Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal Attraction

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
    I love that kenn is citing a legal structure that wrote into law the idea that a woman would be entitled to take ownership of less than half of her late husband's estate, in a society where I am sure a widowed man would "naturally" take control of all of his wife's property on her death, as evidence that institutionalized discrimination against women was not a problem.
    Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

    Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

    Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
      So, are you trying to say that we shouldn't judge their policies as sexist because we have hindsight? I really don't see what your point is here. One of these days it would be great if you could actually explain what you think about something, just for funsies.
      It's a logical fallacy and typically compels people to take a narrow view of history.
      Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
      Starting Weight: 294 pounds
      Current Weight: 235 pounds
      Goal Weight: 195 pounds

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
        Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

        Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

        Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?
        Please explain to me how it was beneficial to women.

        Of course men are also descriminated against- but it was a matter of class not gender.
        http://cattaillady.com/ My blog exploring the beginning stages of learning how to homestead. With the occasional rant.

        Originally Posted by TheFastCat: Less is more more or less

        And now I have an Etsy store: CattailsandCalendula

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kenn View Post
          It's a logical fallacy and typically compels people to take a narrow view of history.
          Yes, I think I can see a narrow view there.
          Last edited by magicmerl; 05-31-2012, 03:15 PM.
          Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

          Griff's cholesterol primer
          5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
          Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
          TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
          bloodorchid is always right

          Comment


          • Originally posted by drssgchic View Post
            Please explain to me how it was beneficial to women.
            Interesting, the way this question is phrased. It's trajectory traces back to female privilege.

            I suppose that the snippet of inheritance law in question would have been beneficial to several women...the widow, and the dead man's surviving female blood relations. It's pretty silly to discuss without context, as inheritance law is extremely regional and complex.

            I could be silly, and ask you 'how does paying a bride price benefit men?', or 'how does it benefit a man if he has to repay his wife's dowry to her family if she dies childless', or 'how does jus relictae benefit a man?'...but I realize those institutions at the very least benefit the woman's father.

            Originally posted by drssgchic View Post
            Of course men are also descriminated against- but it was a matter of class not gender.
            If I put on my leftist thinking cap for a moment, it seems clear to me that men, as a gender, are discriminated against throughout history by being expected to provide physical protection against animals and criminals, go risk their lives in wars, and do dangerous and backbreaking labor.

            I guess someone forgot to tell Affirmative Action that, even today, more than 90% of fatalities at the workplace are men.

            I hate putting on that cap, though, I always feel dumber afterwards.

            It's not discrimination, it's nature. Men benefit from the objectification of women, women benefit from the disposability of men, and society benefits wherever men and women both benefit.

            Anyone who claims to seek progress for society but only advocates for one gender is a charlatan, or a collectivist dupe.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
              Yes, I think I can see a narrow view there.
              Reminds me of this farce



              Originally posted by Nicator View Post
              *snip*
              Do you have a blog? I'd read it.
              Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
              Starting Weight: 294 pounds
              Current Weight: 235 pounds
              Goal Weight: 195 pounds

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?
                Of course there has been discrimination against men through history in some circumstances, as well as discrimination along the lines of race or social class, which affects men and women both. That's irrelevant to whether a certain policy is discrimination against women, which is what I was talking about. One neither excludes nor excuses the other.

                Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?
                Actually I have, and generally I do think before I write or speak. I understand perfectly well that social customs can evolve to benefit one or another group of people in a given social environment. I also don't care a whit about whether a policy is "good for society" (although how you can make that claim with a straight face when the policy in question is clearly bad for women, who are half of any society, is beyond me). "Society" is a made-up abstraction. A person is not. There are people, and there are more people. If a policy unjustly deprives a class of people of their rightfully owned property, that is an unjust and immoral policy. I don't care if it's good for someone else; it's morally wrong. What you're doing is harming a person, who is a real and concrete being, in order to help a society, which is a made-up construct composed of other people you have lumped into a group. So what you are actually doing is stealing from a person to help other people you have taken the liberty to decide are more deserving of someone else's things.

                Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?
                Um, yes, I am genuinely offended by sexism and sex discrimination. The amount of offense I take is also naturally partly a product of my upbringing, education and exposure to modern culture. I suspect if I had been brought up in Victorian England or some such I would be much more tolerant of rigidly enforced gender roles and unequal property and participatory rights for women. What's your point? Sounds to me like society has made progress on this front and I have benefited from that progress by being raised as a more tolerant and fair-minded person than I might otherwise have.
                Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                My Primal Journal

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                  Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

                  Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

                  Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?
                  the presence of institutional discrimination against men (if any) does not negate the fact that women have been institutionally discriminated against for centuries.
                  my primal journal:
                  http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...Primal-Journal

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Saoirse View Post
                    the presence of institutional discrimination against men (if any) does not negate the fact that women have been institutionally discriminated against for centuries.
                    However, it is in our current society one that we could change. The past is long gone and we can't change it.
                    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                    Current Weight: 235 pounds
                    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                      Yes, I think I can see a narrow view there.
                      So a straight white man is explaining why it is easy being a straight white man? Eh, it is John Scalzi so I will get over it. The man can write.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                        Interesting, the way this question is phrased. It's trajectory traces back to female privilege.

