4 ms·
> You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". Nope. I didn't say that. > There is about 4 billion ye
by uncle_j 7y ago
>
You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology".
Nope. I didn't say that.
> There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly.
I didn't make any statement on how to arrange society. I simply stated that I believe they would all eventually fail.
- wilg 7y agoYou called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing?
- uncle_j 7y ago> You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. No it isn't. It is a statement of what I believe to be the truth. All the evidence and arguments around the topic I have seen and heard seem to lead in that direction. If you disagree with that conclusion that is fine. However it doesn't mean that I believe that things should arranged in such a manner. > Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing? I don't know. I wasn't saying anything about that. I was simply disagree that it is sexism. I don't buy into this the notion of "unconscious sexism".
- wilg 7y agoMaybe we are talking past each other because we have different definitions here. How do you define sexism (in this context, for you)?