Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View The Religion of Healthy Mindedness
9 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2009 - 8:36PM #11
Posts: 12,687

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.

“So long as there is squalor in the world, those obsessed with social justice feel obliged not only to live in it themselves but also to spread it evenly.”
Quick Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook