldn't abide the slick, cocky ones or the jocks. Ugh.

Tayl, I'm giving up on you for the moment. No matter how hard I try to post reasonable stuff, I can't get through to you. What do you want me to say?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm glad you mentioned sociobiology. I had a college professor once who said "I am not a moose." Her credentials include being an expert witness at rape trials. I figured that it would only be a matter of time before the science was debated. Could you provide a link to Sarah Hardy's work? I think some people realize that sex for pleasure is Darwinian adaptation. The theory of evolution rests upon the foundation of genetic selection, yes, but behavioral adaptation plays a part in selection of course.

I also wondered about how the early Greeks (and I think other cultures) have male and female gods for the same thing. In "Romans" Paul talks about not "worshiping" animals. That was the last vestige of animism dying out. Previously, Diana had been the god of hunting for example. She was also the god of childbirth, which explains why she was a virgin (to preserve her neutrality towards world affairs). I think at a certain stage while gods such as she were represented in human form, the qualities which they embodied were also seen metonymically via nature. This was the stage when hunters would wear the pelts of animals they revered, such as wildcats. They had to notice that, unlike humans, these species did not bear as marked a difference between the sexes and that members of each sex of that species hunted independently.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,we may have to give up on each other until our two roads meet.The #1 issue for you is men & women,the #1 issue for me is rich & poor.It would be very backward to argue which is more important while "Rome/world burn". Let's hope our roads meet before all is burn.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nimblecivet, here's the chapter by Carol Tavris on the Myth of the Coy Female. In the chapter, she mentions Sarah Hrdy (no vowel in her name) a number of times.

Here's The Woman that Never Evolved, by Hrdy. I've only read bits of it, myself. Might buy it.

This article, not by Hrdy but about her theory of female orgasm, is pretty interesting: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/tag/sara-hrdy

This lecture by Sarah Hrdy is relevant to our conversation at FB: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding & includes the ideas of "shared care,"cooperative breeding," altruism and cooperation.

I am not a moose, either. Re behavioral adaptation, Hrdy says in the above lecture at the end that we might be selecting away from "cooperative breeding" and altruism, because of the modern trend away from the extended family and toward the solitary mom family model. We're still evolving—into what, I fear to think.

I'll have to ponder your second comment for awhile. Interesting.

Tayl, did you hear Thom today on the subject of women? He made it clear that the liberation and advancement of women leads to all sorts of benefits for society, and I'm certain those benefits would include a more equitable society overall. A society where a tiny number of people have all the wealth and oppress the rest is the exact opposite of a society inspired by the feminine principle (which doesn't mean "run by women," necessarily), where the commons and community have greater importance than profits for the rich.

You really do misunderstand me, if you think my focus on women's rights doesn't include concern for the poor, or about the rich. I wish you could see the connection.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
The problem with all of this male-centric crap is that it assumes that the male is the standard and the female is the variant from the standard.

Of course, that is not the case. Regardless, if I wanted to have a male-centric perspective, I could as easily claim that, the feminine being the default, additional development is necessary to produce a male. Thus, men are more evolved.

The truth, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter. Women and men both enjoy sex-though not universally with each other. The evolution of sex is not a user's manual for oppression, though. Once our brains evolved to a certain point, we no longer had any excuses to act like animals, based upon our genitalia. So, we made them up. Enter religion...

Certainly, though, the reasons behind male domination are not completely a function of religion. It's probably the other way around. I think the various religions were essentially philosophical costumes- for lack of a better term- made to fit the culture and people that needed them. Religion evolved from human needs, not the other way around.

There may have even been a good reason to protect women from the dangers of equality, when the world was more hazardous to humans. Who knows what justifications our ancestors used to keep women in their "place". I can imagine it had little to do with anything but physical might and the desire to keep one's progeny safe. The same arguments are being used today to justify a pro-life position at the expense of female liberty. Men are still stronger, on average, and women are still needed for baby making.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
The problem with all of this male-centric crap is that it assumes that the male is the standard and the female is the variant from the standard.

Of course, that is not the case. Regardless, if I wanted to have a male-centric perspective, I could as easily claim that, the feminine being the default, additional development is necessary to produce a male. Thus, men are more evolved.

The truth, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter. Women and men both enjoy sex-though not universally with each other. The evolution of sex is not a user's manual for oppression, though. Once our brains evolved to a certain point, we no longer had any excuses to act like animals, based upon our genitalia. So, we made them up. Enter religion...

Certainly, though, the reasons behind male domination are not completely a function of religion. It's probably the other way around. I think the various religions were essentially philosophical costumes- for lack of a better term- made to fit the culture and people that needed them. Religion evolved from human needs, not the other way around.

There may have even been a good reason to protect women from the dangers of equality, when the world was more hazardous to humans. Who knows what justifications our ancestors used to keep women in their "place". I can imagine it had little to do with anything but physical might and the desire to keep one's progeny safe. The same arguments are being used today to justify a pro-life position at the expense of female liberty. Men are still stronger, on average, and women are still needed for baby making.

Advancement of human cognitional ability has outpaced archetypal physical evolution. In the stages of human societal development from hunting to gathering to agricultural to industrial to post-industrial to high tech, cognition and education have evolved far more rapidly than hardwired physical traits. In the first four of the stages mentioned above, men were valued more highly overall than women because, owing to the strength of their club arms; sword arms; and backs, which was (and is) greater than the physical strength possessed by women, men were the gender capable of potentiating survival of the species by "bringing home the bacon." And despite the fact that there would be no babies and thus the species cannot be continued without women, immediate survival in those first four stages superseded the ability to bear offspring. This lead to the conclusion and situation that men must eat first and most, so that they'd have the strength to hunt and/or work the fields or make steel, or neither they nor women would eat. I'm not saying that the historical treatment of women has been acceptable, only that the situation as I've described it is factual.

It's only been in the post-industrial and high tech stages of human societal evolution that women have been able to demonstrate their genuine cognitive and intellectual equality with men, yet men's cognitional advances have not negated mens' hardwiring for brute-level survival. The dissonance from this blameless evolutionary quandary currently appears unsolveable, at least for the forseeable future, so, I have to agree with D-NATURED'S assessment that the burden is on men to constantly remind themselves that they need to do the right thing, despite our hardwiring. The hardwiring isn't our fault, but it's our problem, not women's, so the burden falls on us to make sure women don't suffer negative fallout from it.

That doesn't mean we should be expected to be perfect or that women are entitled to define masculinity, any more than men are entitled to define femininity. It means we should treat each other with basic human respect and common decency, regardless of gender.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

[quote=D_NATURED]

[quote]The problem with all of this male-centric crap is that it assumes that the male is the standard and the female is the variant from the standard.

Of course, that is not the case. Regardless, if I wanted to have a male-centric perspective, I could as easily claim that, the feminine being the default, additional development is necessary to produce a male. Thus, men are more evolved.

The truth, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter. Women and men both enjoy sex-though not universally with each other. The evolution of sex is not a user's manual for oppression, though. Once our brains evolved to a certain point, we no longer had any excuses to act like animals, based upon our genitalia. So, we made them up. Enter religion...

Certainly, though, the reasons behind male domination are not completely a function of religion. It's probably the other way around. I think the various religions were essentially philosophical costumes- for lack of a better term- made to fit the culture and people that needed them. Religion evolved from human needs, not the other way around.