                        I suppose that the snippet of inheritance law in question would have been beneficial to several women...the widow, and the dead man's surviving female blood relations. It's pretty silly to discuss without context, as inheritance law is extremely regional and complex.
                        Interesting. So you're claiming that it's more beneficial to a widow to inherit 1/3 of her husband's estate than the whole thing, which is what would happen if she were a man?

                        Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                        If I put on my leftist thinking cap for a moment, it seems clear to me that men, as a gender, are discriminated against throughout history by being expected to provide physical protection against animals and criminals, go risk their lives in wars, and do dangerous and backbreaking labor.

                        I guess someone forgot to tell Affirmative Action that, even today, more than 90% of fatalities at the workplace are men.
                        Yep. Which is why I oppose sexism, rather than only sexism against women, and call myself a humanist, and not a feminist.

                        Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                        It's not discrimination, it's nature. Men benefit from the objectification of women, women benefit from the disposability of men, and society benefits wherever men and women both benefit.
                        Naturalistic fallacy much? Just because something is the default state doesn't mean we need to enshrine it in law or worship it in our culture. We do not live in a world where it is necessary for survival or success to have our lives' purposes defined for us according to our genitalia. Maybe that was the case once, but it's not anymore. It's time to move on from that now. Please note that I do not have any problem with people who choose traditional gender roles out of genuine preference. I live that way myself. I have a problem with anyone being told they are to be treated differently by law because of their genitalia, or the possession or lack of a Y chromosome.

                        Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                        Anyone who claims to seek progress for society but only advocates for one gender is a charlatan, or a collectivist dupe.
                        I agree. But nothing you have said erases the legitimacy of the complaints about discrimination against women, which is a very real phenomenon. It's the equivalent of me coming up to you and saying "I could use some help; my car broke down and I can't get to work" and you replying that it's narrow-minded for me to focus on only one problem, because your roof needs reshingling and might leak if it rains. It's just a non-sequitor.
                        Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                        My Primal Journal

                        Comment


                        • Presentism, ffs stop committing the same fallacy over and over
                          Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                          Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                          Current Weight: 235 pounds
                          Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                          Comment


                          • Presentism is not a logical fallacy kenn. It's just a way of looking at things. If you believe moral truths are timeless and independent of situation, then presentism isn't an error at all. If you believe in moral relativism then yeah, presentism is a problem. But I am not a relativist.

                            It's only a problem to look at past events through current mindsets if we are trying to understand people's motivations and falsely ascribe to them modern ideas. Judging their actions as more or less moral is best done through the best moral framework available, which in my opinion is the one I'm using now--naturally, or I would be using a different one.
                            Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                            My Primal Journal

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                              Presentism is not a logical fallacy kenn. It's just a way of looking at things. If you believe moral truths are timeless and independent of situation, then presentism isn't an error at all. If you believe in moral relativism then yeah, presentism is a problem. But I am not a relativist.

                              It's only a problem to look at past events through current mindsets if we are trying to understand people's motivations and falsely ascribe to them modern ideas. Judging their actions as more or less moral is best done through the best moral framework available, which in my opinion is the one I'm using now--naturally, or I would be using a different one.
                              It actually is a fallacy. Fallacy of nunc pro tunc is what it is referred to as.

                              You're comparing societies views of today of what is moral/right and comparing it in a narrow scope without understanding why things existed the way they did except purely in a modern context.
                              Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                              Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                              Current Weight: 235 pounds
                              Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kenn View Post
                                It actually is a fallacy. Fallacy of nunc pro tunc is what it is referred to as.

                                You're comparing societies views of today of what is moral/right and comparing it in a narrow scope without understanding why things existed the way they did except purely in a modern context.
                                I understand what the fallacy is kenn, I explained why I think it's not always an error as long you don't believe that people shared the same ideas as you do now.

                                To bring the subject back to the OP, this is what I am Primally Attracted to:





                                I just found her, but Jaime Koeppe may be the hottest woman I have ever seen. I'll also note that she has quite a lot of muscle mass, even in the upper body, for a female. I find it damned hot as long as the curves are there to go with it. Fantastic back and shoulders on her.
                                Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                                My Primal Journal

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X