Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 06:34:42 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Re: Scientology"

    Received: by id GAA21771 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:39:01 GMT
    Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:34:42 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    >Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:06:05 +0800
    > Stephen Springette <> Re: Rogue Males by Lionel TigerReply-To:
    >At 01:47 22-01-02 -0500, Francesca wrote:
    >>please see the first snipped statement. We are in agreement here. The
    >>author's position was that women also participate by choosing mates who
    >>are Taliban members, when in fact they have no choice
    >>whatsoever. Marriages are arranged and there are no single career women
    >>under the Taliban.
    >But who is it that arranges the marriages? Is it not both parents? And from
    >what I've seen of Arabic cultures, women are the principle enforcers of
    >such traditions. It seems to me that their men are too busy providing for
    >their families, to devote much attention to this aspect of life.
    >Secondly... if it were even remotely possible for a culture to approach a
    >condition so extraordinarily out of balance that men not only provided for
    >their families but also manipulated the family relationships and the
    >behavioral trajectories of their sons and daughters, what might we make of
    >the women of such an out-of-whack culture? Is it conceivable that any
    >mother-as-primary-nurturer could willingly surrender Woman's Power at so
    >wholesale a level as what such a scenario might seem to imply? At issue
    >here is the fact that there is no aspect of a culture that acts
    >independently of any other aspect... that is, if men are "powerful", then
    >it is because women have permitted it, and because women have exercised
    >their own power, for example, over their sons in training them to become
    >the sorts of adolescents that finally get initiated into the culture's manhood.
    >Incidentally, such imbalances (if one accepts that Taliban culture does
    >indeed approach such a condition - for example, Taliban fundamentalism as a
    >reaction to Western globalization) are not sustainable and will invariably
    >result in corrections, whether from within or from without. For this
    >reason, we cannot look to them to provide generalizations about "all" men
    >or "all" women.
    >Newton's Laws of Emotion:
    >There can be no complexity without simplicity.
    When Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Mullah omar were marrying each other's dauthers to themselves or their sons in order to cement terrorist ties, I cannot believe that it was at the behest of any of the wives in their respective harems.
    >Applied simplicity:
    >Stephen Springette
    >This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    >Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    >For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 07:35:34 GMT