pent up emotions and pet theories
08.19.04 (12:58 pm) [edit]so many people here on tblog have many (mostly mixed up) emotions and theories about different subjects. there is a very real place for discussion into topics such as racism, sexism and abuse of gender roles however it seems that what motivates most people on here is getting attention to what they think and how they think.
an interesting page that was quoted to me by therealspartacus007 is the following by *Capitalism Magazine* Men are not from Mars and Women are not from Venus. It went into a few topics and the author had obviously thought for a while at least over his answer but his prejudices against any form of differentiation between individuals meant that he was forever driving towards a point where men and women have no particular physiological or behvaioural differences. Any short study into neuropsychology/behaviour al neuroscience work done in this area point to the fact that males and females are actually physiologically different. Just because we cant fully fit behaviours to particular genes does not mean that they don't exist. Science is a progressive discipline. Impatience is not a virtue for a scientist. The trouble with social behaviours in capitalistic societies is that impatience is actively encouraged. For instance, the media tells us all the time that we have to buy this particular product right now... or that we will be missing out on a "once in a lifetime" chance by not spending money in this place. The dominant theories in economics are all based around the free market capitalism model. The trouble only really comes when it becomes and obsession as is all too common with people in general. Obsessions, fears and prejudices should all be looked at. They are all bad. There is a place and time under the sun for everything.
As a biologist i am all too aware that, although many will say that environment is the only thing that really has any impact on development, i can assure you that genetics and a deeper study of it only reveals a trend in the mid region. Genetic studies do not reveal that genetics implies everything. It is relatively easy to prove that wrong... however it is possibly easier to prove the opposite extreme to be in the wrong.
of course there are going to be people who take science out of context and encourage racism, sexism and general abuse of gender roles based on scientific evidence. this does not mean that the science is wrong. you can take absolutely anything out of context (as journalists manage to do so consistently) to prove your particular example. particular examples are meant to be kept out in the particular debate above because everyone has a unique combination of genetic influence and environmental influences.
by saying that investigating the generalised differences implies people to take you out of context is not right. people can take anything they want or can from what i say. clarifying points may help distinguish generalisations based on science in my writing from prejudices but even that is not fallible. i must however say this.. that i am not supporting the theory because of its extreme out of context ramifications. i am trying to get what i see to be a sustainable and workable solution to those problems in part. i do not see individualism as a sustainable solution. the most successful civilisations have never had anything near individualism as their main basis. true... for people's greed to be sustained it is "un-economic" to think of others. that basically means that you dont have a heart. which rather shamefully capitalists admit readily that they dont have hearts. a donation of 0.05% of your income to a charity does not mean you have a heart. thats no where near your heart.
posted by: 02Babydoll (reply)
post date: 08.19.04 (2:21 am)
Woohoo! ;o) Very well said!!
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 08.19.04 (9:23 am)
I just don't understand the point in making generalized statements. Investigating the ways genes propagate between different sexes makes sense, and Dr. Hurd was not arguing against that. He was writing that it is wrong to assume generalizations apply to particular people, and that this generalized language and thought causes great harm when applied socially.
I don't know what you mean by individualism not being "a sustainable solution." You're an individual no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. The most successful civilizations have all had emphasized individualism. America is based on the theory of individual rights and liberties.
The theory of selfishness that Dr. Hurd is promoting does not mean that one doesn't care about anyone else, or does not "have a heart." I have no idea where you got that idea from. Corporate feudalists are the ones that don't care about others, not capitalists.
Believe it or not, it is possible to care for yourself AND others! :)
This might help to explain-
http://www.churchofkeepingitreal.org/selfishness.html
posted by: ansell (reply)
post date: 08.19.04 (1:47 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
ok, now i understand what you were saying. i try not to take generalisations as applications to specific people because we are all different.
about the individualism, i in particular dont think america is a successful civislisation. i think a successful civilisation would have people looking at it and saying.. ooh... i want to be like that... maybe it was successful a while ago but i think it has past the tip of its supremacy which when you look back at it wasn't really that long. they have only been involved in world affairs for 1 century.
when i think of successful i think of egypt, syria, aztecs, mayans, greeks. all who managed to keep it for many centuries. all of those civilisations kept the community at a higher value than the individuals. family values and honour/respect were above pretty much anything.
i think that is a stable philosophy because it worked for them and it seems conceivable that it would work for a civilisation even with globalisation here to stay if they focused on it more.
posted by: ansell (reply)
post date: 08.19.04 (1:54 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
i have a religious faith that does what the site said and more for me. it gives me hope of eternal life while still encouraging all those good points and behaviours. i think my last comment was a tiny bit off track there.
i have no experience with the difference between corporate feudalism and capitalism. what is the theoretical difference (is it just having respect for the people you deal with and hence not ripping them off. bethey employees or business partners etc.)
posted by: ansell (reply)
post date: 08.19.04 (1:56 pm)
Reply to: 02Babydoll
thanks!!
posted by: Dottie (reply)
post date: 08.20.04 (1:13 am)
Very well said and deep... Most of this stuff goes whoosh over my head... but keep it up pete... i'm proud to have a smart friend... and at the end of this post i'll just stick in.... I'M GOING TO GO SEE MUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by: ansell (reply)
post date: 08.22.04 (3:12 am)
Reply to: Dottie
yaya... muse... now that you have told me what it is in msn i am happy for you as well!!
posted by: ansell (reply)
post date: 08.22.04 (3:12 am)
Reply to: Dottie
yaya... muse... now that you have told me what it is in msn i am happy for you as well!!
posted by: TigerLilly (reply)
post date: 08.23.04 (1:44 am)
Reply to: ansell
wow Muse!!!...
posted by: TigerLilly (reply)
post date: 08.23.04 (1:44 am)
Reply to: ansell
wow Muse!!!...
