4 ms·

Sexism exists. This article is a great example of it in the way it implies it's only a problem for women. Asking sexually reproducing mammals to treat each oth

Sexism exists. This article is a great example of it in the way it implies it's only a problem for women. Asking sexually reproducing mammals to treat each other as equals just isn't going to work. There are many other animal instincts which people have tried to suppress over the years, like greed. It doesn't usually work. Instead you have to learn how to live with it. But first you have to accept it. We'll start to see more acceptance in the coming decades.

foolrush 8y ago
Humanist mythological lore that was propagated heavily in mid to late 20th century. See antihumanism.
- flomble 8y ago
  Antihumanism is an edifice wrought of unsubstantiated assertions, self-contradictions and wilful ignorance of evidence.
  - foolrush 8y ago
    Of course it is, which disregards a good deal of research in cultural studies accumulating over the past half of a century. But you know that, as you clearly have studied the field.
    - flomble 8y ago
      The implication being that the only reason I could disagree with the idea that there is no human nature is that I have never encountered critical theory, structuralism, or postmodernism. Actually, one can acknowledge that we are all immersed in social structures that shape our thought in ways that we can't objectively understand, that communication is fraught with signs asserting cultural preconceptions, that there is a close connection between knowledge and power, etc., while repudiating the idea that external reality is illusory or unknowable, or that human behaviour is purely a function of context. Human beings are animals, and thus the product of evolution. We are not blank slates, but highly specialised machines with innate tendencies and potentials. Almost anyone could, with minimal difficulty, list any number of phenomena universal to any human society: pain (and aversion thereto), communication, laughter, anger, etc. It is avowedly extremely difficult to separate ourselves from our inculcated norms when reasoning about human nature, but that does not refute its existence. Of course, suggesting that human beings have no natural tendencies evolved for their survival ignores an overwhelming preponderance of evidence accumulated by biologists over the past century. But you know that, having clearly studied the field.

foolrush 8y ago

Humanist mythological lore that was propagated heavily in mid to late 20th century. See antihumanism.

flomble 8y ago
Antihumanism is an edifice wrought of unsubstantiated assertions, self-contradictions and wilful ignorance of evidence.
- foolrush 8y ago
  Of course it is, which disregards a good deal of research in cultural studies accumulating over the past half of a century. But you know that, as you clearly have studied the field.
  - flomble 8y ago
    The implication being that the only reason I could disagree with the idea that there is no human nature is that I have never encountered critical theory, structuralism, or postmodernism. Actually, one can acknowledge that we are all immersed in social structures that shape our thought in ways that we can't objectively understand, that communication is fraught with signs asserting cultural preconceptions, that there is a close connection between knowledge and power, etc., while repudiating the idea that external reality is illusory or unknowable, or that human behaviour is purely a function of context. Human beings are animals, and thus the product of evolution. We are not blank slates, but highly specialised machines with innate tendencies and potentials. Almost anyone could, with minimal difficulty, list any number of phenomena universal to any human society: pain (and aversion thereto), communication, laughter, anger, etc. It is avowedly extremely difficult to separate ourselves from our inculcated norms when reasoning about human nature, but that does not refute its existence. Of course, suggesting that human beings have no natural tendencies evolved for their survival ignores an overwhelming preponderance of evidence accumulated by biologists over the past century. But you know that, having clearly studied the field.