4 ms·

Thank you for your charitable interpretation of my knowledge about the difference between men and women, you must be fun at parties. Since you have already com

by enord 10y ago

Thank you for your charitable interpretation of my knowledge about the difference between men and women, you must be fun at parties. Since you have already committed to disagreeing with me i'll make the deductive leap that the article is comensurable with your worldview and assume that you personally believe that morality can only come from the nurturing mother (as stated in my quotation). From this i'll take the liberty to conclude that your opinion on the matter is... freudean at best, and disregard it completely. What a fruitful discussion we're having.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
I'm sorry, but look at your last post: > No, nope, sorry... spare _me_... I could not read on. You dismiss his entire argument simply because he has a different viewpoint. That's too dismissive, in my opinion. People are very good at seeing things as black-or-white and creating an us-vs-them mentality. From this post and the post before it, it seems like you have that binary mentality against people with different views on gender and sexuality. It's fine that your opinions differ from mine and the author's, but please don't dismiss and belittle us because of that. _Argue_ with us, use your logic, and teach us otherwise. There are many people who will have deaf ears, but if you open yourself up, you may teach some people stuff & you may gain a different perspective on things yourself.
- enord 10y ago
  I dismiss it because its not well founded and socially regressive. "Eurocentric modernity" is basically the only context in history where women are even considered as first order citizens and not just as caregivers and housekeepers etc. This is because the female monopoly on birth has been expressly ignored (at least to some extent) while fleshing out the details of social morality and responsibility. This has been deliberate and difficult (see: feminism) precisely because the temptation to refer to "the natural order of things" is so great. I consider myself open to other world-views (you may not, that's fine), but a criticism of my world view (me being a modern european and all) that starts the conversation in 18th century terms (from a european modernist perspective) is a non-starter. There is to much ground to cover between then and now, and if that ground is covered in the book, then that's certainly not reflected in the article.

by enord 10y ago

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

I'm sorry, but look at your last post: > No, nope, sorry... spare _me_... I could not read on. You dismiss his entire argument simply because he has a different viewpoint. That's too dismissive, in my opinion. People are very good at seeing things as black-or-white and creating an us-vs-them mentality. From this post and the post before it, it seems like you have that binary mentality against people with different views on gender and sexuality. It's fine that your opinions differ from mine and the author's, but please don't dismiss and belittle us because of that. _Argue_ with us, use your logic, and teach us otherwise. There are many people who will have deaf ears, but if you open yourself up, you may teach some people stuff & you may gain a different perspective on things yourself.

enord 10y ago
I dismiss it because its not well founded and socially regressive. "Eurocentric modernity" is basically the only context in history where women are even considered as first order citizens and not just as caregivers and housekeepers etc. This is because the female monopoly on birth has been expressly ignored (at least to some extent) while fleshing out the details of social morality and responsibility. This has been deliberate and difficult (see: feminism) precisely because the temptation to refer to "the natural order of things" is so great. I consider myself open to other world-views (you may not, that's fine), but a criticism of my world view (me being a modern european and all) that starts the conversation in 18th century terms (from a european modernist perspective) is a non-starter. There is to much ground to cover between then and now, and if that ground is covered in the book, then that's certainly not reflected in the article.