Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (4573)	2/3/2001 1:26:47 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 82486

I think it's even more basic than that. Men don't control the reproductive process after impregnation- but they want- at a basic level- to reproduce prodigiously (all organisms want that- at the genetic level). If women can eliminate their efforts they lose even more control over a process already rife with uncertainty for for them- after all sex is not all that efficient, as we know, in getting everyone pregnant. So I can understand why men oppose abortion- it make women even more able to control what genetic material she wants to nurture- it gives her the ability to rethink her consent to a male's impregnation of her. What is harder to understand is other women who go along with this. But let's face it- lots of women are religious. Religions are male dominated and highly skewed to favoring male objectives. So religious women have been co-opted by a male power structure they don't even think of as male (why this obliviousness to the obvious male bias I'll never know).

To: E who wrote (4573)	2/3/2001 1:41:34 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Just read X's theory. Seems to make sense to me. I wonder how the ants who tend their aphid-cows feel about them? The male domination of women has been going on for so long that I'm sure it is stuck in our social and religious institutions. As soon as one spends any time analyzing the situation and if one doesn't think the physical or politically strong should dominate the weak, then you have to start questioning many different social systems we have in place. This is what I was getting at with my comments about the WASPy nature of religion. While it may attract the dispossessed, it is not FOR the dispossessed. The idea of people sending their money to a TV preacher disgusts me HOWEVER here is my view: In a way it is like getting upset because people pay money to ride Star Tours at Disneyland. They pay the price of admission and get an experience. Is it wrong that the little robot pilot is really a lie? No, I guess not. I think many religious people are doing the same thing. They buy pre-packaged, "shrink-wrap" religions to fill their lives with a moral reference. They don't have to think about it because it is like the McDonalds of Philosophy. They don't know how to ask deep questions, so they buy the answers. One of my friends thought that this "fraud" of TV evangelists was the worst kind of thing in the world because it callously exploited people's dearest beliefs. I disagree. It is sad, but no sadder than some guy whose only sexual outlet is a peep show. Who is he hurting? Is he being harmed? Not really, except that he is preventing his own personal development. But that is his right. I can try to educate someone that organized religion is, as Marx said, an opiate. But I don't think opiates should be illegal either. At least when you are strung out on opiates, the proximal cause is known. I can't say the same about people strung out on a mean-spirited religion.