Do you think it's a hangover from religion? People in the UK as well, no matter how secular they are, still seem to have this weird idea that sex has some sort of corrupting power. It's nonsense.
I think that the problem is the sex shreds the illusion of control and that we are guided primarily by reason. It is for this reason that sex must stay in its assigned place, sexual practice is a threat to our myths.
hawkeye10 wrote:I think that the problem is the sex shreds the illusion of control and that we are guided primarily by reason. It is for this reason that sex must stay in its assigned place, sexual practice is a threat to our myths.
Could you elaborate?
How does sex shred the illusion of control?
What myths are you referring to?
Okay, yeah i think I agree with that.
People complain about the old feminist line that "all men are potential rapists," but as a man, I've always thought that sounds pretty accurate. I suspect that, on some level, most men want to commit rape. On another level, of course, plenty of us think it would be a terrible thing to do, and so we don't. But I think that this moral deliberation has some potent sadistic sexual desires to content with. As abhorrent as it is, rape is still pretty sexy, and I think most men would agree with this after sufficient reflection.
The feminist movement that is trying to impose rape law that denies human reality will in the end pay for it, by spending what little credibility the movement has remaining. Then we will be able to move forward with something else, something that does not pit one half of the species against the other half.
hawkeye10 wrote:The feminist movement that is trying to impose rape law that denies human reality will in the end pay for it, by spending what little credibility the movement has remaining. Then we will be able to move forward with something else, something that does not pit one half of the species against the other half.
Would you clarify what this "something else" might be like? You seem to indicate, if I understand correctly, that we should have more permissive laws regarding rape, laws that recognize the male, what, natural inclination to rape, is that about right?
And if I am understanding that correctly, how do you see that as easing relations between the sexes? How would women feel less "pitted against" men if laws about rape were less in denial of "human reality"-- which I can only assume means laws that permit rape in some "natural" circumstances?
I'm all for accepting the truth and basing policy on reality. But I don't quite agree with all of your truth-claims.
Feminism doesn't pit one half of the species against the other... that is exactly what it tries to prevent, with some success.
If, as you claim, rape is a normal part of human sexuality, then your idea that "what is good for men is good for women, and vis-versa" seems to fall apart. If it is good for men to rape women, this certainly isn't good for women. And if it is good for women to not get raped, this apparently isn't good for men. Accepting the truths of gender differences seems to entail compromise and co-operation (or mutual control), not letting boys be boys and girls be girls.
I am not ready to concede that rape is not good for females.
maybe rape is intended to reinforce the lesson to females that their role is to give of themselves to life
....Oh. My.
That little gem of a quote deserves to be given widespread appreciation, I'm going to give it pride of place in my sig line for a while...
No, no, I think I like this even better!
Quote:maybe rape is intended to reinforce the lesson to females that their role is to give of themselves to life
That one is more poetic. Gosh, now I can't even pick between the two--an embarrassment of riches! Perhaps I'll use both.
Feminism is one half the species claiming to be victimized by the other half, so you will need to explain to me how a theory that splits the whole into victim and victimizer is not pitting one half against the other.
Luckly, the younger generations mostly reject the construct, have moved past feminism.
I am not ready to concede that rape is not good for females. I have a hard time with the concept of a natural act that is bad for the species surviving evolution.
If something is good for the species then it is good for the females of the species, though I don't see how rape is good for the individual female who is raped. I suspect that females that are raped "take one for the team", that their loss is the species gain. The exactly mechanics of this I do not know, maybe rape is intended to reinforce the lesson to females that their role is to give of themselves to life, or maybe it is to make sure that male aggression does not disappear from the gene pool (male aggression being a critical ingredient in the survival of the species)....but however it works I think that rape serves a purpose.
Accepting gender differences means accepting that x is not y and y is not x. x and y must cooperate, but they also must resist the urge to try to force x and y to try to become more like each other, into becoming xy. You don't find many examples of successful species where the individuals show a lot of xy, successful species have strong and independent x and strong and independent y which cooperate. This is probably because this arrangement broadens the base of skills that are at the species disposal, xy can only exist by chopping off on half on the left and one half on the right and then gluing the two surviving halves together. In total one half of the species skill set is discarded during this operation. I think that the majority of women are figuring out that the move to try to force men to be more like women was a bad idea, you now hear a lot of individual women say that they wish they could find a strong masculine male for a partner, but that all they can find are wimps who will not step up to the plate.
disagree with your definition of feminism, so I don't need to explain that. There are plenty of feminist ideas that I wouldn't wish to defend, but as far as I'm aware the idea that women should be able to vote came out of feminism. That's not about victimisation, it's just about inequality. Feminism is about gender equality. Within limits. Obviously there are differences between men and women; gender equality doesn't mean, "breasts and vaginas for everyone!"
Feminists might claim that some men victimise some women, but this is uncontroversial. The rapist victimises the rape victim. Note that making this claim does not pit rapists against rapees. Rapists pit themselves against their victims; feminists just report it.
This is a pretty wacky theory. I don't think evolution should be interpreted teleologically. Human hands are good at picking things up, and they have evolved because they are good at picking things up. But they're not for picking things up, unless we decide that they are. There was no creator of the human hand who could bestow on it the function of picking things up. The human hand does not have a purpose unless somebody gives it one. Same goes for rape - it has no natural purpose. We could give it a purpose, but I can't see how this would make us better off
This is just too simplistic. There are similarities as well as differences, and you're exaggerating the differences. Some men are less stereotypically masculine because they have lower testosterone levels. That's got nothing to do with female manipulation. And they're not "wimps who will not step up to the plate". What is "the plate" supposed to be? A plate of pork and beans?
men and women are not the same therefor they can not be equal except on the power level.
happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction are much better goals in a mutual relationship with two or more individuals who are very dissimilar.
This striving for equality is the product of childish minds,
This is a pretty wacky theory. I don't think evolution should be interpreted teleologically. Human hands are good at picking things up, and they have evolved because they are good at picking things up. But they're not for picking things up, unless we decide that they are. There was no creator of the human hand who could bestow on it the function of picking things up. The human hand does not have a purpose unless somebody gives it one. Same goes for rape - it has no natural purpose. We could give it a purpose, but I can't see how this would make us better off
The purpose is certainly outside of what our rational mind can comprehend.
Quote:This is just too simplistic. There are similarities as well as differences, and you're exaggerating the differences. Some men are less stereotypically masculine because they have lower testosterone levels. That's got nothing to do with female manipulation. And they're not "wimps who will not step up to the plate". What is "the plate" supposed to be? A plate of pork and beans?
true in a sense, there are individual differences.
But as a general truth women have been becoming more like men and men have been becoming more like women.
Human kind is weaker as a result.
What do you mean "not the same"? Obviously they're not exactly the same. But they are similar enough to be classed as members of the same species. Which is pretty similar really. If chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, then just think how biologically similar humans must be to their fellow humans of the opposite sex.
You seem to be reading 'equality' as 'uniformity'. Modern feminists campaign for things like equality of wages and equality of personal safety when leaving the house at night. They don't demand equality of personality.
I never claimed otherwise. My claim was that purpose is something which we bestow on things. We have to make it up. Rape doesn't have a purpose just because it exists in the natural world. Unless we give it a purpose, it doesn't have one.
Quote:
But as a general truth women have been becoming more like men and men have been becoming more like women.
What's the evidence for this?
What do you mean weaker? Do you mean less successful in satisfying our needs and leading lives worth living?
If you are going to define purpose as intention of the individual then I agree with you. However, I am a mystic, the spiritual is always with me, I am speaking the intention of our creator, or of the force of life.
Men and woman are different. Our brains are different, we process information (especially language) differently, we care about different things for the most part, our social needs are different...and so on and so on
Quote:I don't think that there have been three people in America since the civil rights era who believe in the concept of separate but equal. if we could bring that concept back then you might have a point....till then equality and uniformity mean the same thingYou seem to be reading 'equality' as 'uniformity'. Modern feminists campaign for things like equality of wages and equality of personal safety when leaving the house at night. They don't demand equality of personality.
Quote:conventional wisdom of those who think on such things, as well as my own observations. This is mostly subjective, as science was not interested in such things until recently, there is no old data to compare new data with, thus now way to reach this conclusion (or disprove it) objectivelyQuote:
But as a general truth women have been becoming more like men and men have been becoming more like women.
What's the evidence for this?
we are at increasingly at risk of a mass die-off of the species
and we are increasingly unable to live deeply as individuals.
Why are you insisting on a black and white picture of the world? Men and women are somewhat different, we process information somewhat differently, our social needs are somewhat different. Haven't you ever had a female friend or partner with whom you share some things in common?
I don't follow this. Americans think that equality is all or nothing, therefore equality is all or nothing? I'm not sure, but I don't think the opinion of the American masses determines what is true.
If you can't prove or disprove it objectively, why aren't you sitting on the fence and saying "I don't know whether women have become more like men and men more like women"?
If you are basing your view on your own observations, here are my observations in the UK: at night the pubs are dominated by fat, aggressive, beer-drinking males with shaved heads, along with scantily-clad, cocktail-sipping females caked in make-up. The gender roles are quite polarised
What do you mean "live deeply"? More spiritual stuff?