There may have even been a good reason to protect women from the dangers of equality, when the world was more hazardous to humans. Who knows what justifications our ancestors used to keep women in their "place". I can imagine it had little to do with anything but physical might and the desire to keep one's progeny safe. The same arguments are being used today to justify a pro-life position at the expense of female liberty. Men are still stronger, on average, and women are still needed for baby making.

Advancement of human cognitional ability has outpaced archetypal physical evolution. In the stages of human societal development from hunting to gathering to agricultural to industrial to post-industrial to high tech, cognition and education have evolved far more rapidly than hardwired physical traits. In the first four of the stages mentioned above, men were valued more highly overall than women because, owing to the strength of their club arms; sword arms; and backs, which was (and is) greater than the physical strength possessed by women, men were the gender capable of potentiating survival of the species by "bringing home the bacon." And despite the fact that there would be no babies and thus the species cannot be continued without women, immediate survival in those first four stages superseded the ability to bear offspring. Intellect and cognitional ability were not at a premium in those stages of societal evolution. This lead to the conclusion and situation that men must eat first and most, so that they'd have the strength to hunt and/or work the fields or make steel, or neither they nor women would eat because women were not strong enough to go out and do the hard physical stuff alone and still take care of home and hearth while living in a manual labor day-to-day environment. I'm not saying that the historical treatment of women has been acceptable, only that the situation as I've described it is factual.

It's only been in the post-industrial and high tech stages of human societal evolution that women have been able to demonstrate their genuine cognitive and intellectual equality with men, yet men's own cognitional advances have not negated mens' hardwiring for brute-level survival. The dissonance from this blameless evolutionary quandary currently appears unsolveable, at least for the forseeable future, so, I have to agree with D-NATURED'S assessment that the burden is on men to constantly remind themselves that they need to do the right thing, despite our hardwiring. The hardwiring isn't our fault, but it's our problem, not women's, so the burden falls on us to make sure women don't suffer negative fallout from it or get treated as second-class citizens because of it.

That doesn't mean men should be expected to be perfect, or that women are entitled to define masculinity, any more than men are entitled to define femininity. It means that we should treat each other with basic human respect and common decency and institutionalize true equality, regardless of gender.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

In the first four of the stages mentioned above, men were valued more highly overall than women because, owing to the strength of their club arms; sword arms; and backs, which was (and is) greater than the physical strength possessed by women, men were the gender capable of potentiating survival of the species by "bringing home the bacon." And despite the fact that there would be no babies and thus the species cannot be continued without women, immediate survival in those first four stages superseded the ability to bear offspring.

Hm-m-m...thanks for your comment, U.

Ulysses, whom I respect and admire very much, appears to have a rather, um, quaint view of evolution and the survival of the species. He must be unaware of the complexities and mutualities between the sexes, where cooperation and shared effort toward survival have been the norm from earliest times, and where care has evolved more strongly than any aggressive tendencies have, in ways that served to ensure the survival of the young, and without which our species would not have survived. This is fresh in my mind, having just listened to Hrdy on the subject. (Of course, she is not the only one to point this out.)

In case you want to see what I mean: Hrdy is Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at U.C. Davis. http://forum-network.org/lecture/sarah-hrdy-evolutionary-origins-mutual-...

In short, U., muscle isn't everything. It's something, but just not everything.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote]In short, U., muscle isn't everything. It's something, but just not everything.

Not anymore. It used to be practically everything, when life was short, nasty, and brutal for most humans and the men had to be ready to take on the guy in the next cave, castle, country, or gang to defend family, home, and hearth. Now, instead of having to worry about the guy with a stronger arm and bigger club sacking us for everything, we worry about it being done with pen strokes and keystrokes, by savages in pinstripe suits (bankers and Republicans). Human cognitional evolution and the advancement of civilization, such as it is, have obviated the need for the average guy to be very physical (witness the obesity/stroke/heart attack rates). Brains now count more than brawn, and because women have always been cognitionally equal and their intelligence is randomly distributed along the same bell curve as men's, muscle is no longer a factor in the equality equation, so nobody should treat it as such. If, however, there is ever a massive breakdown of law and order, society, and civilization, I wouldn't want to be a woman without a gun and some easily defendable hard cover.

During the Allied occupation of Germany after WWII, occupying troops raped about 500,000 German women. It was all rationalized due to the atrocities committed everywhere by the German armed forces. About 200,000 German women died as a result. French troops raped about 3,000+ women and eight men. The Russians raped more women but no men. Shamefully, British and American troops were often not innocent bystanders; I don't know their numbers. Although the war was 70 years ago, it still fell within historical modernity. In some ways, little has changed. Muscle matters, but its potential to activate mayhem currently stands restrained under the thin veneer of law and society. In any apocalyptic scenario, the brutes and psychopaths would come to the fore in one hell of a hurry. To believe they wouldn't is denial.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,solutions is where our road separate.From what i heard,you believe changing people minds is better than going to the root of problems? I believe the opposite,i believe you change people minds by going at the reason for their mindset.We been over this ground before,i have nothing new to add,what about you?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

First, to Tayl @ #416: You have heard me wrong, if you think I would ONLY work to change minds, without also working to change the "root of problems." I believe in both. It is illogical to think it's an either-or choice, as I've stated before. Of course, I do NOT think people change their minds by being told they're wrong; but I do think people change their behavior by being shamed, or by fair laws. Sometimes a change of behavior is all that's needed, given that some people are just too stupid to see the error of their ways. But, like you, I think minds can change by being convinced by education or by experience, that is, if they're intelligent enough to learn, and they're open to learning.

The question becomes, Tayl, what solution do you propose? Would you like to eradicate the 1%? How do you propose to change their minds? Or do you simply wish to tax the hell out of them, as I would like to do?

Ulysses (415), I appreciate what you're saying, and I agree to the extent that I too would want women to be armed, where society has broken down. In fact, even now, where the law prohibits rape and violence against women (& men), I think it's wise to take self-defense classes, or carry mace or whatever, just in case some bastard who happens to be bigger than you decides to take advantage.

Where we might differ is in our understanding of the causes of violence and aggression, and whether violence and aggression played the greatest and most important role throughout our evolution as a species, and whether we are genetically and biologically predisposed to be violent, over and above our capacity for cooperation and altruism. That's why I had hoped you would listen to the Hrdy lecture, so that we might be on the same page. If you could hear what she has to say about "shared care" being more adaptive toward survival than war and aggression (your "life is short, brutal and nasty" view), and her evidence, I think you might see what I mean.

Another great listen, if you haven't already heard it, is the Zeitgeist Moving Forward series with Robert Sapolsky, Richard Wildenson, James Gillian and Gabor Maté. I think the relevant message there would be that behaviors may have "genetic components," but those are not fixed and inevitable; plus, they may or may not be "expressed," depending on environmental factors such as stress. As Gabor Maté states in the first video, "Predisposition is not the same as predetermination." Thus, if I apply it to your rape and violence against women example, it is not that males are biologically predisposed to rape and aggression against women and can't help themselves, unless the law stops them; it is that stress and any number of other environmental/societal factors cause the expression of aggression (Some societies teach men they're animals who rape, that is, give them permission.). Also, as Sapolsky has stated in his lecture course on Human Behavioral Biology, stress can actually change the brain, injuring the judgment centers that counter aggressive impulses, and lessening impulse control. So, it's not that men are raping machines by design; it's that stress injures their capacity for choosing behaviors that enhance and protect their own best interests.

