Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA01976 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:26:32 GMT Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-Sender: email@example.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 220.127.116.11 Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:28:54 +0800 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Stephen Springette <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <F223bCc9FPsBR2fY2Bs000254a6@hotmail.com> <F223bCc9FPsBR2fY2Bs000254a6@hotmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
At 06:05 26-01-02 -0500, Francesca wrote:
>> We've been ear-bashed with the Woman's point of view for the past 40
>> years ;-)
>Well it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. :} (ducking for cover)
Not too sure that if, after x billion years of supposed subjugation that
never was, 40 years of propagandizing and whining would make a spot of
>>>This makes me think of both Malcolm X and Stephen Biko, who said that in
>>>order for African Americans (in Malcolm's case) or Africans (in Biko's
>>>case) to change they must look to themselves. It is a necessary first
>>>step to recognize your power and to recognize the ways in which you
>>>surrender it before you can reclaim it. I think there is something of
>>>value in what you say, although I also sense a little bit of hostility?
>>Is it wrong to feel disgust or anger at injustices that are being
>>committed in the name of the liberalist agenda?
>You say that people must choose. You must choose what best serves your
>anger and the correction of these injustices: making inflammatory remarks
>that alienate your audience; or offering well-reasoned statements laying
>out your beliefs in a way that people can see the value of your point.
"Reason" will have limited effect. Some reasons for this include:
1) There is too much momentum, too much invested in the mainstream
view, in order to willingly accept change. People will only change their
views when they WANT to change them;
2) There is a tendency, particularly in the West (as I see it) to
defer judgement to higher authorities. Self-evident "truths" are of limited
value for us, unless they bear the stamp of approval from the relevant
authority (academic institution, popular author, etc).
Any of the prominent feminists, such as Germain Greer and the like,
attained notoriety less through reason than through rocking the
establishment. Generally, particularly at the cutting edge of feminism,
their ideas were ignored until a certain critical mass of public opinion
was reached. People do not base their views on reason alone. Far from it.
>>In other words, were other cultures from other times really as ignorant
>>and stupid, living in darkness and ignorance, as our modern "enlightened"
>>would seem to suppose? What I am talking about is rummaging through the
>>beliefs of the past to understand WHY gender roles emerged as they had -
>>and to steer clear of judging these views "right" or "wrong".
>I too think that this would be fascinating. However I don't think *you*
>should write it, you would come up with something so inflammatory that no
>one would take it seriously. :}
>>In answer to your question, women need to do their own soul-searching,
>>and ask themselves why they make the choices they do.
>This is what I said in the Stephen Biko/Malcolm X comment. I was actually
>looking for something a little more concrete from you, like your example
>of not buying a car. I'm afraid I don't know much about the field of
>semiotics. Maybe it would help me understand your point if I
>did. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of a good intro. I
>already have a substantial list of "must reads" from this list, but I
>promise to have a go at it.
And if I was to send you some urls, you would likely seek an explanation as
to how all this fits in with gender roles, etc. My website already points
to directly relevant urls.
>>And if their answer is based in materialism or "security", or if it is
>>based in attention-seeking
>But these are all adaptive motivations, in the sense of natural selection,
>however distasteful you might find them.
If so, then in this context, patriarchal oppression of women is similarly
an adaptive motivation and shouldn't women, according to your reasoning,
accept their role as acquiescent doormats?
>The offspring of women who employ these strategies may do much better than
>those of women who adopt other strategies. You may say that we choose the
>meme (and there is some argument about that as well), but natural
>selection chooses which meme-hosts will prosper and which will not.
Natural selection at the level of human culture depends of desires, drives
and motivations of people. The whole reason that women are able to get away
with their priorities of materialism, security, attention-seeking is that
men-as-performing-seals are only too happy to play into their hands. The
equality between men and women is absolute. There is nothing done by one
gender that does not have the implicit approval from the other. There is
nothing that women need to be liberated from except themselves.
Newton's Laws of Emotion:
There can be no complexity without simplicity.
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 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 00:45:53 GMT