(Close Window)
Topic: Human species 'may split in two'
Message: Posted by: panlives (May 9, 2011 09:39AM)
http://www.allthingshuman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=396:human-species-may-qsplit-in-twoq&catid=52:controversies&Itemid=64&linkView=on&linkId=2
Message: Posted by: MrMajestic (May 9, 2011 12:14PM)
I feel like the theorist in this article just recently got a chance to read "The Time Machine" and was a little too excited about it, lol. I say this mostly because, though the article itself does acknowledge the connection with the H.G. Wells classic, the "scientific" descriptions of the two new races seem extraordinarily similar to the Eloi and Morlocks....
Message: Posted by: critter (May 9, 2011 12:17PM)
They made this into a play and movie, "Hedwig and the Angry Inch."
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 9, 2011 12:26PM)
Oh great, another eugenical theory from a philosopher. Maybe we should ask a biologist for a second opinion.

John
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 9, 2011 05:40PM)
There is an inordinate proportion of dim-witted underclass members right here at the not very magical forum.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 9, 2011 09:29PM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-09 18:40, Al Angello wrote:
There is an inordinate proportion of dim-witted underclass members right here at the not very magical forum.
[/quote]

Why you gotta' say stuff like this?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 9, 2011 09:59PM)
Critter
I did not name any names, but we all know who the dimmest bulbs on the Christmas tree are.
Message: Posted by: critter (May 9, 2011 10:05PM)
Well I know who I think are loonies, but I think they're in the minority. I have respect for almost everybody here or I wouldn't keep coming back.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 10, 2011 01:22AM)
In case you haven't noticed, we have split into many long ago... ;(
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 10, 2011 03:12AM)
Pakar's right. There have been males and females as long as I can remember. And contrary to the feminists, I think it's pretty clear that the female has always had the upper hand. Always. Since, like, the beginning.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 10, 2011 06:18AM)
Yes, Stone. Professor Munro Edmondson used to say that the first actual word ever spoken was spoken by a woman . . . and the word was "no."
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 10, 2011 08:08AM)
'Cept of course for stuff like economic parity, legal status, protection from violence, independence and educational opportunity. 'Part from that, they were sure sittin' pretty.

John
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 10, 2011 08:26AM)
John
As a divorced man I will tell you that getting rid of a bad woman will cost you your life savings. I spent everything I had to get rid of Miss wrong, and it was well worth every penny of it. Young men are simply not prepared for this kind of hand to hand combat, and women are trained from birth to catch unsuspecting men like deer frozen in the headlights of a car.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (May 10, 2011 11:52AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-10 04:12, stoneunhinged wrote:
Pakar's right. There have been males and females as long as I can remember. And contrary to the feminists, I think it's pretty clear that the female has always had the upper hand. Always. Since, like, the beginning.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g3tQaqizh0
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 10, 2011 02:55PM)
Beano
Jerry and George are timeless.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (May 11, 2011 03:29AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-10 04:12, stoneunhinged wrote:
Pakar's right. There have been males and females as long as I can remember. And contrary to the feminists, I think it's pretty clear that the female has always had the upper hand. Always. Since, like, the beginning.
[/quote]

While this is true, it is not what I meant. ;)
Message: Posted by: critter (May 11, 2011 10:16AM)
It also leaves out the Hermaphrodites. So 2 is an (extremely) conservative estimate.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 13, 2011 04:34AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-10 09:08, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
'Cept of course for stuff like economic parity, legal status, protection from violence, independence and educational opportunity. 'Part from that, they were sure sittin' pretty.

John
[/quote]

Gotta disagree.

Think of every woman you've ever known--wives, sisters, moms, colleagues...did you ever meet a single one you would consider weak? I bet not. The female homo sapiens sapiens is as tough as nails. And I imagine that this has always been the case.

So while I will not deny that injustice has existed with regard to women, I doubt seriously that such injustice was due to oppression.

Perhaps child bearing (and raising) has something to due to their status in most societies, rather than males exploiting them.

But however you want to look at it, try to give me an interpretation of history that takes into account how tough real-life women are.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 13, 2011 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 05:34, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-05-10 09:08, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
'Cept of course for stuff like economic parity, legal status, protection from violence, independence and educational opportunity. 'Part from that, they were sure sittin' pretty.

John
[/quote]

Gotta disagree.

Think of every woman you've ever known--wives, sisters, moms, colleagues...did you ever meet a single one you would consider weak? I bet not. The female homo sapiens sapiens is as tough as nails. And I imagine that this has always been the case.