Aggression may have played a part in the survival of the species, but it was only one part of a bigger picture, where cooperation and altruism existed at least in equal importance. Aggression may have been adaptive toward survival at one time; but now, unless the human species ceases to be driven by the spirit of aggression in all things, aggression will prove to have been wholly non-adaptive toward survival. It will prove to be our downfall.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Aggression may have played a part in the survival of the species, but it was only one part of a bigger picture, where cooperation and altruism existed at least in equal importance. Aggression may have been adaptive toward survival at one time; but now, unless the human species ceases to be driven by the spirit of aggression in all things, aggression will prove to have been wholly non-adaptive toward survival. It will prove to be our downfall.

Humans have adapted in many ways. Whether our sharing the caring is of greater import than our ability to kill, I don't know. It's an interesting, almost female-centric, notion.The obvious benefit of being physically stronger and faster in a might-makes-right world, however, can't be overlooked. With either explanation of our success, as a species, we're still only talking about animal survival, not humanity as a philosophical condition.

What I see is men focusing on the human animal by reducing our motives and dreams to nothing more than fucking and killing. I then see women answer back with calls for transcendence while they simultaneously encourage us to be good fuckers and killers by cheer leading (rewarding) these masculine past times.

As I said about the privileged not caring greatly about equality, there is a natural privilege-and potential for victimhood- that exists for men in a world where violence counts, and it DOES count...even today. You can't ask men to ignore the fact that when they have disagreements with women, there is the thought in the back of their head that says, why should I let this weak little person speak to me this way? Doesn't she realize I could beat her into agreement? It's arrogant, bullyish and dismissive of any moral intention but it is a fact. I often wonder what women are thinking when they have a conflict with a being that is eight inches taller and 100 pounds heavier than they. Do they not realize that within nearly every man there is a dominant monkey lurking behind the civil exterior? Are they confident that if things turn nasty, an equally large male monkey will defend them? There is the privilege that women enjoy, perhaps.

Regardless of natural privilege, we evolved together and cannot survive separately. We are human, with all of the positives and negatives that come with it. I can no more claim to be appreciably different from female humans as a male poodle can claim to be more doggy than a female poodle. We are the two halves of the whole and if we rape each other or kill each other or oppress each other, it says something about men and women alike.

Our evolutionary sign should read, "under construction", not "condemned".

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Muscle matters, but its potential to activate mayhem currently stands restrained under the thin veneer of law and society. In any apocalyptic scenario, the brutes and psychopaths would come to the fore in one hell of a hurry. To believe they wouldn't is denial.

Politics has already given an avenue to psychopaths. The brutes must join the police force.

My fear is that I would become what I detest in such a scenario. Hell, maybe I'm a brute already, just waiting for an excuse.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Do they not realize that within nearly every man there is a dominant monkey lurking behind the civil exterior?

And that "dominant monkey" must lie down and sleep eventually, and who knows why, but he could then be bobbitized by his "privileged" little woman who just happens to be capable of violence as well. As Jim Hightower has said, "Even a little dog can piss on a big building."

I'd feel a whole lot better about this discussion, if I had the sense that D and U had bothered to check out the links to Hrdy and Sapolsky. It might amaze you to discover you aren't the brutes you think you are; that is to say, your genetic "predisposition" for violence is no greater than that for empathy. Just because you have muscular strength and testosterone does not mean you don't have a frontal lobe and a heart. But, until my points are comprehended in the way I meant them to be, it feels like we're just talking past each other.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote]Where we might differ is in our understanding of the causes of violence and aggression, and whether violence and aggression played the greatest and most important role throughout our evolution as a species, and whether we are genetically and biologically predisposed to be violent, over and above our capacity for cooperation and altruism. That's why I had hoped you would listen to the Hrdy lecture, so that we might be on the same page. If you could hear what she has to say about "shared care" being more adaptive toward survival than war and aggression (your "life is short, brutal and nasty" view), and her evidence, I think you might see what I mean.

As to the causes of violence and aggression, I have no comments beyond a socioeconomic one: Two-class societies are natural breeding grounds for violence and aggression because they also breed discontent; envy; sloth; gluttony; ignorance; confusion; wide-scale crime; and hatred. The "haves" know this, but they simply don't care, as long as they get to remain at the trough while everybody else lives in want and misery. Their only concern in any modern two-class society is making sure that the army and the police get enough for them and theirs to make them willing to protect the "haves" from the "have nots." This is what we can expect if the rich and their minions in the GOP get full control of all branches of the government.

Another great listen, if you haven't already heard it, is the Zeitgeist Moving Forward series with Robert Sapolsky, Richard Wildenson, James Gillian and Gabor Maté. I think the relevant message there would be that behaviors may have "genetic components," but those are not fixed and inevitable; plus, they may or may not be "expressed," depending on environmental factors such as stress. As Gabor Maté states in the first video, "Predisposition is not the same as predetermination." Thus, if I apply it to your rape and violence against women example, it is not that males are biologically predisposed to rape and aggression against women and can't help themselves, unless the law stops them; it is that stress and any number of other environmental/societal factors cause the expression of aggression (Some societies teach men they're animals who rape, that is, give them permission.). Also, as Sapolsky has stated in his lecture course on Human Behavioral Biology, stress can actually change the brain, injuring the judgment centers that counter aggressive impulses, and lessening impulse control. So, it's not that men are raping machines by design; it's that stress injures their capacity for choosing behaviors that enhance and protect their own best interests.

I have no arguments with any of that. My concerns are with the behavior, rather than its causes. If you're saying that education ameliorates barbarism, no arguments here. I do believe that psychopaths are mostly born, rather than created, although many are the result of poor nuture rather than freaks of nature. Stress? I dunno. We're all usually stressed by the demands of everyday life or have lived stressful lives, yet most who are stressed don't become violent, so maybe stress does that to those who already have a predisposition and are more sensitive to stress than their non-violent fellow humans. It seems that if all you've pointed out above proves true, the keys to prevention of violence would be nurturing, education, and socialization. But, if those are the keys, why do so many of those who receive superior nurturing, education, and socialization historically prove to be incorrigible?

When Queen Victoria reigned, she often hosted summer vacation retreats for her grandsons, the (then) Tsarevitch (later Tsar) Nicholas II of Russia, the Prince of Wales, George (later King George) of England, and Crown Prince Wilhelm (later Kaiser Wilhelm I) of Germany. Inevitably, despite having all the advantages any child on the planet could hope for at that time, the Kaiser would misbehave, and because royals could only be disciplined by royals, Victoria, or Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, would have to birch the little brat. "Willie" did that consistently throughout his childhood. "Willie" later proved to be a dull-witted, autocratic monarch and, although it's an oversimplification, probably the one most heavily to blame for WWI. Just one famous example out of millions of examples wherein nurture and education had little or no positive effect.

Aggression may have played a part in the survival of the species, but it was only one part of a bigger picture, where cooperation and altruism existed at least in equal importance.

