Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View The Religion of Healthy Mindedness
6 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:36PM #11
Posts: 11,443

KevinPONeill wrote:

I think the point is that only women can "speak to" what a Patriarchal Worldview is like for them.;/quote]

When did I lose my right to "speak to" whatever I please.  (I am not a Canadian citizen.)

Feminism is a term that a lot of separate ideas are "put into". I think you may be conflating some ideas that can easily be separated. This may allow for a "fruitful" dialogue on each point.

The idea that a person's gender alone would disqualify that person from participation or contribution in areas that do not by nature exclude them (i.e. Fatherhood / Motherhood) is not biocentric.

I think scientists have determined that a person's gender does determine which talents they possess.

We know from Market Capitalism (assuming a perfect free market) the free movement of goods, services, intellectual information, allocated by an unfettered market, yields the optimal distribution of resources.

Who composes this "we" you keep using?  I think that there are very few people who agree with this. 

In nature, variation, couple with Natural Selection yields the optimal characteristic for a species ability to adapt.

Therefore unfettered participation and contribution, based on ability and current human need (not ancient tribal power rules) is the best way to assure human progress.

I am not in favor of human progress, if human progress means the breakup of the family in favor of increased production of material goods.  If ancient tribal power rules stymie this misguided goal, lets have more of them.

How many talented women were passed over for jobs or did not even consider themselves for a position, due to their gender? Such an arbitrary exclusion means loss of talent. The same holds true in family "politics". If the woman is gifted in areas that were traditionally the domain of men, it would be optimal use of family talent to have the wife participate in that role, instead of the man. The benefit to the greater society is obvious.

And how many more  talented men were denied jobs in order to achieve affirmative action goals?  Arbitrary inclusion means a waste of resources training women who will never be able to do the jobs as well as men.

Whenever anything terrible happens, or rather is done, in the world, “we” are somehow to blame for it, not the merely apparent perpetrators. The root cause is always in us, the us in question being our biological, cultural, or political ancestors, but never me in particular. We are responsible, but I am not. We have done something to make them behave badly, and if it were not for us the world would be a peaceful, happy place. And to be ultimately responsible for all the evil in the world is at least flattering to one’s sense of self-importance, the defense of which motivates an important part of many people’s intellectual activity.

Theodore Dalrymple
Quick Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook