A place where women rule.

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject:

I often think about that a bit Ophelia. Women have a competitive advantage over men in the way they naturally are. They don't need to be men. They shouldn't need to act as men do or be 'worse'.

It's tragic how they need to transform in order to rise to power. I think that really highlights the problems of the entire system! It's a huge red flag for reform and social evolution. The next step!

The flag says that shear intelligence is not the prerequisite for leadership - it is something else.

Women have something that men can't bring to the table and it is ingrained in their nature. I don't like discussing things that I feel I can't put my finger on (or close to) but what they have I just don't know. It isn't something that is shared - it's something their own. (intelligence and ambition are shared)

Not only that but feminists have ridiculed everything that is special about women and that truly is a shame. Ambitious women need to alter their behavior in order to earn leadership positions.

But then I'm thinking of the perfect woman. The nurturing, smart, benevolent, wise woman that I'd be proud to call a guardian and leader. Maybe I should be thinking of the individual 'person' who happens to be a female and isn't quite so nurturing, is of average intelligence, and gets hers when she can despite ethics/morals.

The way the market (politics) is set up isn't for the 'perfect' anyone. Men and women become something unnatural, imperfect, and ugly.

DWill · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject:

But, just to go back to the point I was trying to make, when we talk about human societies evolving, we are speaking non-scientifically, metaphorically. We are not saying that natural selection has any part in this. We are speaking of the history of our own species, not about how species emerge and change. Too obvious?

President Camacho · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject:

The answer to that question is complicated. Natural selection plays a role in almost any enterprise.

To what degree natural selection plays a role on each human in a society depends on the protection that each individual in that society receives and other factors, I think.

Because each individual ant creates the colony - the colony is more than the sum of its parts. The ant of the colony has more of an advantage than the lone ant. The ant colony represents a civilization which also battles against other civilizations as well as itself for survival and hegemony. Each ant is 'worth' more than the lone ant. The lone ant is at a disadvantage. The more cooperative ant - the ant accepting the colony - lives and his civilization lives on after him. The colonial ants succeed. The lone ant is no more.

This is now in the DNA of the ant. When dealing with human civilizations this evidence in DNA can't be observed because we have just begun! It does happen though, to a far far far lesser degree (in my opinion). We aren't completely ruled by our instincts but we have them!

Humans aren't ants. We don't accept our roles. So, the larger the human civilization, the more battles that take place within that civilization and within each person within that civilization until an equilibrium is reached. The ants have reached theirs. Many species appear to have. I don't think we're close to ours.

As far as evolution of civilizations are concerned, natural selection may be applied, I think. Why not? A civilization not able to meet exigencies that succumbs to another civilization or to anarchy rings a familiar Darwinian bell.

Human societies evolving. Yes, if not then they would all be identical. Politics, art, class systems... everything.

Species change, culture, and civilization affect each other.

President Camacho · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:55 am Post subject:

Civilizations rise and fall like a living being, so yes it is metaphorical because civilizations don't 'live'. (That sentence contained a simile - figure THAT out! Laughing

)

Throughout history there have been civilizations that are 'born', prosper up to a point (their prime) and then fall apart (old age) and die.

Usually these are marked by very distinct events. The 'old age' event is usually marked by heavy military rule - a direction the United States is glancing at.

So, if this is taken into account then we can actually see how natural selection takes place in society. The societies that are able to adapt to everyone's needs survive while the society that doesn't, perishes.

Lawrence · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: A woman's utopia

Herland Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 1860-1935

Ms Gilman wrote Herland in 1915 and presents an interesting picture of the gentle side prevailing if there were only women in Utopia. You can read it on line from the University of Virginia library.

