Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis

Expand Messages
  • Luis Gutierrez
    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
    Message 1 of 19 , 29 Dec, 2017
      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.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-women-want-to-be-oppressed/

      Luis
    • Helmut L
      This (Mr jhorgan@stevens.edu s) is an unwarranted conflation of (1) natural sex drives: females choose the male who appears being the fittest for procreation;
      Message 2 of 19 , 30 Dec, 2017

        This (Mr jhorgan@...'s) is an unwarranted conflation of

        (1) natural sex drives: females choose the male who appears being the fittest for procreation;

        and

        (2) social conditioning, of which misogyny is one important of many social habits.

        Blaming women for patriarchy and its sequels, and the ecological crisis, is plain stupid, Mr John Horgan.

        [BTW, a "crisis" would suggest that better times  are expected, after the worst is over. That is the usual dreaming. It can only get worse,  and finish in a total Seneca-cliff collapse. cf: http://www.ecoglobe.ch/basics/e/index.htm#images ]

        Genesis 3:16 is "just" an expression of the worst men have concocted to stay in power: "To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe ...biblehub.com; New International Version To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule ..."

        Indeed, HE will rule, even though HE is *not* the fittest for the female.

        Mr John Horgan's conclusion is pixelized blabla.

        "Proponents of biological theories of sexual inequality accuse their critics of being “blank slaters,” who deny any innate psychological tendencies between the sexes. This is a straw man. I am not a blank-slater, nor do I know any critic of evolutionary psychology who is. But I fear that biological theorizing about these tendencies, in our still-sexist world, does more harm than good. It empowers the social injustice warriors, and that is the last thing our world needs."

        Helmut@... Enjoy today
        www.ecoglobe.ch/scenarios
        www.ecoglobe.ch/requiem
        www.ecoglobe.ch/basics/e/index.htm#images

        Le 30 déc. 2017 03:14, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> a écrit :
         

        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. scientificamerican.com/cross- check/do-women-want-to-be- oppressed/

        Luis
      • Stanley N Salthe
        Luis -- Regarding: Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world. John Horgan, *Scientific
        Message 3 of 19 , 30 Dec, 2017
          Luis -- Regarding:

          Evolutionary theorists propose that female desire for domineering males helped create a patriarchal world.
          John Horgan, Scientific American, 29 December 2017

          Back 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"?

          STAN 

          On 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- want-to-be-oppressed/

          Luis


        • Luis Gutierrez
          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
          Message 4 of 19 , 30 Dec, 2017
            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!

            Luis

            On 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 2017

            Back 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"?

            STAN 

            On 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



          • Jada Thacker
            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,
            Message 5 of 19 , 31 Dec, 2017
              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.

              Jada



              On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


               
              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!

              Luis

              On 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 2017

              Back 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"?

              STAN 

              On 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




            • Luis Gutierrez
              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
              Message 6 of 19 , 31 Dec, 2017
                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!

                Luis

                On 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.

                Jada



                On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                 
                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!

                Luis

                On 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 2017

                Back 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"?

                STAN 

                On 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





              • narguimbau@earthlink.net
                The over-riding factor when it comes to male dominance, male violence, patriarchy and women s  preferences among males is simple: testosterone levels.  Book
                Message 7 of 19 , 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!

                  Luis

                  On 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.

                  Jada



                  On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                   
                  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!

                  Luis

                  On 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 2017

                  Back 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"?

                  STAN 

                  On 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






                • Luis Gutierrez
                  Testosterone is a biological factor, and undoubtedly a significant one, but I tend to agree with Horgan s conclusion that the issue now is primarily cultural,
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jan 1 1:13 PM
                    Testosterone is a biological factor, and undoubtedly a significant one, but I tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the issue now is primarily cultural, not biological. My impression is that there is no consciously intentional "conspiracy of silence." 

                    Rather, the patriarchal culture has been so internalized over the past 10000+ years of human history, by most women as well as men, that it is taken for granted as the natural order of things.  Testosterone (and brute force) may have been a driver in the early phases of human evolution.  But I agree with Horgan that it is not intrinsically natural (biological); it is artificial (cultural), and this would be consistent with the biblical story of how human relations were corrupted "at the beginning" (Genesis 3). 

                    Now that we recognize that human dignity, and not biology, should dictate how humans behave, it should be possible to sanitize the culture form testosterone hegemony.  The sanitation process is already underway, and I hope it continues, because it is crucial for surviving the ecological crisis, as the culturally normative relations between men and women extend to norms of conduct between humans and the human habitat.

                    Luis

                    On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 3:02 PM, 'narguimbau@...' narguimbau@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                     

                    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!

                    Luis

                    On 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.

                    Jada



                    On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                     
                    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!

                    Luis

                    On 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 2017

                    Back 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"?

                    STAN 

                    On 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







                  • Steve Kurtz
                    With the amount of chemicals, many from plastics, in water supplies and the food chain. declining sperm counts will likely continue. Testosterone could decline
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jan 1 1:41 PM
                      With the amount of chemicals, many from plastics, in water supplies and the food chain. declining sperm counts will likely continue. Testosterone could decline as well. I think Horgan and Luis give free will and “culture” too much credit. Biology plus environmental inputs determine behavior. Culture is part of the input of course, but that is anthropogenic and steered by physical drivers. Disembodied mind and/or non-material culture have never been evidenced as far as I know.

                      Steve

                      On Jan 1, 2018, at 4:13 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                      Testosterone is a biological factor, and undoubtedly a significant one, but I tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the issue now is primarily cultural, not biological. My impression is that there is no consciously intentional "conspiracy of silence."  

                      Rather, the patriarchal culture has been so internalized over the past 10000+ years of human history, by most women as well as men, that it is taken for granted as the natural order of things.  Testosterone (and brute force) may have been a driver in the early phases of human evolution.  But I agree with Horgan that it is not intrinsically natural (biological); it is artificial (cultural), and this would be consistent with the biblical story of how human relations were corrupted "at the beginning" (Genesis 3).  

                      Now that we recognize that human dignity, and not biology, should dictate how humans behave, it should be possible to sanitize the culture form testosterone hegemony.  The sanitation process is already underway, and I hope it continues, because it is crucial for surviving the ecological crisis, as the culturally normative relations between men and women extend to norms of conduct between humans and the human habitat.

                      Luis

                      On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 3:02 PM, 'narguimbau@...' narguimbau@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                       

                      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!

                      Luis

                      On 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.

                      Jada



                      On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                       
                      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!

                      Luis

                      On 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 2017

                      Back 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"?

                      STAN 

                      On 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










                      —————————————
                      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                      Voltaire (1770)

                    • Richard Balfour
                      luis have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy? I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title. Also mary
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jan 1 2:03 PM
                        luis
                        have you read 1491 and or Indian Givers yet, or books on the Iroquois Confederacy?  I will have to look up the latter, not the precise title.
                        Also mary renault on Bull from the Sea, about Theseus and the period of mediterranean matriarchy, the role of women in Sparta and ancient Egypt and of course the heretical to the church Gospel of Mary?

                        r
                        On 2017-12-31, at 8:33 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!

                        Luis

                        On 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.

                        Jada



                        On Saturday, December 30, 2017 8:57 AM, "Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc]" <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                         
                        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!

                        Luis

                        On 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 2017

                        Back 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"?

                        STAN 

                        On 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








                        Richard Balfour  
                        Strategic Planner
                        • SPORPORI Strategic Planning for Ocean Rise and Peak Oil Resettlement Institute

                        7276 Denman Road Denman Island BC Canada V0R 1T0             250 335 0766
                        Balfour Strategic Planning
                        www.plancanada.com

                        • Vancouver Peak Oil Executive www.vancouverpeakoil.org

                        balfourarch@...











                      • woodard214
                        Possibly *some* women want to use domineering aggressive males to spread their own genes, rather than want to be oppressed. It s not necessarily the case
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jan 2 9:21 AM
                          Possibly *some* women "want" to use domineering aggressive males to
                          spread their own genes, rather than want to be oppressed. It's not
                          necessarily the case that all women use this strategy. See John Maynard
                          Smith's concept of "evolutionarily stable strategy". There is a
                          wikipedia article about it.

                          Doug Woodard
                          St. Catharines, Ontario


                          > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [7]
                          > [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-want-to-be-oppressed/>
                          >
                          > Luis
                        • Luis Gutierrez
                          I still tend to agree with Horgan s conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations. Another interesting analysis: The
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jan 2 1:20 PM
                            I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations. 

                            Another interesting analysis:

                            The non-binary brain
                            Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                            Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                            https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-so-unhelpful-to-talk-about-the-male-or-female-brain

                            It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                            This is another good reference:

                            How Gender Shapes the World
                            Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                            Oxford University Press, 2016
                            https://global.oup.com/academic/product/how-gender-shapes-the-world-9780198723752

                            :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                            Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad. 

                            Luis

                            ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                            From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                            Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                            Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                            To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com>


                            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. scientificamerican.com/cross- check/do-women-want-to-be- oppressed/

                            Luis

                          • Luis Gutierrez
                            More on the linkage between gender and everything else: Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism Robert Jensen, *Resilience*, 3
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jan 3 9:28 AM
                              More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                              Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                              Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                              http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-01-03/life-without-limits-the-delusions-of-technological-fundamentalism/

                              Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc.

                              Luis

                              ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                              From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                              Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                              Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                              To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com>


                              I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations. 

                              Another interesting analysis:

                              The non-binary brain
                              Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                              Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                              https://aeon.co/essays/why- its-so-unhelpful-to-talk- about-the-male-or-female-brain

                              It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                              This is another good reference:

                              How Gender Shapes the World
                              Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                              Oxford University Press, 2016
                              https://global.oup.com/ academic/product/how-gender- shapes-the-world-9780198723752

                              :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                              Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad. 

                              Luis

                              ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                              From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                              Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                              Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                              To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com>


                              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- want-to-be-oppressed/

                              Luis


                            • Steve Kurtz
                              I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jan 3 9:57 AM
                                I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is questionable given that hierarchy is part of most (all?) social mammals, and given that MPP and MEPP have few exceptions (which prove the rule.) We needn’t like the states of affairs, but what makes you think they can be changed peacefully and proactively? Women seem to be gaining ground in some societies, and I like that. I say it is “natural” just as the more patriarchal stages are. What has worked to grow the plague species is natural, and what culls us back will also be natural. All a matter of definition I suppose, but we ain’t so special in my view.

                                Steve

                                On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                                Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                                Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                                http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-01-03/life-without-limits-the-delusions-of-technological-fundamentalism/

                                Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc.

                                Luis

                                ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                                Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups.com>


                                I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations.  

                                Another interesting analysis:

                                The non-binary brain
                                Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                                Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                                https://aeon.co/essays/why- its-so-unhelpful-to-talk- about-the-male-or-female-brain

                                It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                                This is another good reference:

                                How Gender Shapes the World
                                Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                                Oxford University Press, 2016
                                https://global.oup.com/ academic/product/how-gender- shapes-the-world-9780198723752

                                :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                                Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad.  

                                Luis

                                ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                                Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com>


                                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- want-to-be-oppressed/

                                Luis




                                —————————————
                                Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                Voltaire (1770)

                              • Luis Gutierrez
                                He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. I agree with this
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jan 3 10:46 AM
                                  "He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up."

                                  I agree with this understanding of the Genesis story.  Indeed, everything was fine until humans messed up the natural order of things (Genesis 3:1-6).  The immediate result was the loss of original innocence in gender relations (3:7ff), leading to the patriarchal curse (3:16) as the most universal disorder, from which all others follow (3:17ff).

                                  So, it seems to me that mitigating/overcoming this curse is crucial if we are to survive the equally universal curse that is the ecological crisis.

                                  If humans fucked it up, humans can unfuck it up.

                                  Luis

                                  On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is questionable given that hierarchy is part of most (all?) social mammals, and given that MPP and MEPP have few exceptions (which prove the rule.) We needn’t like the states of affairs, but what makes you think they can be changed peacefully and proactively? Women seem to be gaining ground in some societies, and I like that. I say it is “natural” just as the more patriarchal stages are. What has worked to grow the plague species is natural, and what culls us back will also be natural. All a matter of definition I suppose, but we ain’t so special in my view.


                                  Steve

                                  On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                  More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                                  Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                                  Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                                  http://www.resilience.org/ stories/2018-01-03/life- without-limits-the-delusions- of-technological- fundamentalism/

                                  Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc.

                                  Luis

                                  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                  From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                  Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                                  Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                  To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com>


                                  I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations.  

                                  Another interesting analysis:

                                  The non-binary brain
                                  Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                                  Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                                  https://aeon.co/essays/why-its -so-unhelpful-to-talk-about- the-male-or-female-brain

                                  It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                                  This is another good reference:

                                  How Gender Shapes the World
                                  Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                                  Oxford University Press, 2016
                                  https://global.oup.com/academi c/product/how-gender-shapes- the-world-9780198723752

                                  :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                                  Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad.  

                                  Luis

                                  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                  From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                  Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                                  Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                  To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                  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




                                  —————————————
                                  Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                  Voltaire (1770)


                                • Steve Kurtz
                                  He implied humans are different and unnatural. I disagreed with him! Steve Sent from my iPhone ... He implied humans are different and unnatural. I disagreed
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jan 3 11:21 AM
                                    He implied humans are different and unnatural. I disagreed with him!

                                    Steve

                                    Sent from my iPhone

                                    On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    "He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up."

                                    I agree with this understanding of the Genesis story.  Indeed, everything was fine until humans messed up the natural order of things (Genesis 3:1-6).  The immediate result was the loss of original innocence in gender relations (3:7ff), leading to the patriarchal curse (3:16) as the most universal disorder, from which all others follow (3:17ff).

                                    So, it seems to me that mitigating/overcoming this curse is crucial if we are to survive the equally universal curse that is the ecological crisis.

                                    If humans fucked it up, humans can unfuck it up.

                                    Luis

                                    On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is questionable given that hierarchy is part of most (all?) social mammals, and given that MPP and MEPP have few exceptions (which prove the rule.) We needn’t like the states of affairs, but what makes you think they can be changed peacefully and proactively? Women seem to be gaining ground in some societies, and I like that. I say it is “natural” just as the more patriarchal stages are. What has worked to grow the plague species is natural, and what culls us back will also be natural. All a matter of definition I suppose, but we ain’t so special in my view.


                                    Steve

                                    On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                    More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                                    Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                                    Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                                    http://www.resilience.org/ stories/2018-01-03/life- without-limits-the-delusions- of-technological- fundamentalism/

                                    Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc.

                                    Luis

                                    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                    From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                    Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                                    Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                    To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@yahoogroups. com>


                                    I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations.  

                                    Another interesting analysis:

                                    The non-binary brain
                                    Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female.. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                                    Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                                    https://aeon.co/essays/why-its -so-unhelpful-to-talk-about- the-male-or-female-brain

                                    It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                                    This is another good reference:

                                    How Gender Shapes the World
                                    Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                                    Oxford University Press, 2016
                                    https://global.oup.com/academi c/product/how-gender-shapes- the-world-9780198723752

                                    :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                                    Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad.  

                                    Luis

                                    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                    From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                    Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                                    Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                    To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                    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




                                    —————————————
                                    Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                    Voltaire (1770)


                                  • Luis Gutierrez
                                    I cannot find such implication. On the contrary... This inability to accept the limits that come with being part of “nature” – a strange term when used
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jan 3 11:37 AM
                                      I cannot find such implication.  On the contrary...

                                      "This inability to accept the limits that come with being part of “nature” – a strange term when used to contrast with “human,” as if humans were somehow not part of the natural world..."

                                      Luis

                                      On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      He implied humans are different and unnatural. I disagreed with him!


                                      Steve

                                      Sent from my iPhone

                                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      "He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up."

                                      I agree with this understanding of the Genesis story.  Indeed, everything was fine until humans messed up the natural order of things (Genesis 3:1-6).  The immediate result was the loss of original innocence in gender relations (3:7ff), leading to the patriarchal curse (3:16) as the most universal disorder, from which all others follow (3:17ff).

                                      So, it seems to me that mitigating/overcoming this curse is crucial if we are to survive the equally universal curse that is the ecological crisis.

                                      If humans fucked it up, humans can unfuck it up.

                                      Luis

                                      On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is questionable given that hierarchy is part of most (all?) social mammals, and given that MPP and MEPP have few exceptions (which prove the rule.) We needn’t like the states of affairs, but what makes you think they can be changed peacefully and proactively? Women seem to be gaining ground in some societies, and I like that. I say it is “natural” just as the more patriarchal stages are. What has worked to grow the plague species is natural, and what culls us back will also be natural. All a matter of definition I suppose, but we ain’t so special in my view.


                                      Steve

                                      On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                      More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                                      Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                                      Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                                      http://www.resilience.org/stor ies/2018-01-03/life-without- limits-the-delusions-of- technological-fundamentalism/

                                      Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc.

                                      Luis

                                      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                      From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                      Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                                      Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                      To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                      I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations.  

                                      Another interesting analysis:

                                      The non-binary brain
                                      Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female.. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                                      Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                                      https://aeon.co/essays/why-its -so-unhelpful-to-talk-about-th e-male-or-female-brain

                                      It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                                      This is another good reference:

                                      How Gender Shapes the World
                                      Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                                      Oxford University Press, 2016
                                      https://global.oup.com/academi c/product/how-gender-shapes-th e-world-9780198723752

                                      :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                                      Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad.  

                                      Luis

                                      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                      From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                      Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                                      Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                      To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                      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




                                      —————————————
                                      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                      Voltaire (1770)



                                    • Steve Kurtz
                                      My bad. I read too quickly, and jumped to The God Species link. In that book I read this: ABOUT THE GOD SPECIES We humans are the God species, both the
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jan 3 1:51 PM
                                        My bad. I read too quickly, and jumped to The God Species link. In that book I read this:

                                        ABOUT THE GOD SPECIES

                                        We humans are the God species, both the creators and destroyers of life on this planet. As we enter a new geological era – the Anthropocene – our collective power now overwhelms and dominates the major forces of nature.

                                        But from the water cycle to the circulation of nitrogen and carbon through the entire Earth system, we are coming dangerously close to destroying the planetary life-support systems that sustain us. In this controversial new book, Royal Society Science Books Prize winner Mark Lynas shows us how we must use our new mastery over nature to save the planet from ourselves.

                                        ==============================================================

                                        I mixed up this with the original. This chap places us above nature.

                                        Steve

                                        On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                        I cannot find such implication.  On the contrary...

                                        "This inability to accept the limits that come with being part of “nature” – a strange term when used to contrast with “human,” as if humans were somehow not part of the natural world..."

                                        Luis

                                        On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        He implied humans are different and unnatural. I disagreed with him!


                                        Steve

                                        Sent from my iPhone

                                        On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        "He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up."

                                        I agree with this understanding of the Genesis story.  Indeed, everything was fine until humans messed up the natural order of things (Genesis 3:1-6).  The immediate result was the loss of original innocence in gender relations (3:7ff), leading to the patriarchal curse (3:16) as the most universal disorder, from which all others follow (3:17ff).

                                        So, it seems to me that mitigating/overcoming this curse is crucial if we are to survive the equally universal curse that is the ecological crisis.

                                        If humans fucked it up, humans can unfuck it up.

                                        Luis

                                        On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is questionable given that hierarchy is part of most (all?) social mammals, and given that MPP and MEPP have few exceptions (which prove the rule.) We needn’t like the states of affairs, but what makes you think they can be changed peacefully and proactively? Women seem to be gaining ground in some societies, and I like that. I say it is “natural” just as the more patriarchal stages are. What has worked to grow the plague species is natural, and what culls us back will also be natural. All a matter of definition I suppose, but we ain’t so special in my view.


                                        Steve

                                        On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                        More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                                        Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                                        Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                                        http://www.resilience.org/stor ies/2018-01-03/life-without- limits-the-delusions-of- technological-fundamentalism/

                                        Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc.

                                        Luis

                                        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                        From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                        Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                                        Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                        To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                        I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations.  

                                        Another interesting analysis:

                                        The non-binary brain
                                        Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female.. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                                        Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                                        https://aeon.co/essays/why-its -so-unhelpful-to-talk-about-th e-male-or-female-brain

                                        It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                                        This is another good reference:

                                        How Gender Shapes the World
                                        Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                                        Oxford University Press, 2016
                                        https://global.oup.com/academi c/product/how-gender-shapes-th e-world-9780198723752

                                        :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                                        Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad.  

                                        Luis

                                        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                        From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                        Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                                        Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                        To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                        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




                                        —————————————
                                        Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                        Voltaire (1770)








                                        —————————————
                                        Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                        Voltaire (1770)

                                      • Luis Gutierrez
                                        Here again, Genesis 1:28 and 2:15 balance each other, even though they were written separately and at different times... human reason can and should be used to
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Jan 3 2:39 PM
                                          Here again, Genesis 1:28 and 2:15 balance each other, even though they were written separately and at different times... human reason can and should be used to work with the planet and care for the planet, not to destroy the planet... this assumes that humans can reverse course, which is improbable but not impossible...

                                          Luis

                                          On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          My bad. I read too quickly, and jumped to The God Species link. In that book I read this:


                                          ABOUT THE GOD SPECIES

                                          We humans are the God species, both the creators and destroyers of life on this planet.. As we enter a new geological era – the Anthropocene – our collective power now overwhelms and dominates the major forces of nature.

                                          But from the water cycle to the circulation of nitrogen and carbon through the entire Earth system, we are coming dangerously close to destroying the planetary life-support systems that sustain us. In this controversial new book, Royal Society Science Books Prize winner Mark Lynas shows us how we must use our new mastery over nature to save the planet from ourselves.

                                          ============================== ============================== ==

                                          I mixed up this with the original. This chap places us above nature.

                                          Steve

                                          On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                          I cannot find such implication.  On the contrary...

                                          "This inability to accept the limits that come with being part of “nature” – a strange term when used to contrast with “human,” as if humans were somehow not part of the natural world..."

                                          Luis

                                          On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          He implied humans are different and unnatural. I disagreed with him!


                                          Steve

                                          Sent from my iPhone

                                          On Jan 3, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:

                                           

                                          "He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up."

                                          I agree with this understanding of the Genesis story.  Indeed, everything was fine until humans messed up the natural order of things (Genesis 3:1-6).  The immediate result was the loss of original innocence in gender relations (3:7ff), leading to the patriarchal curse (3:16) as the most universal disorder, from which all others follow (3:17ff).

                                          So, it seems to me that mitigating/overcoming this curse is crucial if we are to survive the equally universal curse that is the ecological crisis.

                                          If humans fucked it up, humans can unfuck it up.

                                          Luis

                                          On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          I read the piece. He thinks humans are different than all other social mammals in that the others "do what comes naturally”, while humans fuck it up. This is questionable given that hierarchy is part of most (all?) social mammals, and given that MPP and MEPP have few exceptions (which prove the rule.) We needn’t like the states of affairs, but what makes you think they can be changed peacefully and proactively? Women seem to be gaining ground in some societies, and I like that. I say it is “natural” just as the more patriarchal stages are. What has worked to grow the plague species is natural, and what culls us back will also be natural. All a matter of definition I suppose, but we ain’t so special in my view.


                                          Steve

                                          On Jan 3, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


                                          More on the linkage between gender and everything else:

                                          Life Without Limits: The Delusions of Technological Fundamentalism
                                          Robert Jensen, Resilience, 3 January 2018
                                          http://www.resilience.org/stor ies/2018-01-03/life-without-li mits-the-delusions-of-technolo gical-fundamentalism/

                                          Gender issues are crucial for the ecological common good.  Even if we start from different premises, all paths eventually converge on the truth.  We should not abort the dialogue due to differences of opinion about human nature, religious traditions, the scientific method, etc..

                                          Luis

                                          ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                          From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                          Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:20 PM
                                          Subject: Fwd: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                          To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                          I still tend to agree with Horgan's conclusion that the natural biology is fine, the distortions are cultural aberrations.  

                                          Another interesting analysis:

                                          The non-binary brain
                                          Misogynists are fascinated by the idea that human brains are biologically male or female.. But they’ve got the science wrong.
                                          Emily Willingham, Aeon, 2 January 2018
                                          https://aeon.co/essays/why-its -so-unhelpful-to-talk-about-th e-male-or-female-brain

                                          It seems to me that, from the "apple" story and the origins of the patriarchal curse in Genesis, to the current social and ecological crisis, the "binary" has done much harm, and recognizing the "mosaic" is becoming increasingly critical for human development and ecological sanity.

                                          This is another good reference:

                                          How Gender Shapes the World
                                          Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
                                          Oxford University Press, 2016
                                          https://global.oup.com/academi c/product/how-gender-shapes-th e-world-9780198723752

                                          :-) Needless to say, the "definitive" wisdom about sex/gender issues in ***all*** secular and religious dimensions can be found in this section of my website:


                                          Natural complementarity is good.  Patriarchal complementarianism is bad.  

                                          Luis

                                          ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                          From: Luis Gutierrez <ltg4263@...>
                                          Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM
                                          Subject: Genesis 3:16 and the ecological crisis
                                          To: gaiapc@..., TGC <thegreatchange@... m>


                                          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




                                          —————————————
                                          Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                          Voltaire (1770)








                                          —————————————
                                          Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
                                          Voltaire (1770)


                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.