So it seems to me that, in light of this response, you would need to focus on...
>>That does not, however, necessarily mean that they are intrinsic to nature
Since that is what we agreed to debate. I can easily do another series on 'best', but while we are doing the 'intrinsic' debate, I am focusing on the things that are intrinsic. And these include, as I have started to list (I have not yet begun to debate :) ), many things that point toward patriarchy.
I look forward to you attempting to bring forward things that, naturally and intrinsically, militate against the things that I have pointed out point toward patriarchy. Unless you wish to try to say that the things I have pointed out don't actually point in the direction I state.
Well, I said right in the beginning that you had taken for yourself a difficult (read: impossible) task. But I am not looking for 'research', but even just plain arguments. Not argumements for what you want (you meaning your generation) but arguments for what parts of human nature you believe could point to something other than patriarchy.
And I would love answers to my questions about meritocracy. If you are saying that you would like it to grow as a culture, then I'm all with you, since I believe that patriarchy will do well in any culture that accepts meritocracy. It will also set limits on the meritocracy, obviously, but it will thrive. Are you saying that you aren't shooting for a meritocracy enforced by law? So the hardware store owner can hire all men for his hardware section?
Which post did they reply to? I don't get notifications.
Yes, marrying for status would be a huge part of the system. Again, it would tend to happen (tend, not guarantee) based upon ones family.
You certainly have a challenge. It seems to me that the hardest challenge for you, based upon your writing so far, is moving from 'what I want' to 'what will happen naturally'. So far most of your writing has seemed, to me, to be saying 'Yes, patriarchy will happen naturally, but I don't like it, so let's fight against it'... which concedes my point from the get go :)
Well, keep in mind that this post, despite its name, is part of my thread with JS Kasimir, not a direct entry in my thread with you. But I hope it is helpful.
So it seems to me that, in light of this response, you would need to focus on...
>>That does not, however, necessarily mean that they are intrinsic to nature
Since that is what we agreed to debate. I can easily do another series on 'best', but while we are doing the 'intrinsic' debate, I am focusing on the things that are intrinsic. And these include, as I have started to list (I have not yet begun to debate :) ), many things that point toward patriarchy.
I look forward to you attempting to bring forward things that, naturally and intrinsically, militate against the things that I have pointed out point toward patriarchy. Unless you wish to try to say that the things I have pointed out don't actually point in the direction I state.
Well, I said right in the beginning that you had taken for yourself a difficult (read: impossible) task. But I am not looking for 'research', but even just plain arguments. Not argumements for what you want (you meaning your generation) but arguments for what parts of human nature you believe could point to something other than patriarchy.
And I would love answers to my questions about meritocracy. If you are saying that you would like it to grow as a culture, then I'm all with you, since I believe that patriarchy will do well in any culture that accepts meritocracy. It will also set limits on the meritocracy, obviously, but it will thrive. Are you saying that you aren't shooting for a meritocracy enforced by law? So the hardware store owner can hire all men for his hardware section?
Which post did they reply to? I don't get notifications.
Yes, marrying for status would be a huge part of the system. Again, it would tend to happen (tend, not guarantee) based upon ones family.
You certainly have a challenge. It seems to me that the hardest challenge for you, based upon your writing so far, is moving from 'what I want' to 'what will happen naturally'. So far most of your writing has seemed, to me, to be saying 'Yes, patriarchy will happen naturally, but I don't like it, so let's fight against it'... which concedes my point from the get go :)
By the way I have very much been enjoying our discussion, and people seem to be following it.
>>But we all know laws can be fickle, and no system is ever pure or perfect.
Not only can they be fickle, but they can (indeed pretty much always do) have 'unintend consequences'.
My guy, I am going to need to re-read this when I have like an hour.
This feels like it could be a standalone.
Perhaps a follow up is in order.
Well, keep in mind that this post, despite its name, is part of my thread with JS Kasimir, not a direct entry in my thread with you. But I hope it is helpful.
I saw that part, it's intriguing nonetheless.
What did you find intriguing about it?