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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1248)	9/1/2006 4:01:22 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Well, at least you pick up on the historical argument--unlike anyone else here. They just want to graft their present vision over thousand and thousand of years of "tradition" and make whatever rhetorical justification for it. Rambi & Thames are very glib about this and throw all these terms of rights and oppression around, but they don't seem to understand that rights and oppression are relative concepts related to the society in which one lives. The concept of rights for women is very very recent and therefore still needs to be proved as workable for society at large---and one can argue, only granted as society thinks it will work. Also R & T take a very individual view of this rather than a larger historical anthropological view. They think, and you too, that because some women are now living these rights that this "proves" the workability of it. You would have to ignore all the breakdown in western society, its dysfunctions, to say that this model is workable in the long run. I do not deny that for individual women gaining their "rights" will be more comfortable, but will it be more workable---that is the question on which the jury is still out and will be out for some time. Perhaps because of what you say about biology vs. technology it will come to work. But then we come to my argument about stereotypical archetypes of role models which I argued is deeply embedded in the human psyche, but I can't bring up where I've seen this and why I think it exists. It is very similar to the work Jung did about archetypes in the psychic and symbolism for the human race. Essentially, I'm extrapolating this concept into archetypes for gender roles, but I am not sure if I am on solid psychological ground in this aspect. I need to nose around some and see what I can find. If I am right about it though, and these archetypes for genders do exist---all the other opinions of how we should act will not matter. Evolutionary "psyche" biology will prevail because that is part of how "life will find a way". And it will be doubtful if you will be able graft any "androgenous" model onto it. I know no one else in this argument really wants to go there (to evolutionary biology--other than to discount it) because of the unfavorable implications for your/their point of view (although to your credit you've tried very capably of addressing the physical sexual differences between male and female), but I am saying there is also an evolutionary psychological difference that the blurring of the roles will effect. Rambi & Thames opinions about what the majority of people believe I discount as being irrelevant and the product of being raised in a democracy where electoral thinking permanents all reasoning. It is relevant in that it enables "rights" to be enacted legislatively, but as I have already said that for me is not the determinative factor. For me it is and will be biology and history. Now having provoked everyone some what (I think), I going to leave it for now unless someone wants to bring up something new. If I do come across something about archetypical psyche stereotypes for gender I will certainly bring that up. I know I haven't convinced anyone that the new model for women needs further proof, but likewise nothing anyone argued convinced me it doesn't. We are left with our opinions. I appreciate everyone's thought's and responses which I imagine would be much more thorough (mine too) if we didn't have to "get on with it". Bill PS. Your argument that men might buy into women's rights because they want their income would make sense on an evolutionary level no? I hadn't thought of that until just now.