This is where our opinions must permanently diverge. I think it's not what people or studies say, it's what people do, that illustrates who they are. Human history is violent, bloody, and inhumane, despite the martyrdom of some and the goodness of others. I've seen too much and learned too much, and I long ago resigned myself to the fact that the protagonist of Nathaniel Hawthorne's story, Young Goodman Brown, was, sadly, correct when he committed the sin (according to Hawthorne) of stopping believing in the basic, innate goodness of humanity. I no longer believe in it either; that's one major reason why I'm a liberal. I don't think the "haves" and the conservatives, etc. will EVER willingly do the right thing. Law is intrinsically coercive, or it wouldn't be law, and the only way those assholes will EVER do the right thing is by being either legally (by law) or violently (by revolution) coerced into doing so. Cooperation and altruism have historically always been far too minimal and often non-existent for me to ever put my faith in their curing the ills of the world.

Frederick Douglass waxed sublime when he observed that power NEVER concedes anything without a demand. I can't see how it's possible for demands made on power (which is intractable) to be mutually inclusive of nurturing and accommodation. Can you?

Aggression may have been adaptive toward survival at one time;

I think it was. But, as I stated in the previous post, I think our cognitive abilities have now outpaced our physicality, and this causes a dynamic tension produced by personal dissonance between the fact that we evolved as brutes but we've figured out how to walk amongst the stars. Try as we may, the astronaut can never fully deny or overcome the Australopithecus. That may happen in eons, when everybody has the brain-to-body ratio of a Roswell-style alien, if the base side of human nature hasn't caused our extinction by then. I'm not optimistic about that, either. Given the rate of population growth vs. rate of use of resources, we'll see massive diebacks in the not-too-distant future, and there may be other ways Nature will rid herself of us. Disease, war, famine, etc. could all play major roles and I think some combination will do so, given man's base nature and historical behavior. It would be nice to be proven wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

but now, unless the human species ceases to be driven by the spirit of aggression in all things, aggression will prove to have been wholly non-adaptive toward survival. It will prove to be our downfall.

Aggression is one natural derivative of want and greed. It will be reduced, or increased, in direct proportion to the reduction or increase in want and greed (or, in a significant minority of cases, the lust for power, rather than stuff).

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

[quote=D_NATURED]

Do they not realize that within nearly every man there is a dominant monkey lurking behind the civil exterior?

And that "dominant monkey" must lie down and sleep eventually, and who knows why, but he could then be bobbitized by his "privileged" little woman who just happens to be capable of violence as well. As Jim Hightower has said, "Even a little dog can piss on a big building."

Yes, but if he kills an animal and skins and roasts it, and then keeps it all for himself, driving her away at the point of a club, per muscle power, and does likewise at the watering hole, and sleeps under the shelter of a rock enclosure rigged with a noise alarm he's made for himself, so she can't sneak up on him, she'll die of thirst and hunger in a week or so, unless she's strong enough to hunt for herself, and he then has no more problems until he gets horny. Whence, then, her chance to give him the ol' Bobbit? Brute force. Raw power. Muscles. Determinate in most early stages of human history.

I'd feel a whole lot better about this discussion, if I had the sense that D and U had bothered to check out the links to Hrdy and Sapolsky. It might amaze you to discover you aren't the brutes you think you are;

In my opinion, history proves otherwise.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

Where we might differ is in our understanding of the causes of violence and aggression, and whether violence and aggression played the greatest and most important role throughout our evolution as a species, and whether we are genetically and biologically predisposed to be violent, over and above our capacity for cooperation and altruism. That's why I had hoped you would listen to the Hrdy lecture, so that we might be on the same page. If you could hear what she has to say about "shared care" being more adaptive toward survival than war and aggression (your "life is short, brutal and nasty" view), and her evidence, I think you might see what I mean.

As to the causes of violence and aggression, I have no comments beyond a socioeconomic one: Two-class societies are natural breeding grounds for violence and aggression because they also breed discontent; envy; sloth; gluttony; ignorance; confusion; wide-scale crime; and hatred. The "haves" know this, but they simply don't care, as long as they get to remain at the trough while everybody else lives in want and misery. Their only concern in any modern two-class society is whether the army and the police get enough for them and theirs to be willing to protect the "haves" from the "have nots." This is where the billionaires and their minions in the GOP would take us.

U, I don't disagree with any of your points there at all, in as much as they apply to the current and recent history of humankind. But my point referred to the longer history of humankind, going back to those epochs before capitalism, before industrialism, and perhaps even before monotheism entered the picture. Certainly, if you're going to talk about human nature, you cannot exclude evidence of behaviors that manifested in less oppressive times, or even manifest within more recent examples of peoples who have not been corrupted by "white man's" diseases. Also, you can't ignore evidence provided by our close relatives, other primates, where altruism is an active component of their societies. The fact is, we humans, just like our primate relatives, do not always act like brutes, like greedy, lazy, selfish, murderous monsters; enough evidence to the contrary exists to give us reason for hope.

Quote Ulysses:

Inevitably, despite having all the advantages any child on the planet could hope for at that time, the Kaiser would misbehave, and because royals could only be disciplined by royals, Victoria, or Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, would have to birch the little brat. "Willie" did that consistently throughout his childhood. "Willie" later proved to be a dull-witted, autocratic monarch and, although it's an oversimplification, probably the one most heavily to blame for WWI. Just one famous example out of millions of examples wherein nurture and education had little or no positive effect.

Um, chuckle, and assuming you didn't make it up, so you think being "birched" is to be nurtured? If I am to understand "birch" as being beaten with a branch from a tree, that's not nurturing; it's child abuse. Child abuse of that sort, coupled with a hyper-masculine military culture of Prussia that he was exposed to as a child and teen could not have produced anything but a swaggering autocrat. I mean, Ulysses, could you possibly have come up with a more dubious example of the uselessness of "nurturing," or education?

Also, to be brought up in the context of privilege and class, with all the spoiled entitlements such entails, would not represent education toward empathy and altruism, would it?

Quote Ulysses:

I think it's not what people or studies say, it's what people do, that illustrates who they are.

But, you see, those people and studies will give you wider evidence of "what people do." If you're only looking at what capitalists and those oppressed people who try to function within a sick system do, then your sampling skews your view toward the negative. For example, if I'm only looking at right-wing, evangelical Christians for evidence of human idiocy, I'm going to be thoroughly convinced humans are idiots, without any doubt whatsoever. But if somebody shows me some examples of other people who don't think and behave like idiots, then I'm going to have to adjust my perception a bit. (I don't mean to insult your intelligence with such simple examples; I just hoping to be clear.)

As for your other comments, I tend to agree with much of it, in as much as you're talking about where we are now. Until...

Quote Ulysses:
Quote Zenzoe:

but now, unless the human species ceases to be driven by the spirit of aggression in all things, aggression will prove to have been wholly non-adaptive toward survival. It will prove to be our downfall.

Aggression is the natural derivative of want and greed. It will be reduced, or increased, in direct proportion to the reduction or increase in want and greed (or, in a minority of cases, the lust for power, rather than stuff).

Well, you had said that aggression had been necessary —adaptive— in a brutish world, necessary for survival. I'm just saying it isn't adaptive anymore.

Unless Mother Nature soon convinces the greedy it would be in their best interest to adopt more altruistic ways, or until the rest of us force them to adopt more altruistic ways, and force a move away from aggressive-think as a viable option, we will be doomed. So I suppose we agree, ultimately.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

Yes, but if he kills an animal and skins and roasts it, and then keeps it all for himself, driving her away at the point of a club, per muscle power, and does likewise at the watering hole, and sleeps under the shelter of a rock enclosure rigged with a noise alarm he's made for himself, so she can't sneak up on him, she'll die of thirst and hunger in a week or so, unless she's strong enough to hunt for herself, and he then has no more problems until he gets horny. Whence, then, her chance to give him the ol' Bobbit? Brute force. Raw power. Muscles. Determinate in most early stages of human history.