Ophelia · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject:

Thanks a lot , Lawrence,

I've read the first part of the story. So far it's suspense, suspense... Smile

DWill · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject:

Saffron · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:02 am Post subject:

I have to agree with DWill about using the concept of Darwinian evolution to describe how culture changes over time. It just does not fit. Evolution is based on the idea of natural section (i.e. traits that increase an organisms change of surviving long enough to reproduce and increasing offspring survival). You can not apply these concepts to cultural traits. For one, culture is learned and created by people. There are countless examples of cultural practices or cultural ideas that are ultimately counter to increasing or maintaining the successful reproduction and survival of healthy offspring. In thinking about this you have to jump to thinking about it in big time, not quite geological time, but bigger than decades and centuries. Take for example of the current trend in the western world away from breastfeeding infants; as in only about 15-20 % of women are breastfeeding at 6 months and that's not even exclusive breastfeeding. On the surface the cultural practice of bottle feeding seems like an advance; Dad gets to participate and bond, Mom gets to sleep, caregiver can control amount of milk, "quality control" of product; Mom is freed from the restraint of needing to be with infant. Cultural advance right? No. Milk is a living fluid; living cells pass from mother to child and these cells function inside the baby's body. Human breast milk has components that support and stimulate brain growth that can not be replicated in artificial baby formulas. A human's immune system is not fully developed until about the age of 5. At birth the immune system is just about non-existent. The living cells in breast milk are from the mother's immune system. Through the mother's milk the child receives the full benefit of the mother's immune system. One of the things scientist find when they study individual that are breastfeed (more than just a few weeks) is that their rates of autoimmune diseases are much lower. I read in the Washington Post just about a month ago that scientist are seeing a dramatic increase in autoimmune diseases. The article went into all the areas that scientists are investigating to locate the "cause" of such a dramatic upswing. pollution, viruses, environmental conditions were all suggested as possible culprits, but no mention of breastfeeding or the lack of. I would say that autoimmune diseases is a weakening of the species. And this is to say nothing of the other subtle changes that occur as a result of using artificial baby milks. How will these changes play out over hundreds of years? How can we account for the cultural practice of bottle feeding using evolution? I don't think we can.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:53 am Post subject:

We can apply evolutionary theory to culture. The example of breast feeding is really interesting. It superficially appears that bottle feeding is better, for the reasons of convenience outlined by Saffron, but there are bigger deeper hidden reasons why breast is best. Hence the apparent evolution towards bottle feeding is contested, and the two methods will co-exist to the extent that they are adaptive. Purely Darwinian. A similar example is that people prefer living in warm climates, but it seems the rigors of cold climates have benefits. Similarly in the Chinese theory of dynastic change, a culture evolves to become soft and is replaced by a new hard culture.

Richard Dawkins introduced the concept of cultural evolution with his concept of the meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme says a meme is:

President Camacho · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:37 am Post subject:

That is really interesting!!!!

Meme - it has a name. I need to do some reading it seems. I feel like I'm always way way way way behind.

Saffron · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

Hey,
I'm a little late in coming to this discussion. I hope you don't mind that I am going to respond to something posted early on in the discussion.

The prez wrote:

Saffron · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject:

Again I am responding to an earlier post by, you guessed it, The Prez, in which he is referring to the original Washington Post article that started the thread:

Saffron · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject:

One more thing. Why do we have to call women standing up for their human rights, feminism? And if that is the definition of feminism, how could being a feminist be anything but positive? Is there a special term for men stand up for their human rights?

Saffron

President Camacho · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject:

Feminism is a movement with positive and negative aspects. It isn't just about gaining rights for women. It's about degrading a certain type of woman and promoting another. This isn't a great thing if you love being the 'wrong' type of woman. My mom is the 'wrong' type of woman and she's a great old gal!

The shelter for abused women doesn't apply to this particular situation. You're referring to something within something... not the something itself. There is a large difference here even if I'm not up to fully explaining my point.

You sort of contradict yourself in your first post. You imply that there needs to be a support structure for females and then you say that the most basic unit of society is woman and child. I don't understand. Without support from either other females or males the child wouldn't be born/survive early childhood and the female might not even survive pregnancy. If this is the case then nothing can emanate from just woman and child. There needs to be more people.

I could definitely be wrong about this...!

Saffron · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject:

Prez:


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT