one of my first and only diaries on dkos, years ago, was about this terrible issue.
it was maryscott who slapped me into understanding better.
the problem is that both positions are morally untenable, in the real world, and one must open one's eyes to the company extremists on both sides keep, to help see the bigger picture.
to start with, it is obscene how mens' sexual education is so poor, since we are much more responsible for creating 'unwanted' babies than women are, since mens' sexuality is more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is..
so it is equally obscene that men should rule in laws that convict women to choicelessness, unless there was some other alternative, some utopian solution that would guarantee a baby born to parents too young, unsupported, and inexperienced to be good at it.
and there isn't....reality check!
the facts speak for themselves, for the moral high ground one gains from taking a pure, anti-abortion position, one allies oneself with the baddest authoritarian, warmongering, religiously ignorant, bossy, nosy sons of bitches who ever got too big for their historical boots.
by reluctantly conceding one's own rational loathing of abortion, or on a deeper level, the grief that a society can be so uptight and in denial about sex, that they do not educate their kids intelligently about this trickiest of areas, and their kids act out accordingly, one is allied with those who are actually doing something to create a greener, more intelligent world, where sex will be treated with the respect it deserves, with full disclosure of the facts of life as early as a child seeks to know about them.
it is the sick shame projected together with a judgmental moralism that creates the cognitive dissonance, that then creates naive, undereducated kids, who act out.
so until we create a much better world for all of us, but especially children, i have decided it behooves us men to remain in humble silence as to what we think women should do with their bodies, even if it's our sperm that ìs co-creating the situation.
sex and desire are never going to conveniently wait to arrive only to adults truly conscious, generous and psychologically mature enough to handle raising children in today's worrying world.
society is so atomised by industrialism that instead of a matter for tribal celebration when young adults, as it was for millennia, conceived, now we throw up our hands in horror, clutch our pearls, when this happens, unless the parents have 'good jobs' etc, which increasingly is happening to folks in their mid thirties.
biologically the hormonal system is never so active as at the age of 14-15. we have created a world where young adults are looking at waiting another 15 years of work, waiting, abstinence and/or condoms before their elders clap their hands and smile on the happy couple.
it is reminiscent of the surreal cognitive gap in america between drinking age and the supposed 'maturity' needed to join the armed forces and kill people to order...is it surprising people go nuts with this kind of hypocritical bullshit from those entrusted with preparing them for the world?
there is no good answer politically for the abortion issue, just crap or crappier.
when every child really is welcome, and will be raised by a whole 'village', replete with loving understanding, then we won't even need to discuss this unsolvable problem.
till then, we men who are mortified by the act of abortion should be even more mortified by the context women must live in, pregnant or not, that is created by men, who have resisted any female emancipation historically, then i just feel it's arrogant for men to push their beliefs about this issue into the political arena.
especially as if we controlled ourselves better, women wouldn't have this problem!
sorry for the semi-coherent ramble... logically you are right, but the world is not so linear. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I'm not aware about the quality of men's sexual education, especially at the lower educational end, which probably is most relevant. However, I can't accept the collectivism, to say men are "more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is.". Yes, in average they are, but with wide variations. So, if sexual behaviour is at the core of the argument, there is no reason, not to look on the credibility of each one's individual's live.
the facts speak for themselves, for the moral high ground one gains from taking a pure, anti-abortion position, one allies oneself with the baddest authoritarian, warmongering, religiously ignorant, bossy, nosy sons of bitches who ever got too big for their historical boots. I don't understand completely to what you hint? The NAZIs, who by the way had an euthanasia program, which today sometimes is cited, when our special responsibility for disabled (e.g. not abort them) is called, were the first to implement major environmental protection laws in Germany. Does this make todays environmentalists to fascists? Or are you talking about the Republicans of today? Then, to distance oneself from them, there are about a thousand issues, why using one of the less evil ones, to go into a political discussion, which necessarily ends up little nuanced, but completely polemic? If you talking about the GOP, as if I would have argued, it would be reasonable to vote them, just because they are right on this one issue, while they are wrong on all others. Obama by the way gets it, and has announced he would fire anybody in his campaign speculating about Sarah Palin's family live - the way ThatBritGuy, Metatone, and gk are doing.