You crack me up, U. Listen, way back then, you didn't have that sort of selfishness. They ucking-fay cooperated. And, the females were every bit as necessary as food providers as the males, being gatherers, etc., etc. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE ANTHROPOLOGIST HRDY.

But, oye, I can't convince you. So be it, Tarzan. ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote Ulysses:

Inevitably, despite having all the advantages any child on the planet could hope for at that time, the Kaiser would misbehave, and because royals could only be disciplined by royals, Victoria, or Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, would have to birch the little brat. "Willie" did that consistently throughout his childhood. "Willie" later proved to be a dull-witted, autocratic monarch and, although it's an oversimplification, probably the one most heavily to blame for WWI. Just one famous example out of millions of examples wherein nurture and education had little or no positive effect.

Um, chuckle, and assuming you didn't make it up, so you think being "birched" is to be nurtured? If I am to understand "birch" as being beaten with a branch from a tree, that's not nurturing; it's child abuse. Child abuse of that sort, coupled with a hyper-masculine military culture of Prussia that he was exposed to as a child and teen could not have produced anything but a swaggering autocrat. I mean, Ulysses, could you possibly have come up with a more dubious example of the uselessness of "nurturing," or education?

I suppose this cuts to whether one thinks spanking is child abuse. I don't. And I do know the difference. Not a "branch," a switch; there's a big difference. A switch isn't a club. I didn't make it up. My point is that he was incorrigible even as a little boy, so what was to be done? No matter how much nurturing he had, and the fact that he grew up wanting for nothing material, he was incorrigible by nature, and he had to be dealt with by means other than nurturing and accommodation. The Queen knew his nature, knew that he wouldn't cut it out, but also knew that it must stop. She could've refused to have him there, but that's one tough call for any grandparent, seeing as how we dote on them. Besides, his father, the Kaiser, probably told her to warm up his bottom if he misbehaved. Most parents (unless they're non-spankers) give grandparents that license, if need be. But my overall point is that some people are born incapable of benefiting from nurturing and accommodation, so if they're to be positively socialized to any degree at all, other means must be found with which to do it. Sans that, the brute or psychopath in them inevitably emerges in aberrated form at some other time, in some other way, and their paths through life are strewn with their victims.

Also, to be brought up in the context of privilege and class, with all the spoiled entitlements such entails, would not represent education toward empathy and altruism, would it?

No, I agree, it wouldn't. When I spoke of education, I just meant formal education, not child-rearing or character development.

As for your other comments, I tend to agree with much of it, in as much as you're talking about where we are now. Until...
Quote Ulysses:

[quote=Zenzoe]

but now, unless the human species ceases to be driven by the spirit of aggression in all things, aggression will prove to have been wholly non-adaptive toward survival. It will prove to be our downfall.

Aggression is the natural derivative of want and greed. It will be reduced, or increased, in direct proportion to the reduction or increase in want and greed (or, in a minority of cases, the lust for power, rather than stuff).

Well, you had said that aggression had been necessary —adaptive— in a brutish world, necessary for survival. I'm just saying it isn't adaptive anymore.

Completely agreed, it isn't adaptive anymore, but it hasn't simply vanished. It would emerge in any apocalyptic scenario.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Ulysses:

I suppose this cuts to whether one thinks spanking is child abuse. I don't. And I do know the difference. Not a "branch," a switch; there's a big difference. A switch isn't a club. I didn't make it up. My point is that he was incorrigible even as a little boy, so what was to be done? No matter how much nurturing he had, and the fact that he grew up wanting for nothing material, he was incorrigible by nature, and he had to be dealt with by means other than nurturing and accommodation. The Queen knew his nature, knew that he wouldn't cut it out, but also knew that it must stop. She could've refused to have him there, but that's one tough call for any grandparent, seeing as how we dote on them. Besides, his father, the Kaiser, probably told her to warm up his bottom if he misbehaved. Most parents (unless they're non-spankers) give grandparents that license, if need be. But my overall point is that some people are born incapable of benefiting from nurturing and accommodation, so if they're to be positively socialized to any degree at all, other means must be found with which to do it. Sans that, the brute or psychopath in them inevitably emerges in aberrated form at some other time, in some other way, and their paths through life are strewn with their victims.

See, I don't believe children are ever "born bad." Yes, some children pose greater challenges for their parents and families, just for having extra energy or curiosity. However, I don't think I've ever witnessed a child's bad behavior that was not caused by poor parenting, or that could not have been cured by good parenting.

I definitely disagree with you about spanking, U. Spanking, even with a little switch, does nothing but teach violence and tends to produce either aggressiveness, or swaggering bullyism, or shyness and low self-esteem, especially if it is used regularly. I mean, sure, one time might not be damaging, but if it's the parent's habit, watch out.

I do believe that corporal punishment of children, and other kinds of child abuse, down through the centuries accounts for much of the evil done by grown human beings; beat a child —and children were regularly beaten in times past, the thought being that such punishment improves the child's character and moral strength— and you damage a child's brain, we now know, effectively turning the child into a more aggressive creature, one without impulse control, one filled with rage and bent on revenge. If the household is a particularly pious one, where the parents demand respect from the children they beat, the child may grow into an adult who will project his rage against outsiders, or even against political enemies, or other scapegoats.

As you probably know, it is thought that strict parenting goes hand-in-hand with authoritarianism and conservative politics. George Lakoff comes to mind. It also creates rebellion.

Also, "nurturing" does not mean laissez faire parenting. Discipline —ground rules, natural and logical consequences, following through, setting limits, "time-outs" etc.— is part of nurturing, because structure, setting boundaries, makes children feel safe. But love needs to be the essential ingredient. Love does not mean giving kids everything they want; but it includes respect, as well as making an effort to know your child and find out what's going on with them. It means attention.

When I think of psychopaths, I think of somebody like Dahmer. When I watched an interview of him and his father, I had the feeling that the father had molested Jeffrey. There was just something really creepy about the father, even though they both claimed all was well with their family. Ugh.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-11/opinion/opinion_toth-abuse_1_corporal...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

Do they not realize that within nearly every man there is a dominant monkey lurking behind the civil exterior?

And that "dominant monkey" must lie down and sleep eventually, and who knows why, but he could then be bobbitized by his "privileged" little woman who just happens to be capable of violence as well. As Jim Hightower has said, "Even a little dog can piss on a big building."

I'd feel a whole lot better about this discussion, if I had the sense that D and U had bothered to check out the links to Hrdy and Sapolsky. It might amaze you to discover you aren't the brutes you think you are; that is to say, your genetic "predisposition" for violence is no greater than that for empathy. Just because you have muscular strength and testosterone does not mean you don't have a frontal lobe and a heart. But, until my points are comprehended in the way I meant them to be, it feels like we're just talking past each other.

I looked at the material and it's a fascinating idea. Hell, maybe men are strong because our ancestors had to carry around a lot of babies. And maybe females didn't need to be able to kick ass because she would have had so many lovers, an army of men would come to her defense, when needed. I think it fits observable human behavior as much as anything else I've heard. Fine.

I hope its true and it's just our culture that's fucked. It would make sense.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

Do they not realize that within nearly every man there is a dominant monkey lurking behind the civil exterior?

