|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: It has nothing to do with Islam, but ...
Date: 11 Jan 2014 17:17:40
Message: <52d1c304@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/9/2014 12:15 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-08 23:10, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Well... The problems I have with that as an argument for questioning
>> their views on the subject is..
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure I'm questioning the views on the subject as outlining
> that the views presented in that context aren't necessarily a pure
> random sampling that can be extrapolated to the whole population. There
> are, without a doubt, a large number (far larger than there should be)
> of females whose experiences are as bad as presented. However, I posit
> that the whole point of the site is to bring attention to those things
> /happening/ vs. all the times where it doesn't happen, so there's
> notable skew in that direction.
>
Well, the problem is, you can't always be certain, without looking at
other factors, like.. "how many women on campus, in general, dress like
that anyway?", which might make the results meaningless. I mean, alcohol
is obviously a risk, but.. is it more of a risk than something else, if
half the campus is drinking every weekend? And, how do those things
extrapolate in the general population, where you might be, for example,
not drunk, dressed in a business suit, or uniform, for work, etc., and
almost certainly not matching "any" of the criteria given?
Frankly, I have seen a bit too many cases like this:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luvwphS7LD1r6zdqno1_500.jpg
To believe the, "how you dress matters", claim, for one. The dark alley
one.. is a maybe, but the percentage of people that stalk like that is
low, except.. maybe on a campus, where nuts might hang out, because they
*presume* they can find "loose women" to stalk. So, what does that say
about dark alley some place else, where there isn't an expectation that
random victims will wander through, for their convenience?
>> Well, that and, one of the major points I am trying to get across is
>> that the "male centric" view that sits over top of our culture already
>> biases *everything*, including, historically, the interpretations of
>> data, and/or even the collection of it, in such studies.
>
> How much, I wonder, of Patriarchy is actively constructed by females?
> Not just as a 'if you're not fighting to destroy it, you're supporting
> it' thing, but directly working towards reinforcing its features? Women
> aren't just a passive element that are only there to be victims of The
> System; much as some like to insist that women have no real agency
> because their voices aren't heard, throughout history there is a *major*
> impact from their actions, and they are just as complicit in 'how things
> are' as men. Is it so important to have your name in headlines or the
> history books?
>
Supported by, certainly, it happens all the time, all you need to do is
look at the bloody idiot women who support extreme Republican positions
in the US. Creating it.. only in the sense that they where brought up in
it, many people convinced them, via upbringing, that it made sense, and
is "natural", or "meant to be", and they turned around and just parroted
that back, as defense of the world they already live in, to other
people, including their own kids.
>> Its a bias that is so pervasive that the *automatic* reaction of
>> nearly everyone,
>> male and female, when an assault happens, is to either joke about what
>> "she" might have done, or question it, but not what the guy did.
>
> That's the big point that Patriarchy is harmful to men, too; the reason
> it's not questioned what the guy did is because it's taken for granted
> in modern, Western society that males only think about sex and are
> mindless monsters that have no rationality (while women are able to
> magically control how men behave simply by what they wear and how they
> present themselves). Such a mindset is harmful to /everyone/, really.
>
Hmm. To an extent yeah. But it goes beyond that. There has been a
default assumption about "purity", and a lot of other things. Someone
once made a damn good argument, I think it was on a video blog called
"Sex+", that no one, once they start looking at other people in terms of
sex are "innocent", that virginity is a delusion, and, she even has one
video torpedoing the very idea that "deflowering" is a real thing, and
not just a sign of the person doing it a) not knowing any better, b) not
being willing to take time, and c) a result of neither partner knowing
what the F they are really doing. As she points out, the opening in
question has to stretch to allow a baby to go through, but.. somehow,
the first time, you can't stretch it enough to get a two inch tube into it?
But, beyond that, a guy that sleeps around get patted on the back, even
*when* he has taken some sort of absurd purity pledge. Its no big deal
if he breaks it. A woman with a high sex drive... is a slut, period,
even if by "high" you mean, "Slept with one guy, one time.", before
dating someone else. And, yes, again, its a gibberish idea supported by
both men, and women, often completely unintentionally, because you just
tell girls one thing about their behavior, and boys another, from the
moment they are born. Even levels of aggressiveness, how they handle
situations, etc., are a result of "training", not wiring. Girls are just
as nasty about outsiders, but they **learn** to use a sort of inclusive
exclusion, where they give someone they don't like a role to play, then
tell them, "Just wait there, we don't need you yet.", sidelining them,
while convincing the more gullible ones that they are being "included".
Guys may, sometimes, do the same thing, as a kind of joke. Both do so,
to hurt the person, sometimes, but.. girls are told "this" method of
dealing with the situation is right, because its non-violent (don't hit
you brother, girls don't do that!), while guys, do it to add to the
pain, but may just beat the shit out of someone, because its "OK" for
them to be physically aggressive.
Lots studies on this sort of thing too. Out of which bits of truth get
teased, but only after we stopped "assuming" there was something
inherently different between the sexes, and asked, "How much of this is
a result of how they where taught to handle situations, and, more to the
point, how to **not** handle them, and what does that do to how they
express the same aggressions?"
The progress we make in fixing this isn't going to come from trying to
"protect" people from threats that only exist as threats because they
are part of a list of "built in" assumptions, in the current social
structure. That doesn't work, because the assumptions simply change, as
clothing styles, and the like, do, without addressing the underlying
problem, which is that the assumptions exist at all. Its going to be
fixed by torpedoing the idea that men and women are "naturally"
different, when, all too often, they are merely living in parallel
cultures, without realizing it, in which "crossing the line" and doing
something from the other "culture" gets punished (a guy being just as
ignored, or punished, for doing something feminine, though perhaps a bit
less so, than when a woman, even today, enters a field heavy with men).
We still have the same problem today, for example, that Johnson ran into
decades ago, when in science and medicine. And.. try to be a straight
guy doing hair dressing, or something, and see what happens...
Though, I must admit, its funnier than hell that, back when Masters and
Johnson where doing work on sex, women where freaked at the idea that
other women might be looking at their private parts, while having an
medical examination, but now.. you are just as likely to have them
freaked out by a guy doing the same thing. Somehow, the same problem
persists, its just shifting categories, instead of going away. I am sure
there are less clear examples of this happening too. Because, the
underlying issues never get addressed, the assumptions just shift.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Why the evil is evel? Don't ask - don't tell!
Date: 11 Jan 2014 17:47:05
Message: <52d1c9e9$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/10/2014 1:23 PM, Warp wrote:
> This isn't even going into the question of what kind of sick god would
> create a hell where he sends his own creation to suffer indescribable
> torment for all eternity because they didn't love him the right way,
> while he just watches by, doing nothing.
>
Only, he didn't.
The Bible, the "original Coptic" and earlier versions, not the "improved
by blurring it all together, because scared people are more likely to
obey", versions made later, mentions these things:
1. Gehenna - A city dump, outside Jerusalem. It was common practice for
bodies of those dead from disease to be burned with the city trash here.
The passage that modern versions "insist" on calling "hell" here thus
states that, to paraphrase, since I don't have the exact quote, "If you
fall in with the wrong people, your soul will be burned, along with your
body, in the garbage dump, outside the city." No idea if "soul" is even
the proper word here, but this seems to me to be the equivalent of
saying that, "If you fall in with the wrong people, your reputation will
die with you, and no one will remember anything you did, other than that
you got thrown out with the rest of the trash."
2. Some bit later on, there is some passage that references the word
"Hades", obviously in the NT. Having been influenced at that point, by
the Romans/Greeks, they came up with the idea that your "soul" went to
this place when you died. Its "misinterpreted", thanks to later
revision, and some later passages, as some sort of great paradise, where
you see god all the time. But, Hades, and thus the place meant "by" the
original text, is not paradise, its a place of waiting, where you sit
around, oblivious of everything going on anywhere, like tape storage,
until some later time, when god decides to do something about you.
3. Later on, another "edit" exchanges Tartarus, which is a prison for
fallen angels, with "hell", again, completely changing the meaning, and
making it some place of punishment for everyone. Though, its unclear if
these edits came before, or after, they commissioned Dante, to make up
some elaborate absurdity called "hell", and we got stuck with the whole
lakes of fire, and souls being punished forever stuff.
But, if you want the real version of death, from the OT of the Bible,
before priests started taking on bits of Roman mythology, then you get a
lovely section which basically states that all of the rewards you will
ever have, all that you will ever know, or experience, all wisdom that
you might acquire, etc., you got "in life" and that no man, whether
good, or evil, can expect anything more, or experience, or do, anything,
at all, once dead. That you get this one life, and that is it *period*.
Ecclesiastics 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your
might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is
neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."
And yet, people believe they gain all of these, in heaven.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-01-11 16:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And, yes, again, its a gibberish idea supported by
> both men, and women, often completely unintentionally, because you just
> tell girls one thing about their behavior, and boys another, from the
> moment they are born. Even levels of aggressiveness, how they handle
> situations, etc., are a result of "training", not wiring.
I think that completely discounting 'wiring' as a contributing factor to
behaviour and saying that /everything/ is social conditioning is as
flawed as the other way around. There really are actual physical
differences between the sexes that go beyond just 'that's a matter of
upbringing and presentation'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: It has nothing to do with Islam, but ...
Date: 12 Jan 2014 21:46:58
Message: <52d353a2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/12/2014 6:10 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-01-11 16:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> And, yes, again, its a gibberish idea supported by
>> both men, and women, often completely unintentionally, because you just
>> tell girls one thing about their behavior, and boys another, from the
>> moment they are born. Even levels of aggressiveness, how they handle
>> situations, etc., are a result of "training", not wiring.
>
> I think that completely discounting 'wiring' as a contributing factor to
> behaviour and saying that /everything/ is social conditioning is as
> flawed as the other way around. There really are actual physical
> differences between the sexes that go beyond just 'that's a matter of
> upbringing and presentation'.
I am not completely discounting it. Its just that, when its even
possible to make clear determinations, of any kind, as to differences,
the "overlap" represents like 99% of the population, with the outliers
being on either end of the remaining 1%. Well, ok, not exactly those
numbers, but you get the point. Worse, studies on things like spacial
ability, which is generally assumed to be a trait men are better at,
turn out to disappear completely, if you expose the women in a study to,
say, video games, which require a lot of spacial recognition. Its simply
a case that women are "less likely to need it", due to cultural factors,
so don't develop it as extensively. Expose them to conditions where they
do need it, and the supposed "difference" disappears. Give that sort of
thing, how is it even possible to say that there is an area of
"overlap", with outliers, who don't fit, and that those "edges" are, in
fact, purely a social artifact? Answer- You can't, which throws a wrench
in the whole assumption that any differences, at all, in terms of mental
ability, and how we deal with the world, are hardwired, or, if any of it
is, then, if given the same exact conditions, without cultural biases,
likely to produce "obvious" differences.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|