by reluctantly conceding one's own rational loathing of abortion, or on a deeper level, the grief that a society can be so uptight and in denial about sex, that they do not educate their kids intelligently about this trickiest of areas, and their kids act out accordingly, one is allied with those who are actually doing something to create a greener, more intelligent world, where sex will be treated with the respect it deserves, with full disclosure of the facts of life as early as a child seeks to know about them. How is the society in denial about sex? I think (in Germany) there was never a better informed youth than today. If education is bad, wouldn't that be the thing to change? And does one have to buy everything what is considered by this group do-gooders? Don't you realise, that you are advocating totalitarism, when you either have to buy the full package, or you are part of the evil crowd, which can't be taken seriously at all? I have always said, I'm conservative, because the democratic acceptable and respectable political views are left of mine. If you are a democrat (not in the party sense, but in the sense of rule of the people), I think you have to accept some other opinions.
it is the sick shame projected together with a judgmental moralism that creates the cognitive dissonance, that then creates naive, undereducated kids, who act out. As I said before, I'm 'created' by pro-live parents. I was the best in my 100 people high school age-group at the only private school in my hometown, and one of the fasted getting my physics diploma at one of the most respected universities in Germany. My impression, as well from having watched a few times afternoon talkshows, is, that being pro-choicers are much more irresponsible than pro-livers, who actually know, that their actions have consequences.
Then you are talking about reality. This reality is made by people, who reality that way. Somebody had a sign like we matter more then pens and pounds. Yes, it seems the reality is often, that pens and pounds matter more. But that is a decision, done by humans, and humans could change it, if they would want to.
Then you are talking about historical load, men discriminating women. Your argument is simply rubbish. I have as many female as male ancients. How does it make boys a culprit and girls a victim, when their father is misbehaving towards their mother? Your argument is not just flawed, it is really really bad! With such arguments today, the extreme discrimination against boys in school is justified.
My selfcontrol is fine, I'm virgin. And if men shouldn't be in the discussion, men shouldn't be in the discussion. My original comment was about mistreating Sarah Palin. If men should not be in the discussion, to place the comment as a response to Fran's was wrong, but I guess some of the comments, I did target with my response do come from males. So please take one of the 100 000 other issues, you could take to attack her, but stop using her family live for that. It might even be counterproductive, because people might vote for her in defiance of the mistreatment (which probably is one reason for the reaction of Obama). Even as no GOP voter will read this site, it is a matter of decency (which I'm confident, that it is as well a reason for Obama's reaction). Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
In general the one thing I sometimes disagree with certain feminists on is that men don't get a say on abortion on a personal level. It's a major life decision that affects both people in a relationship and it seems to be natural to me that the man would have an opinion. If I were to find out that a serious girlfriend had had an abortion without talking about it with me, I'd be extremely upset - far more so than, say, at a bit of casual cheating. On the other hand, in the end it's the woman's decision, in the same way that a decision to take a job in another location or for radically different hours or pay is. That would impact me, but I don't get a veto. This isn't 'fair', but it's also not 'fair' that women are the ones who have to go through pregnancy.
As for what you say about pro-life vs. pro-choice people - ummh... My college and grad school experiences have been in environments which are both quite competitive and overwhelmingly pro-choice (at least ninety percent). I've definitely not observed that.
I also think you are confusing the life choices of many pro-choice people with a desire to impose them on others. But actually we don't want to force people to have abortions any more than we want to force them to go through with pregnancies - it's up to you. Same goes for sexual choices - those are up to you. All we want is to be able to make our own decisions on all such matters without government coercion.
As I said before, I'm 'created' by pro-live parents. I was the best in my 100 people high school age-group at the only private school in my hometown, and one of the fasted getting my physics diploma at one of the most respected universities in Germany. My impression, as well from having watched a few times afternoon talkshows, is, that being pro-choicers are much more irresponsible than pro-livers, who actually know, that their actions have consequences.
Your physics may be exceptional, but perhaps a little more logic could be useful in that argument.
There is - in most of the world - zero correlation between being pro- or anti-choice and academic ability.
As for the rest - statistics don't agree with your impression.
In fact this is exactly why we're having this argument. Fundies in the US lead far less moral lives, by the their own standards, than liberals do. Fundies are more likely to be in prison, more likely to have substance abuse issues, more likely to commit sex crimes and generally less likely to behave like rational adults - especially not rational adults with an understanding of consequences.
In fact this is the one of the keystones of the progressive movement - to educate conservatives about consequences.
Specifically it's to educate conservatives about the despicable social fallout of abstinence programs, of the disastrous consequences of militarism, of the carnage created by a culture of ownership without responsibility, and above all of the consequences of pretending that personal actions based on 'because I say so' or 'because an authority figure said so' don't work nearly as well for anyone as personal actions based on rational forethought and empathy.
If Sarah Palin is in the middle of the crossfire, it's because everything in her life dramatises these issues. And the last thing anyone wants - and by anyone I mean conservatives and progressives equally - is someone in charge of the biggest war machine in history who doesn't understand how to assess consequences realistically.
If being pro-live would be the source for that, it should apply in every society. But the reality is the other way around. Dumb people follow some form of explicit or implicit authority, and in the US it happens to be, that this authorities, which are used to replace own thinking, are pro-live.
And I would be perfectly happy with an non-interventionist not understanding how to assess consequences person in charge of the biggest war machine in history, while some warmonger, who understands how to assess consequences, but doesn't care about human lives in general, would be really troubling. Actually I doubt the assessment of the consequences of a significant military action is seriously possible.
If you need to use Palin's personal family story, in which I can't see anything bad, to portray Palin's incompetence as president, then you haven't much. Luckily Obama is better than that. Actually his attitude has impressed me so much in the last days, that I have a new signiture: Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
You don't get it, do you? It's all about Abstinence-Only Sex Education which the US has been pushing on the rest of the world.
In 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush announced his Five-Year Global HIV/AIDS Strategy. Also known as The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years towards AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20 percent of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Global AIDS prevention advocates have criticized the funding restriction, and in 2006 a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) also criticized the earmark, outlined the challenges that the funding restriction posed to countries hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic, and urged Congress to reconsider how this funding should be spent. A Congressionally authorized three-year evaluation of PEPFAR by the non-partisan Institute of Medicine in 2007 also criticized the earmark. In preparation for PEPFAR's reauthorization, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress that would drop the earmark
However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good. You can bring up the inefficiency of Abstinence-Only education to fight AIDS, you can ridicule the American obsession with sex references and education any time. But it is not decent, to do that with using existing babys. You imply that this baby is a problem. It isn't. It's just a baby. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I'm not fully sure what Abstinence-Only, really means as sex education. Seems to me not very, uhmm, educated. However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good.
However, Palin's daughter hasn't HIV, she has a baby. What the hell is wrong with that? Babys are good. Planned or unplanned, a baby is always good.
Or so the theory goes.
The Palins provide a poster case for the failure of Abstinence-only sex education to prevent unplanned teenage pregnancy. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Well, but they don't provide a poster case for the negative consequences on live quality an unplanned baby can have.
And now you are using the girl, Bristol Palin, not Sarah Palin, for a political purpose. You portray a major decision of her live as a failing. Whatever you think about this case being poster case for whatever, this is simply bad style. Sure, what you are doing may be common, on, uhmm, fox news... Nothing else I'm saying. Is that the way politics is discussed in Spain or UK? Would be disappointed to hear that. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
I didn't say anything negative about the decision to carry the pregnancy to term. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
No, abstinence is the strategy advocated by her mother.
Which is the strategy being criticised here.
You could claim that the daughter is just a rebellious teenager and the mother's strategy is still the best, if you really wanted. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The abuse of family members, especially of children, of political opponents for political gain is something, which I condemn. And it is not something which is excusable by say people from the other party are doing this, too. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
No, you have to pick one explicit, underaged girl, who is not asked, if she wants to be picked by you as an example. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Also, it is the mother who is being criticised, showing her methods didn't produce what she's claiming to achieve ; I don't give a damn about her daughter, beyond wishing her happiness. I hope she was informed enough about the consequences of sex. And that the shotgun wedding isn't due to her mother's decision to run for VP. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Frankly, I think this insane. Maybe they do it for easier fact checking possibilities, but it is insane. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Another point : I think it makes Palin look even worse, that she accepted McCain's proposition, knowing the kind of scrutiny it would put on her family, and what it would do to her kid daughter. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
You conflate American statistics and my purely German experience.
You don't have a purely German experience. You have a European experience where the authoritarian Catholic church collided with secular social democracy in a series of battles which lasted centuries, and eventually social democracy won - at least for the moment.
In other countries - especially in Africa - that battle is still being fought, and the results are as predicted. I.e. lives are laid waste to, and the consequences are even more horrific than they are in the US.
Martin:
Dumb people follow some form of explicit or implicit authority, and in the US it happens to be, that this authorities, which are used to replace own thinking, are pro-live.
Pro-life authorities in the rest of the world aren't known for encouraging independent thought.
Can you name a pro-life organisation anywhere in the world which supports original scientific and philosophical enquiry and doesn't operate from a 'Because I said so' moral foundation?
Quibble here but that's not completely true in areas where Catholics weren't the majority. Witness the rather different nature of the Catholic political movement in Bavaria and the Rhineland during the Kaiserreich and Weimar.
Of course the only pro-live organisations I'm aware of, the churches in Germany, do support original scientific and philosophical enquiry in nearly every fields. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/2/145254/8466/826/103935
i just reread it, and still feel the same way.
However, I can't accept the collectivism, to say men are "more persuasive, invasive and with less regard for the longterm consequences than womens' is.".
i don't like using generalisms, (generally!) but in thic case feel it appropriate. not too many woman-on-man rapes!
Or are you talking about the Republicans of today?
yes.
If you talking about the GOP, as if I would have argued, it would be reasonable to vote them, just because they are right on this one issue,
if there ever was a poster-reason for how absolutist thinking was a bridge to nowhere-in-the-real-world.
your logic would hold water IF unborn foetus cells and their fate added up to be more big-picture critical than global warming, police state mentalities and the rest of the sorry list of bullshit values proposed as desirable and appropriate for society.
as it is, i think a society that eschewed abortion would be a wonderful thing, and i try to align my actions to be conducive to that future, but to make a litmus test out of it is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
How is the society in denial about sex? I think (in Germany) there was never a better informed youth than today. If education is bad, wouldn't that be the thing to change?
let me count the ways!
you are correct about germany, however. even nazis dug sex! i was happily stunned with how open german talk shows are about sexual issues of all stripes, and even how attractive most of the girls who advertised for company in the local dusseldorf newspaper were.
a german friend, told me it's because most german men are gay or married, and there's therefore a shortage of available hetero males, lol! her tongue may have been in her cheek, i dunno..
the contrast with prissy old england could not have been more shocking-
And does one have to buy everything what is considered by this group do-gooders? Don't you realise, that you are advocating totalitarism, when you either have to buy the full package, or you are part of the evil crowd, which can't be taken seriously at all? I have always said, I'm conservative, because the democratic acceptable and respectable political views are left of mine. If you are a democrat (not in the party sense, but in the sense of rule of the people), I think you have to accept some other opinions.
hello...you've taken my point and pointed it back at me, lol! i do accept other opinions, including the one that statistically shows how the most irresponsible sexual behaviour of all stems from clueless teenagers who've been fed soapy lies, or worse, nothing at all truthful, objective or relevant about this issue, the most central to all our lives.
absolute moralism in the face of uncomfortable reality always creates the opposite effect than intended...jokes about the preacher's daughter have been around for ever.
i do accept others' opinions, especially when it's about others' bodies, and ask the same in return.
quite simple.
wha??? you've totally lost me here...
So please take one of the 100 000 other issues, you could take to attack her, but stop using her family live for that.
well, i didn't, if you care to reread the threads, i attacked the hypocrisy and double standards that are the so-frequent fruit of this particular form of moral blinkeredness.
the repubs are brushing aside the story, saying 'they're getting married, so it's ok for her to be pregnant...'.
i find that funny, and sad. i hope some parents learn from this, that's all.
thanks for your detailed reply. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
I'd agree that's probably true as a general rule in the society we live in, but I'm also pretty certain it's socially constructed - i.e. society shapes men to be more sexually aggressive, and women to be less so. Having gone to a pretty non-sexist college, and when there finding myself hanging out in an even more egalitarian environment, I can attest that women are quite capable of aggressive sexuality. In the parties I hung out at, that even included some reverse 'girls gone wild' stuff like encouraging guys to flash or egging on straight men to kiss each other. And of course most did - to appear 'cool' and to impress that hot brunette over there - the same reasons women do it. Nor are women immune to saying, oh who cares about that lack of condoms when intoxicated on desire with a possible but not necessary extra assist from ethanol. And like men, some women will even try to pressure men into sex.
To sum up, I'm not at all convinced that an egalitarian society if and when it ever comes about, will be that much more responsible about sex.
I'd agree that's probably true as a general rule in the society we live in, but I'm also pretty certain it's socially constructed - i.e. society shapes men to be more sexually aggressive, and women to be less so.
that would make a very interesting discussion, i think.
i take your anthropological point, some cultures give more power to women, and they seem quite happy with the arrangement.
however the horny drunk mobs of ibiza, that come from england, are an example, like most porn, of womens' identity being subsumed to mens' fantasies.
not a pretty sight...
pre-feminist, if you will.
MarekNYC:
And like men, some women will even try to pressure men into sex.
i think men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love, the pressure goes both ways.
why not?
just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i think men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love
I've always been dubious of this point of view, as it leans towards conservative views of the role of Men and Women. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
if they give each other what they want, that is.
of course nothing is absolutely true. exceptions abound, thank the fsm- ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
How many myths do we still unconsciously keep replicating because they are so ingrained in the way societal gender roles are viewed, despite the progress that has been made in liberating women from the most conservative of structures in some places?
We still fall foul of using one myth to argue back against another however hard we try to use actual evidence and stats as much as possible. Ad astra per aspera
the question that follows on from that is If men are Then who are they promiscuous with? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I find anthropological points of view interesting but I do also wonder how relevant they are in some cases. Maybe melo can offer his view on that.
For example in the stone age in order to survive, women needed to be baby machines and men had to go off sowing their seed and hunting for food. But we don't have those kind of constraints on our society now so how useful is it to try to say 'well men do this and women do that because of our basic primal instincts'?
Any individual's potential role in society has altered drastically over the 100 years let alone the last 1000. In seeking equality for all, I just don't find it helpful when myths about capabilities and desires of one group vs another get thrown about.
When I use stats to represent proportions eg women are still proportionally more likely to bear the burden of being the primary carer for children or disabled/elderly relatives. This is partly because womens still get paid less than men (proportionally) hence if a decision has to be made about who goes part time or leaves work, the one with the lower salary and prospects is going to have to take that on, again, more likely to be a woman. There's statistical evidence for that and it is useful to use when arguing around the need for change and for certain types of interventions to address inequality.
I don't find it useful to say things like, 'women prefer to be homemakers' because that is a myth even if some women do prefer to be. Ad astra per aspera
For example in the stone age in order to survive, women needed to be baby machines and men had to go off sowing their seed and hunting for food.
"Just-So Stories" Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed] For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed] Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection. Leda Cosmides noted in an interview: "Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?" In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes: "Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed]
For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed]
Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection.
Leda Cosmides noted in an interview:
"Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?"
In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes:
"Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
The norms of society in the UK will differ to other countries, societies and cultures elsewhere in the world. Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women? Ad astra per aspera
yup. but live that out and you'll end up in jail, pronto...
semi-snark ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women?
The philosophical non-starters we inherit from the likes of Rousseau... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The closest I could try to articulate would be how would male and female roles fall into place were a small community/tribe to find themselves living together - no 'cultural' structures or rituals or roles currently established... My first thought there is that it would largely be determined by the environment they were living in and thus would vary. Ad astra per aspera
And none carried over from whatever communities these people come from... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Cue in Lord of the Flies. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
But on a very pessimistic days, I'd say LotF wouldn't be that far from the truth...
And as fictional as reality TV. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
must be the poverty...
i remember hearing that in europe in the middle ages, once a year the whole village would meet by night and bonk their hearts out in the dark with whomever.
mixing up the old gene pool... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i'm looking at the unravelled skeins around our feet.
on the bright side, i see a new global culture forming too, woven from the many threads that survive commodification.
pop over to sven's musical diary for evidence of that... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
yup that's our main contribution.... better KIT ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
then we traded it in for the truman show.