So while I will not deny that injustice has existed with regard to women, I doubt seriously that such injustice was due to oppression.

Perhaps child bearing (and raising) has something to due to their status in most societies, rather than males exploiting them.

But however you want to look at it, try to give me an interpretation of history that takes into account how tough real-life women are.
[/quote]

Guess it depends on what you mean by oppression. I view social structures that, say, put women on the same legal standing as property as oppressive. The Christian marriage ceremony still carries vestiges of the transfer of property from the father to the the husband.

Seems to me that prohibitions on female voting, land ownership, education and independence are structurally oppressive.

I heard an interview on the radio last night. By current estimates, a woman in Congo is 50x as likely to be raped than is a woman in the West. Is this oppressive?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 13, 2011 09:19AM)
Yes, Magnus, it is oppressive, but it has more to do with the differences between Congo and the West, than between men and women.

For an interesting perspective, from an informed psychological/anthropological perspective, may I suggest Roy Baumeister's address, "Is there anything good about men?" delivered to the American Psychological Association in 2007, [url=http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm]here.[/url]

He later expanded his talk into a book, [url=http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Social/?view=usa&ci=9780195374100]Oxford University Press, 2010.[/url]

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 13, 2011 09:52AM)
Thanks Woland. I just have time to skim the Baumeister's address, but I've seen most of these points before.

Please don't misunderstand my position as "men bad; women good" or anything like that. Morality is very difficult for humans--The Bible definitely got that part right.

As for gender differences, every human society has used and abused its members for one purpose or another. In ours, men have take the bulk of the spectacular danger while enjoying the bulk of the status, privilege and pleaseure.

We've made enormous progress and my daughters have significantly more opportunities than my mother could have dreamed of.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 13, 2011 09:55AM)
Magnus,

Thanks. You may be certain that in no way did I interpret your comments to mean "men bad: women good." I think Professor Baumeister's article is interesting in that it discusses the ways that men's and women's roles in societies have developed - without suggesting a vulgar anatomic or physiologic determinism. I would tend not to think of it in terms of use and abuse, but in terms of how a division of labor permits an organized to accomplish more than a mob.

Woland
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 16, 2011 03:27AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-13 10:52, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
We've made enormous progress and my daughters have significantly more opportunities than my mother could have dreamed of.
[/quote]

As you know, I'm far from a relativist. But our "progress" in this regard is relative to our assumptions of what opportunities ought to be available to people, and the reasons they ought to be available. My general point above is that the roles must have been "negotiated" in some way in all previous cultures, and that this negotiation must have been made by women who were competent negotiators.

And the word "oppression" as used above was a poor choice on my part. "Exploitation" is also a poor choice. These are things I've currently been trying to work through, and I'm not yet sure how to express my thoughts precisely.

Remember the work of Aristophanes, for example. It's quite hard for us today to really understand what the Athenians would have found particularly funny or preposterous. But we can generalize two things. First, the humor is based upon a fully developed consciousness of gender roles, so at the very least we know that the questions we have asked in the last century or two had been already asked two millennia ago. We certainly have not "discovered" something new about how society treats women. Second, women are seen as powerful and competent negotiators.

I think that gender roles might be one of the most complex subjects out there. And if we are going to philosophize, we must be courageous enough (for real philosophy always requires courage) to question our modern, liberal presumptions. I do not wish to turn back the clock by any means whatsoever. But I do think we should understand the past with as much precision as possible.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 16, 2011 04:27AM)
I had a bike wreck this morning. I was thinking about this topic, noticed glass in front of me, swerved to avoid the broken glass, and ran into a sign. I'm not seriously injured, but I'm lucky that I'm not.

So much for courage and philosophizing. :(

Anyway, just before the wreck, I thought that I could simplify this all by telling you what I'm really questioning. What I'm questioning is what seems to me the implicit assumption that historically, gender roles were defined by the males. Whether we talk about "oppression" or "exploitation" or whatever, we are still making the fundamental assumption that women have whatever status they have because men want it that way. And it is this fundamental assumption that I am questioning.

Please remember, too, that I am only questioning it. I have by no means made up my mind on the subject.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 16, 2011 08:18AM)
Hope you're all right, Jeff. Bike crashes can be really hard on a body.

Are you a helmet wearer? (Didn't see too many last time I was in Europe.)

Take care and convalesce. It probably wasn't Divine retribution.

John
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 16, 2011 09:19AM)
[quote]
On 2011-05-16 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Are you a helmet wearer?

[/quote]

I'm gonna be now.