|
Arturas -> RE: Do you have contempt for submissive males? (5/1/2011 10:05:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
ORIGINAL: leadership527
You apparently. That is, in fact, my big mystery in all the "natural order" thing. If I want to know about ants and their habits, then I look at what ants actually do. If I want to look at wolves and their habits, then I look at what wolves actually do. If I want to look at humans and their habits, then I look at what humans actually do. And in our case, what we naturally do is build great big complex and incredibly intricate societies. I don't think society is against the natural order. I think it IS the natural order. How can one think anything else without going to made up theoretical humans?
Third, who does not believe nature has an uncompromising order?
Well now that's a pretty damned vague statement. Do you mean an order of dominance? Well sort of yeah... But the idea that it is strongly gender linked and/or it's static doesn't conform with my observations of actual behavior, either human or otherwise. And, again, I try to make sure my theoretical hypothesis actually line up with the real world experimental data.
Finally, it is clear the the natural order is not just "a gorean thing" but is a "everybody thing".
I disagree. As I noted above, I have no such concept that might be profitably applied to men and women. In fact, I find all such statements to fly in the face of all observational data. Even more interestingly, they typically rely on that time-honored tradition of ignoring any data which doesn't support the preconceived conclusion -- in this case tossing out the entirety of humanity and all of our works as "not-natural" for no particular reason. Tossing out the entire sample set seems... well... a bit risky when forming conclusions.
Nicely said.
For me, a double balls-up is involved. First, a deluded person - let us call him 'Cretin' - will project onto non-human-nature the qualities that he wants to see in it. Then, he'll 'read off' those qualities in such a way that they'll confirm his own views of human society.
Arturas doesn't go all the way with his view of 'natural versus unnatural'. He says, in effect, that what other creatures don't do (allow him his personal selection of creatures, for the sake of argument - gorillas, but not bonobo monkeys or hyenas, for instance) - and say that *all* those things that other animals don't do, but which humans do, are 'unnatural'.
In which case, we're pretty damned screwed, so far as I can see. Cooking food is unnatural; driving cars, wearing clothes, cleaning one's teeth, washing with soap, using underarm deodorant - all these things are 'unnatural'. So is reasoning. And talking. And writing, including writing on this forum.
Actually in nature it is gender related. Very strongly so. Simply observe the mating spring rituals.
Your bonobo monkey example is interesting. The bonobo in captivity tends to be female dominated with the females controlling the males using sex. Sound familiar? However, latter research indicates this may occur only in captivity; in other words, not in a natural situtation where Alpha males make a greater appearence.
Your comments on cooking and cleaning and smelling better than natural are interesting but I can't relate denying one's role in nature similar to denying raw food and rotten teeth and walking rather than making car payments.
|
|
|
|