'madmen' is the new 'sopranos'. i was happy to see that obama relaxes to it on the campaign plane.
anyone want to learn through drama how the truman show took over western media culture in the sixties could do worse than check it out. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
lately not so much. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i guess the chinese olympics...
<dux> ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Not that that would be too surprising... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
the virtue of other cultures is they're not ours, which of course can lead to romanticisation, of which i have been guilty, but no more, no more...
not since i found ET, lol! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Except in the case of social creatures (such as humans) in which the social is part of the natural. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
How much of how we behave, live, work and so on is defined by social norms and expectations and upbringing and how much is driven by say genetics or personality? It is an interesting debate to have because depending on whether you believe the 'natural' (whatever that is) or the 'social' is more influential then your view on how to tackle social problems will vary. Ad astra per aspera
And it is not whether - or, is the point. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
my new kitty says hi, btw! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Plus the page refresh takes ages.
I tend to duck out at that point. keep to the Fen Causeway
get a catmac! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
are the only debates that interest you reducible to binary terms?
funny, i find that's exactly what makes these types of discussion so fascinating, and they generate so many comments, too. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
So, yes, I don't find it interesting but not for the reasons you imagine. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
it is now clearer to me why you find it uninteresting.
perhaps because you don't anticipate any novel viewpoints to emerge here?
luckily it is interesting some of us... a hoary argument for sure, but it's the journey, not the arrival.
meaning we may never know, but the conversations it enables are revealing, because it's obviously something many great minds have bent to understand, and some here have reflected quite deeply thereupon, to judge by the interest and comments.
horses for courses... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
how can i refuse?
i love to study others' cultural mores, and am always curious as to how maybe our own have possibly some very fundamental assumptions wrong.
but if you want to try and live cross-culturally, there's a high price to pay. so groupthink is a big part of how we form our own opinions.
more info...more choice. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
doesn't prove a thing, natch... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Why does England have to export its horny drunk mobs? (I'm also thinking about the Praguestag nights, etc) A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
too much rain'll do that. i'm sure many of them would prefer not to go all the way to spain to feel ok about their 'animal spirits'!
where else than britain (and russia) do more people drink with oblivion as sole destination?
in spain they get to bonk before they fall over in a stupor, and don't have to face mum over breakfast the morning after. for the price of a ryan air ticket!
got to have some ecstatic moments before getting back to the office grind...
the perils of too much 'proper', i reckon. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Most of Southern Sweden exports its drunken mobs to Copenhagen for pretty much those reasons. As for why the mobs are horny as well as drunken, I think the horny is just along for the ride whenever drunken mobs get together...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Both do both. Men are just as much prey to the delusion that if only I can get her to sleep with me she'll want me on other levels as well. The social sexual stereotyping that I see on the other side is the belief that a single guy who has no moral problems with casual sex will always want it.
I think that's only partly true - i.e. what that is is also women playing the 'be popular' game, and just doing what it takes to get laid. The college crowd I was in was really not that sort of frat boy type one. And god knows getting straight guys to kiss each other really isn't part of a broader social stereotype of straight male fantasies. That was even more true fifteen years ago.
why not? just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now?
just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now?
What I was specifically referring to is the way desire crowds out responsibility once people start fooling around. And I don't see women being less prone to that than men. You start out thinking, well, we can fool around and do all sorts of stuff that doesn't require condoms. A little while later...
The one absolute difference I've seen is in the use of violence and physical coercion to get sex. Women don't seem to do that. How much of that is to do with strength differences I don't know. That difference is also what keeps the more extreme examples of women pressuring guys into sex that I've known about from being rape or sexual assault.
On a semi related note, I've also known more women than men who are genuinely into serious open relationships, as opposed to simply selfishly into cheating. (The difference is honesty and a complete lack of sexual jealousy.)
or: if i can get her to sleep with me it means there's something she sees in me to love...
I've also known more women than men who are genuinely into serious open relationships
straight and/or gay?
great reply, marek, very nice... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
