Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bluegrass

Damn!  not writing too well today....
Quote from: "Galt"
There is a common underlying attitude in most of the threads on the Ms. Boards that anything that seems typically male is always in need of correction.  Their attitude for instance is that hierarchy is ALWAYS bad; concensus-governing is ALWAYS good.  That's just not the case.  There is a place for both approaches.  They take all of the advances that men have come up with for granted, while simultaneously laboring under the constant assumption that anything that seems traditionally male is bad.

Ms. Paglia said once that if men weren't around, women would still be living in caves or straw huts (although nicely decorated ones).  Lynne is the worst one over there with this attitude; the Internet is evil as a characteristic male invention, but he sure pounds out a lot of posts on that evil invention.

Actually, that place is its own unique little world.  My great hope is that those boards don't represent most feminists -- just the ones most motivated by neuroses to post all the time.  It's hardly about politics or even gender issues as much as it is about complaining.

But I'd also say that what is apparent from those discussions isn't even so much about men as it is something even more generalized.  And it's a quality emerging in the cultural character in America and one that is also a symptom of the feminization of America.

It's the characeristic as seeing motivations and personal definition and determination as the result of primarily external factors.  The idea that with a few simple words my workplace can be made hostile, that a person can be objectified by another's gaze and the agreeable victim in an abusive relationship.  It's the reason for everything from domestic violence to obesity.  It ignores the fact that in every instance that person has made a consciouss choice to be defined by another or swayed by advertising.  Making another person responsible for everything right down to how much food you put in your mouth.
It's also kind of like the analogy that just because a person has big muscles he's naturally a great athlete as well.  

Just because a person is emotional means that he's somehow more in touch of his emotions.

The arrogance i'm getting at is something like this:  "I've made such a great argument for my point of view.  Everything is backed up with study and statistics and makes perfectly logical sense.  The only conclusion I can come to is that this person is just hateful, closed minded and prejudiced."

In reality maybe a good argument hs been made, but what that perspective ignores is differing value systems.

If you hold liberty to a higher value than safety you're not going to care how many lives are saved with seat belt and helmet laws.  Those people chose to do what they wanted to do.
In the 1970's the model of intellectual Marxism gained influence in liberal politics and within academic institutions.  While most people don't realize it's influence on politics and policy -- especially with regard to feminism -- it has truly changed the paradigm for discussions of any power relationships.

So i have a question.  In conservative circles, was there a new paradigm gaining influence around this time as well?  If so, what was it?
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Teddy said:  
They want a guy who is nice, sensitive, and tender.

Yes, but that is not the whole story.  Women want sensitive men, but sensitve means he is sensitive to


not that he is aware and expressive of his own.

There is a HUGE difference.

Absolutely.  There's a discussion going on right now at the Ms magazine boards about empathy and why men don't have any.  There is an arrogance to this assumption -- which is common to most feminist opinions of men "not getting it" when we don't agree with any feminist point.

Empathy is the action of vicariously experiencing the feelings or pain of another.  In order to have a vicarious experience one must first have sympathy -- an inclination to think or feel alike or emotional or intellectual accord (that's from Webster's dicitonary).  So before empathy comes sympathy and requisite for sympathy is a certain level of agreement on what's being felt.  If that amount of agreement isn't met, empathy probably won't occur.  This is just as apparent in the female emotional makeup as the male.  Just ask any feminist what she thinks of domestic violence against men and you won't find much empathy there even though you'd think there might be grounds for sympathy.

So as to why a man maybe doesn't appear to have as much feeling as a woman can come down more to what he values as compared to what she values.  Very often men hold freedom and liberty to a much higher value than safety and security.  Often women value those things oppositely.  So if there is not agreement on what is emotive, why would empathy be the expected outcome for both.  This is just an example, but know what I mean?  Empathy is not really an experiencing of someone else's feelings -- it's more a projection of one's own feelings onto another.  So yes, they are looking for agreement.