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 (1289)	9/2/2006 12:28:51 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I do not think too little time has passed to make the gender role modification- we've already made much greater changes and survived- Makes me think of Kurzweil and his singularity predictions, with the rate of technological advances increasing exponentially, and the biological roles playing less and less importance as intellect and creativity increase. This will place even more stress on the traditional definitions and archetypes. CW deals in all this, and it is fascinating to watch the speed at which his generation absorbs, adjusts and moves forward. But it's also scary, because there is so little time to do what William is concerned with, really deeply adapt. The tensions will be enormous.

To: epicure who wrote (1289)	9/2/2006 12:58:44 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

I was wandering around looking for something I had posted once, when I happened on the old thread, Literary Sauna (Tomes in Towels) where we discussed The Yellow Wallpaper- wow. We covered a lot of male-female ground then, too. We've been here a long time!

To: epicure who wrote (1289)	9/3/2006 11:18:48 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I do concede that this latest version of the Homo species does indeed appear very plastic. They have taken young children away from Amazon Jungle tribes who anthropologists termed living in the stone age and raised the kids in modern cities and they adjusted OK. Maybe it is this seemingly innate ability of the latest version of the race to seemingly adapt to about anything is the thing that makes us "human", and thus guarantee our survival as a corollary benefit. Nevertheless, having tipped my cap to the logic of your argument, I am not ready junk mine. (And here we must remain at an impasse as neither one of us can prove factually which is correct). As science explores the role of genes in our make up, it is turning up more & more evidence that biology is a lot more determinative than we ever imagined (identical twins separated at birth both married women named Betty, were professional accountants, and were members of bowling leagues that met on Tuesday night even though one lived in Ohio & the other in California and had never met---that in and of itself is not conclusive, but there is other dovetailing evidence). So there may be some fundamental "male" and "female" traits which will not allow for a fundamental shift in gender roles. Although it may be convenient to ignore thousands of years of history which are unfavorable to the feminists--it may not be wise to do so. (There is a whole subset argument here that could be made based on the rate of mental breakdowns in modern society--limits beyond which the race cannot go.) On the other hand I will concede that it is possible that the roles were forced on the sexes by the environment and that it could be possible for technology to "liberate" each gender. We, the race, I submit, won't know for a while. And I do stick to my statement that gender role modification has to work for society as a whole in order for it to succeed. Archetypes: It was rather presumptuous of me to throw this into the mix when I myself do not have a firm grasp of Jung. I may have been right about about this with respect to archetypical gender roles (I am not saying I was), but if I was, it was sheer coincidence and not through my detailed knowledge of Jung. I would like to know myself what he said, if anything, about this. And so we are left with our opinions---no?