15949Re: [gaiapc] Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
- Jan 1 12:02 PM
The over-riding factor when it comes to male dominance, male violence, patriarchy and women's preferences among males is simple: testosterone levels. Book after book after book on male dominance, male violence, patriarchy and women's preferences among males can be written by males and females alike in which the word "testosterone" never appears. Is there a conspiracy of silence?On 12/31/2017 11:33 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] wrote:Jada, good analysis. I posted the link to Horgan's article because I think it is an important cultural issue related to the ecological crisis. Your mother was a great example, but it is hard to imagine women like her surviving in many regions of the world. Your considered response is very much appreciated, as I am actively researching this issue in both the secular and religious dimensions. As usual, you have given me some food for thought, thanks!LuisOn Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Jada Thacker jadathacker@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:Luis,
Wow, there certainly are a lot of terms getting thrown around here as if they are synonymous, but are not: as applied to male humans "demonizing," "domineering," "dominating," "oppressive," and "patriarchal," all have subtle but important nuances. These terms (all subjectively judgmental) range from witchcraft to governmental. Similarly, Horgan tries to paint a subtle picture with a tar brush.
Standing silent behind the scattershot "synonyms" above are several unexamined assumptions: that women generally feel belittled by men, that men are more competitive than women, that men somehow ought not be more aggressive than women, and furthermore that it is patently wrong for them to be so. Most hilarious to me was the claim made that men, as a group, are more verbally inclined than women. Not only do I think all these assumptions are unwarranted, I think most women I have ever met would think so, too.
But the biggest wrong conception in my view was the blather about warfare, which only existed after the advent of agriculture, being somehow antithetical to sexual egalitarianism. This is wrong on both counts. Warfare between governments happened only after agriculture because no government predated agriculture; but to blithely assume no organized lethal encounters between males of competing groups is a "recent" phenomenon is nonsense. My native state Texas has a long (and quite recent) history of egalitarian, non-agricultural, hunter-gatherers called Comanche and Apache whose warlike ferocity is the stuff of legend and White nightmare.
Indeed, North American Indians in general (all Stone Age peoples) were highly warlike and extraordinarily cruel to their adversaries, but also in general were extraordinarily egalitarian and highly respectful of the women (and children) they protected within their own groups. In fact, these tribal warriors exemplified perfectly how a male can be not only "domineering and oppressive" of outsiders, while being praised proudly as being anything but by there own women and children. If the stats on sexual misconduct among our own warriors are correct, American soldiers conspicuously have not followed this respectful cultural tradition.
It seems obvious cultural bias and a large share of ignorance are being perpetuated by cohort of effete, urban, feel-your-painers, who were educated in Ivy League Houses of Political Correction. While they can talk the talk of evolutionary theory all day long, they seem ignorant of ever having walked the walk of rudimentary history or anthropology -- and surely are devoid of relevant personal experience in "manly" environments involving combat or other highly arduous and dangerous work, much less are conversant with the women of men who do so.
I hail from the bleak oil fields of West Texas, the son of a drilling rig roughneck and a self-educated woman, who was a well-published short story writer who picked cotton as a girl during the Depression, rode a horse to grade school, and taught me rifle marksmanship and ballroom dancing simultaneously. Her dictum to me as a boy: "You don't ever start fights. You finish them." Amateur Biblical historian that she was, Mother didn't put much stock in Genesis 3:16. When she was a just teenager, for example, her boss goosed her on the backside. She didn't wait 10 years to join the #metoo crowd and tearfully confess her feminist angst to the tabloid press: she hit him right between the eyes on the spot with a cast-iron based staple base, breaking his glasses in two. And then she quit before he had a chance to fire her. Later she recounted the story because she thought it was funny, not because his male oppression scarred her for life.
This woman taught me never to raise a hand against a woman, and I have never done so -- although I did (non-violently) take a butcher knife away from a girl intent on stabbing a guy in a bar one night. My mother, who worked her entire life as a secretary, positively disdained "feminism" and, like Bette Davis, believed she was "born liberated." I had to chuckle at Stan's John Wayne/Woody Allen anecdote. Without a doubt, my mother would have answered 'Sean Connery.'
Dear Mother wouldn't have given John Horgan (or his critics) the time of day. Maybe we don't need more men like Woody Allen (or Horgan), but more women like Bette Davis.
Did you read the article to the end? Toward the end of the article, his conclusion is that patriarchy is cultural, not natural, i.e., not primarily biological. This seems consistent with the biblical statement (Genesis 3:16) that patriarchy emerged *after* Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple. So patriarchy was not the natural order of things *before* this "original sin." I think there is some truth in this biblical insight, which was written in ca. 1000 BCE, when patriarchy was already the prevailing culture. Genesis 3:16 projects back the patriarchal curse as the most immediate and universal consequence of the "fall." Well, then, if patriarchy is artificial, then it can be undone, or at least mitigated; and this is what GAIA needs!LuisOn Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Stanley N Salthe ssalthe@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:Luis -- Regarding:Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world..
John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017Back in the 1980's I challenged a leader of our Feminist Movement with this same fact. I asked her who she would rather mate with -- Woody Allen or John Wayne. Knowing she was caught, she replied: "Why can't I have Robert Redford"?STANOn Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:Fascinating, see Genesis 3:16. I think that this cultural disorder, which was latent but became exacerbated by the energy surplus of fossil fuels, is the primary root of the ecological crisis:Do Women Want to be Oppressed?
Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017
https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/cross-check/do-women-wa nt-to-be-oppressed/Luis
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>