And that "dominant monkey" must lie down and sleep eventually, and who knows why, but he could then be bobbitized by his "privileged" little woman who just happens to be capable of violence as well. As Jim Hightower has said, "Even a little dog can piss on a big building."

I'd feel a whole lot better about this discussion, if I had the sense that D and U had bothered to check out the links to Hrdy and Sapolsky. It might amaze you to discover you aren't the brutes you think you are; that is to say, your genetic "predisposition" for violence is no greater than that for empathy. Just because you have muscular strength and testosterone does not mean you don't have a frontal lobe and a heart. But, until my points are comprehended in the way I meant them to be, it feels like we're just talking past each other.

I looked at the material and it's a fascinating idea. Hell, maybe men are strong because our ancestors had to carry around a lot of babies. And maybe females didn't need to be able to kick ass because she would have had so many lovers, an army of men would come to her defense, when needed. I think it fits observable human behavior as much as anything else I've heard. Fine.

I hope its true and it's just our culture that's fucked. It would make sense.

A rare thing— an amazing open mind. Thanks, D_NATURED. Wow.

The conventional wisdom that aggression and violence dominate the human story above all other factors has existed for so long that the new research really has to fight to displace it. Once we give up that "wisdom," perhaps we can begin to heal ourselves and the planet. I'm sure that those who lack any compunction about enacting policies that harm large segments of society hold to that belief, and it gives them permission to be "bold," or "tough." You always hear, "we had to make some 'tough cuts' in social programs..." and the like. Well, if somehow we can begin to debunk that fundamental belief in the genetic entitlement of humans to be cruel to each other and the environment, perhaps we can survive as a species.

I want to be hopeful, because I can't see my grandchildren growing up in a hopeless, violent world. It's unthinkable.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,what they say"why cannot women make up their mind"? (joke) Moving forward,what`s my solution? "ERADICATE the 1% system,not the people,otherwise the system will create more 1%.How do you change minds? You show a better way. Having a solid reason to say no,is better than just saying no.Taxing the 1% will make them pass it on,the rich don`t pay taxes,only the poor.The money solution is common sense,stop giving them(1%) our money and give it to ourselfs(99%). We are beyond crazy to give our money to them to make us slaves to them! I mention "public banking" as the solution to giving ourselfs the money,remember??

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, tayl, I'm with you on the national bank idea, and I think I told you I use a credit union, which is another way to resist. I don't know if you're aware of that option. I'm also a vegetarian, and I don't do drugs— so that's how I show a better way. I'm also for eradicating the system of totalitarian capitalism and replacing it with democratic socialism. Does that work for you?

Speaking of jokes, try this one on somebody:

Q: Why are women so bad at estimating distances and measurements?

A: Because they're forever being told that this —— (and here you hold up your thumb and forefinger, at about an inch apart)—— is eight inches.

;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED:

Do they not realize that within nearly every man there is a dominant monkey lurking behind the civil exterior?

And that "dominant monkey" must lie down and sleep eventually, and who knows why, but he could then be bobbitized by his "privileged" little woman who just happens to be capable of violence as well. As Jim Hightower has said, "Even a little dog can piss on a big building."

I'd feel a whole lot better about this discussion, if I had the sense that D and U had bothered to check out the links to Hrdy and Sapolsky. It might amaze you to discover you aren't the brutes you think you are; that is to say, your genetic "predisposition" for violence is no greater than that for empathy. Just because you have muscular strength and testosterone does not mean you don't have a frontal lobe and a heart. But, until my points are comprehended in the way I meant them to be, it feels like we're just talking past each other.

I looked at the material and it's a fascinating idea. Hell, maybe men are strong because our ancestors had to carry around a lot of babies. And maybe females didn't need to be able to kick ass because she would have had so many lovers, an army of men would come to her defense, when needed. I think it fits observable human behavior as much as anything else I've heard. Fine.

I hope its true and it's just our culture that's fucked. It would make sense.

A rare thing— an amazing open mind. Thanks, D_NATURED. Wow.

The conventional wisdom that aggression and violence dominate the human story above all other factors has existed for so long that the new research really has to fight to displace it. Once we give up that "wisdom," perhaps we can begin to heal ourselves and the planet. I'm sure that those who lack any compunction about enacting policies that harm large segments of society hold to that belief, and it gives them permission to be "bold," or "tough." You always hear, "we had to make some 'tough cuts' in social programs..." and the like. Well, if somehow we can begin to debunk that fundamental belief in the genetic entitlement of humans to be cruel to each other and the environment, perhaps we can survive as a species.

I want to be hopeful, because I can't see my grandchildren growing up in a hopeless, violent world. It's unthinkable.

I guess it comes down to, are the defining moments in human history the wars and attocities we carry out, or are they the intricate pieces of our interpersonal dealings and human culture. Certainly, we haven't had the ability to wage large scale war for nearly as long as we've been loving each other. It makes me wonder, though, why such a loving species is so universally violent. Even Amazonian tribes, that haven't heard of Jesus, make war and assign specific duties to women. Do they even care about history outside their preferred myths, or do they contiue to make it without much judgement? What is it about us that WE think we can rise above our nature when we, obviously, cannot intellecutalize away any of the current or past human negatives. Half of all Americans still oppose "gay" marriage (as if their marriage rites involve lubricants and cheap motel rooms). They're not really thinking and caring about it. They just don't like it.

It seems like so many of our human attitudes are not considered from a perspective of compassion. It's like we don't think we have to. Perhaps tenacious insecurity is the mark of the human beast. Perhaps for good reason.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

"Universally violent?" Check it out, D_NATURED: http://www.afww.org/map.html and this, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Semai-Nonviolent-Studies-Cultural-Anthropology/dp/...

and this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semai_people

I wouldn't write us off just yet. We're far more varied and multifarious than we have been able to imagine, stuck as we are in our Western perspective. Could we have imagined it's possible to live according to a "gift economy," rather than the self-centered, hoarding, exploitive and competitive economy we live by here?

I can't get enough of Vandana Shiva on the subject of moving away from the capitalist imperative toward a life-centric model. Nimblecivet, over at his post on capitalism, said of her, "...she wants to put food (not women) 'back in the kitchen' and that men and women should be in the kitchen together." To which I responded, "I liked that part too. I think that's a part of her concept of 'equality in diversity.' She doesn't take the position of much of feminism (or the misconception about feminism) that sees progress for women, necessarily, in terms of their arriving at sameness and being able to out-do men in the capitalist game, where the value of masculine principles disallows the feminine principle to have a place. And I love her approaches about food, how she advocates for taking the power of nurturance away from corporations, which is really power over life, and putting it back where it belongs in the hands of small farmers, seed-savers and cooks. The wisdom there is great—how she encourages individual freedom and resistance against the tyranny of capitalist modes via small choices, such as saving seeds, rather than obeying laws against using any seeds but the seeds the corporations 'own.'"

So that relates, in part, to your comment about African tribes assigning "specific duties to women." It is possible to see men and women as equal in their diversity, but also see how we can share tasks.

Quote Vandana Shiva in an interview:

I studied physics, and there are many phases in it. There is old classical science, the kind of Newton and Cartesian era, that sees a creator that from above regulates as clockwork everything. We are all mechanical components of this universe. More recently, studying quantum physics, I understood that the universe is unpredictable, creative, constantly self-organizing, and complex. Everything is uncertain, and could go in different path of evolution; there is nothing fixed and immutable. But Science developed based in the context of patriarchy and monotheism, and therefore reflected the ideas of unchanging stability and universality. Patriarchy defines fixed qualities as the basis of power, assigning to everything fixed qualities. The idea of male superiority, fixes women in a passive role, biologically inferior, depriving them of any control, while giving men the role in charge, of makers, producers and controllers. These are all man-made constructs, especially male, that sustaining equalities by using biology and universalism. My idea of science is working to construct the universe differently, so that our minds can look at it differently. Looking back at my life experience, I think that we do need science, but a more ecological feminine science. A science married to the knowledge of grandmothers. In fact I now started a project of Grandmothers’ university, where the grandmas have the kind of women’s knowledge that have been put down in the modern, industrial world, in formal universities. Women and Nature’s reproduction have been dismissed as passive, inert, not creative. The river is seen as productive only when controlled through dams and channels. The rivers have always produced water running freely, recharging springs and giving water to communities that evolved around them, this complex process is not treated as production.The woman pulling out water from the ground well, and taking care of the creek, is not seen as producing water. Only when the Coca Cola plant comes to use the river, then water is ‘produced’. Women’s knowledge and care have been put out of production, and reproduction has been put out of the equation. But reproduction is renewal and regeneration. We are now in a time of ecological catastrophe: climate change is the ultimate examples of it, as is destroying the biodiversity and water resources of the planet are other important examples. And the key issue is also the food we eat. As the basic food we eat is moved out of women’s hands, out of control from the knowledge and work of our grandmothers, becoming commodities sold by Nestle, Cargyll and Monsanto. With food produced by multinational corporations, we see now an increase in obesity and diabetes. We have one billion people that do not eat enough and two billion people that eat more than enough and dying from many diseases. This mess has been created by a certain science and technology serving capitalism, only thinking how to make more money out of this planet and its societies. So, I think that today we need a science that asks a different equation: how can we end this mess? How can understand this world better, so that we can sustain its living conditions, in a way that we can live in it without destroying the very conditions of our lives? The tools and knowledge are there, in millennia of history, always existing as a subjugated knowledge a women’s knowledge, which today has to be resurrected. Anyone today wanting to be a scientist has to develop a political awareness on what science do they practice, who controls it and what does this science do to the world. Science is not universal nor neutral. There are many values that go into science, Young women have to put women’s’ values into science. Being scientist or regular people, we can evolve to be conservers of the planet or greedy consumers, nothing is predetermined, we have to deal with our values.

Today I think women studies are producing knowledge against patriarchy, in the house, but ... if today we live in a world where real rules are multinational corporations, the household is the entire planet and the man in the household is the global corporation. their patriarchy is the worst instrument of violence against our planet, which is mother earth, and their violence is against our grandmothers, mothers and our grandchildren

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If there's nothing more to be said, I'd like to end on a humorous note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG4IjY52OHw   (Mark Fiore animated cartoon on the subject)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,yes i remember your saying you move your money to a credit union and some other positive things in dealing with the system.I responded saying we need to move our money to another level a public bank.I`m very happy to hear you support this common sense idea to regain control of "economic freedom".Now,if you would advocate this idea along with your other ideas? I say before,we solve one big problem,we solve a lot of babies from it.We control our money,we can take back control of our life & government & education from "special interests". Is love of money that make the world go around or should it be 'money of love make the world go around'? Money from love relate to working to live vs love of money/living to work.Economic freedom would give us a choice.I don`t like labels from old,because of past corruption,i use "economic democracy" to label public banking. Yes, most said in your post works for me, except the joke about women & distance. My sister inlaw was able to find her way around after total destruction from Hurricane Andrew, because she knew and remember the colors of the buildings that came down.My bother was lost because he needed road signs that was all down.So Zenzoe,i trust ladies judge of distance whether 1 or 8 inchs. HAPPY MOTHER DAY

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Tayl, it was only a joke, not on women, but on men who lie about the size of their penises (as if they do). Of course I don't think women are bad at judging distances!

This was a thread about women's issues, Tayl, which also included references to the essential, root cause of injustice having to do with capitalism and patriarchy. Sorry, but I don't feel like re-hashing the entire thread, or the parts that refer to root causes according to my view.

If you don't want to give women's issues due consideration, and you think the subject of a "public bank" should dominate women's issues or patriarchy; and you don't see a connection between banks, capitalism, patriarchy and women's issues, that's your right. But you should take your position to another thread. It's not appropriate here.

Thanks for the Mother's Day message, but Mother's Day would be much happier if people would take seriously the issues that affect mothers. Mother's Day would be much happier if mother and grandmother knowledge and wisdom —symbolically— had an equal place next to father and grandfather knowledge and wisdom.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hi zenzoe!, been a while since I visited the site.

Here is an article about a good friend of mine in today's paper

http://www.masslive.com/living/index.ssf/2012/05/in_supermom_unveiled_women_artists_portray_with_honesty_humor_the_reality_of_motherhood.html

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm

Zenzoe,public banking is the #1 issue for me,because it can solve many other issues.I thought i could help in this thread,but it seem there is a failure to communicate even when we agree.The solution is, move on,i have nothing to add to the sex conflict other then the public bank message and getting classes for it in public schools..You support public banking that`s good enough for me.Any new solutions t think of,i`ll let it be known. You`re welcome on the mother day message..Anybody who don`t respect wisdom for what it is,isn`t worth a second thought.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

I can't get enough of Vandana Shiva on the subject of moving away from the capitalist imperative toward a life-centric model.

I like her look on women in food production. Brawn based food production has been a disaster at many levels.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm

Hey Ed, yes, it's been awhile since I've noticed you on this forum. Glad to see you here.

Thanks for the article—rather charming primitive paintings by your friend. I admire the American primitives, and it's great to see women artists featured up front. They usually get ignored. Here's one take on that subject: http://agenda.is.asu.edu/images/artist_gg_centerbox_2d.gif

If you hadn't posted your second comment, I'm sure I would have wanted to ask you what you thought of Vandana Shiva, since you're an expert on all the farming issues as I remember. I wonder what you think of her food democracy movement, Navdanya.

I'll be back...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Tayl, your public bank idea works fine with me as would consciousness-raising classes in school. But those solutions wait for enactment, while sexism and racism persist in the culture NOW. What to do now is the issue here; how to react to and deal with sexism and racism, when we encounter them in our daily lives— that's the question.

You're waiting for the authority of the law to solve the problem. I'd rather work at correcting the ugly stuff at the grass roots, where we find it, one step at a time on an individual basis. What you and I choose to do, and how we choose to think about sexism and racism, matters. If you tolerate the intolerable, you're part of the problem.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Z, I love the idea of taking back our ability to nourish ourselves. There may or may not be a disconnect, however, in our agreement about violence.

The map you posted showed the places where non-violent people reside. The Nordic people, however, while mostly non-violent today, were known to be murderous raiders just a few hundred years ago. The Hopi, while not aggressive in the way some other tribes were, did have weapons and weren't afraid to use them. My point is not that humanity can't be less violent than it is but that violence seems to be a human condition and not a result of patriarchy, per se.

I understand the desire to end both patriarchy and violence but I'm not sure they are related other than in the ability of large strong humans, who happen to frequently be male, to do violence that much better. Female warriors are not unknown in history and I find it difficult to believe that matriarchal societies don't engage in violence. I know for a fact that American women CAN be violent, though that may be a part of the American culture of violence or the value system that makes violence a virtue.

