Subject:
|
Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:11:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2180 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
| |
| |
If they called it “Man 2.0,” I suspect that you’d still have a problem with
it, so it seems to me that the term itself is irrelevant. Am I incorrect?
|
No, you are correct Sir! Yesss! (my best imitation of Phil Hartman doing Ed
McMahon:-)
|
There you go, making bad impressions again.
| |
| |
| |
| |
However, I will point out that the foiling of
gender-related stereotypes has been going on for at least several
millennia in many cultures around the globe.
|
Perhaps we could discuss a specific example of an industrialized culture?
|
Sure! It’s gone on in the United States since at least the signing of the
US Constitution. What do you think of those foppish wigs?
|
Like the people who are wearing them are in a MP skit-- too silly for my
taste.
|
Mine, too, to be honest. But my point was that notions of fashion-based gender
differences have been mutable for at least centuries, and I intended the fops of
old as examples of this.
| |
| |
I don’t see the
point in isolating our search (which, like an idiot, I spelled “surch”) to
industrialized (by which I infer you to mean post-Industrial Revolution)
cultures, especially if those same cultures pre-dated the IR.
|
I only wanted to see an example to which we could perhaps make some
comparisons. My theory is that, as such behavior goes, so goes cultural
decline.
|
But see, “decline” is the issue, here. I don’t think you’ve identified an
absolute measure by which we can judge a culture’s decline. But you do touch on
it below, so I’ll address it further there.
| |
| |
I meant it purely as a contrast to a “progressive” and nuanced (i.e., non-
binary) concept of gender.
Anyway, the “so what” aspect is that I don’t accept that binary notions of
masculine/feminine fit our modern awareness of the mutability and overlap of
the characteristics those terms are thought to describe.
|
The fact is that our species was created (or evolved, if you prefer) into
male and female units. That is an immutable difference, and instead of
trying to conform each to each other, why not celebrate the differences?
|
That’s sex, not gender. The Man2.0 that we’re discussing is a blurring
of perceived gender stereotypes, but it has nothing to do with sex. This is, I
think, the distinction that you seem not to be making here.
| |
I would think that for a group who supposedly celebrates diversity, this
wouldn’t be a problem.
|
We do celebrate diversity, insofar as “diversity” need not include factors that
are themselves actively hostile to diversity. I discussed this at greater
length here.
| |
| |
| |
Ideas such as these are counterintuitive and would never be embraced by
children-- only by indoctrination by someone or some culture that adhered
to them.
|
The same, honestly, must be said of language, religion, and the notion of
“rights.” Why is this particular arena of cultural indoctination singled
out for derision?
|
Because it isn’t “real”; it is a canard. It is actually denying natural
differences between the sexes.
|
Again--differences between the sexes is not the same as differences between
the genders. The latter is what’s at play here.
| |
Rights are different; I believe that the
concept of rights goes beyond culture and is absolute. I cannot imagine a
just and moral society without it.
|
Well, that’s a different debate. To date, I have found no argument that comes
close to convincing me that rights are inherent or fundamental in any absolute,
objective sense. If you have found such a convincing argument, please point me
to it.
| |
| |
Do you suggest that an unchanging, unbreachable wall exists between
masculine and feminine? On what basis?
|
Genetics. We are different at the blueprint level. I believe that carrying
and bearing children since the beginning has affected the female psyche in
such a way that no male may ever perceive. We are both human, but we have
fundamental differences based on this reality.
|
Again--that’s sex, not gender.
| |
| |
I don’t accept that any line exists such that one may assert “masculine-only
on this side and feminine-only on that, and never the twain shall meet.”
The boundary is vague and inferential, with considerable blurring and
overlap.
|
There is blurring, but those cases are the exception, not the rule. Women
have always borne the children; men have always not.
|
Again--that’s sex, not gender.
| |
| |
| |
I think that one could make the argument that we are more uncivil and
immoral than we were 40 years ago. Certainly many books have addressed
this topic. Technology, it seems to me, is accelerating that process.
|
Uncivil and immoral by what objective standard? None, as far as I’m aware.
|
Violent crime? Or crime in general? Sexual promiscuity?
|
“Violent crime” and “crime in general” in this context are too vague a term to
debate. I’m not dodging you--if you can sharpen the focus on this point, I’ll
address it.
I don’t accept that sexual promiscuity is an objective standard by which to
measure a culture’s decline. Can you clarify why this should be so?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
| (...) No, you are correct Sir! Yesss! (my best imitation of Phil Hartman doing Ed McMahon:-) (...) Like the people who are wearing them are in a MP skit-- too silly for my taste. (...) I only wanted to see an example to which we could perhaps make (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
65 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