There was a lot I liked about the links you referenced, but I feel they did more to explain away some myths about female sexuality more than the violent reputation of men. I feel we can have been way off base with our assessment of female sexuality-based upon the things we chose not to observe-but the violence of humanity is not a figment of my male imagination. It IS and always has been very real. Even Antonin Scalia admitted in the ruling on violent video games that this country has a legacy of teaching violence to children. I think he should have extended that statement to include humanity as a whole, not just Americans.

Whether we go to war, ultimately, to impress women, I don't know. That may be the unification theory that combines the desire of men to control women to guaranty their progeny's success and the facts about female primate mating habits, that cause men to feel so insecure in the first place. I agree the theory of the coy female is probably false. I'm just not sure the theory of the non-violent male is. The observable evidence is too overwhelming.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

D_NATURED, let me post this link again and ask you to please read the entire section under the heading, "Culture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semai_people  

If, as you say, "...violence seems to be a human condition and not a result of patriarchy, per se.," how do you account for the Semai people (as but one example)? Are they not human beings? Do you see any patriarchy (competition, inequality, force) functioning there, in spirit or fact?

The point, however, is not that humans are predominantly peaceful; the point is that we are equally capable of non-violence and peace as we are of violence. We are malleable. Robert Sapolsky has a great deal to say on the subject, and his insights are worth a listen: "Any­one who says peace is not part of human nature knows too lit­tle about pri­mates, includ­ing ourselves."

http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2008/04/05/peace-among-primates-by-rober...

http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2008/04/12/peace-among-primates-part-2/

http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2008/04/20/peace-among-primates-part-3/

Quote Robert Sapolsky:

Can human behav­ior be as mal­leable and as peace­ful as For­est Troops?

Any bio­log­i­cal anthro­pol­o­gist opin­ing about human behav­ior is required by long-established tra­di­tion to note that for 99 per­cent of human his­tory, humans lived in small, sta­ble bands of related hunter-gatherers. Game the­o­rists have shown that a small, cohe­sive group is the per­fect set­ting for the emer­gence of coop­er­a­tion: The iden­ti­ties of the other par­tic­i­pants are known, there are oppor­tu­ni­ties to play games together repeat­edly (and thus the abil­ity to pun­ish cheaters), and there is open-book play (play­ers can acquire rep­u­ta­tions). And so, those hunter-gatherer bands were highly egal­i­tar­ian. Empir­i­cal and exper­i­men­tal data have also shown the coop­er­a­tive advan­tages of small groups at the oppo­site human extreme, namely in the cor­po­rate world.

What is the opposite of the patriarchal society? Well, it's not a matriarchal society. It is an egalitarian society. And if you think patriarchy/inequality doesn't create war, violence and injustice, we've got a long way to go before we see eye to eye. Patriarchy, after all, is nothing other than a hierarchy which enforces its inherent inequality, competition and masculine values, at the expense of "feminine" values. The word itself is not an attack on men, per se.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We live on Mother Earth and are taught and fed by Mother Nature.

A nice piece from Vandana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpNNG1sM1h4

I believe the work of Dr. Elaine Ingham will help make Vandana's efforts possible

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm

Thanks again, Ed. I listened to all three videos in that set with Vandana Shiva. Isn't she something? I also read an interview with Dr. Ingham, and I would say you're right: Two female scientists coming at the subject from different angles, but with the same goal in mind. Dr. Shiva has the more philosophical viewpoint, while Dr. Ingham is up close and technical with the life of the soil. Shiva talks about the soil a great deal too, but she doesn't shy away from pinpointing the underlying problem, which is the masculinist mind-set— not men, per se; but, as you put it, "Brawn based food production;" and brawn-based everything, from brawn-based economics and energy policy, to brawn-based justice system. and brawn-based foreign policy. Anyway, the food system is often overlooked as a contributor to global climate change, and care of the soil and water as a policy for peace.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,failure to communicate is a 100% if you think i`m waiting on the 1% to solve the 99% problems.I can understand you want to change 53 million minds from watching a video one at a time.Tolerating and doing something about is two different things.From day one,i talk about solutions to grassroot problems.I say again,public schools can wipe sexism,etc. out in one generation,i hear no ideas on how to do this? But i hear a lot of talk about the differences and commons of the sexes.What will effect those that control the schools??

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote tayl44:.From day one,i talk about solutions....

I suggest you think about this.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm

Tayl, nobody is denying your solutions to specific issues. But you seem unable to consider the true "root cause," the one that drives the ugly realities we face in every sphere. It doesn't hurt your focus to name the underlying mind-set that makes for disaster everywhere you look, whether we're talking about global warming, or unemployment, or sexism, or whatever. It's the same thread throughout all.

The Republican Party just happens to be infected with that ugly, masculinist mind-set. That's where it manifests most glaringly. Can you see it?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The natural world is feminine based. .Always been a tough one for guys to accept. We live in a constant conflict between the natural world and the so called Mans world. With the work these women are doing there is hope at the most basic level.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm
Quote Zenzoe: masculinist mind-set.
Of course I was brought up with this but now often wonder what use I have for it. The more I've shed the concept of it the more at peace I've become. The more of a man I now think I'm becoming. This doesn't make me feel weaker, actually it's been the opposite, but has helped me to understand the proper use of my brawn/strength.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm
Quote EdBourgeois:
Quote Zenzoe:

...masculinist mind-set.

Of course I was brought up with this but now often wonder what use I have for it. The more I've shed the concept of it the more at peace I've become. The more of a man I now think I'm becoming. This doesn't make me feel weaker but has helped me to understand the proper use of my brawn/strength.

How wonderful, Ed. It reminds me that "women's issues" are men's issues as well. All that socialization toward hypermasculinity only renders males incomplete and farther from their true humanity. It's like trying to bake bread but forgetting to add the yeast. You'd end up with a rather flat, brittle loaf, yes? The thing is, it's not that humanity needs to remove the masculine; it's valuable too. But you want to be sure the feminine has a place, and a very central place too (we're talking about a symbolic spirit here, not people, of course.).

I'm so happy you joined the conversation, Ed. I don't know if this change in you is recent. I seem to remember your taking a position in support of patriarchy sometime back, but I could be completely wrong. I'm sorry I've missed some of your other posts; you've asked some good questions I see, as I take a brief look at them. The one about John and Sarah looked good. It reminded me that the masculinist mind-set can exist in the brain of a woman as easily as that of a man; Sarah Palin's wolf-killing policy comes to mind. And this was fun, her turkey "pardon": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJd_vm9VhpU   which is to say nothing about her lack of support for women's rights.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe: It reminded me that the masculinist mind-set can exist in the brain of a woman as easily as that of a man

Thanks zenzoe, I think they are really human issues. But mens brawn has been used to tip the scales of justice. And create a value for power either physical or monetary. What I now fear most is when women feel they must or are actually forced to put their masculinity front and center as a mind-set as the seeming only option to suppression.

EdBourgeois's picture
EdBourgeois
Joined:
May. 14, 2010 12:24 pm

Currently Chatting

It’s Time for Bill O’Reilly to Get Real about White Privilege

It’s time for white America to get real about white privilege. Last night, Bill O’Reilly came from back vacation early to host a special edition of “The Factor”, one that he said would “tell the truth” about what’s going on in Ferguson, Missouri.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system