| | David,
Much of what you say is nonsensical (i.e., that somehow I said that women, given their power, "must use it", and your continuous insistence that natural influences are "anti-volition"). If you doggedly refuse to understand what I'm saying, even though it has resonated with a large number of sanctioners, that's your prerogative. If you choose to ignore such an obvious phenomenon as the overbearing mother, because you can't define it to yourself, that's also your prerogative. But the funniest thing is that your conclusion is almost exactly the same as mine.
"What Alec has been witnessing in our culture (and erroneously jotting down as "natural") is the perennial irrational interaction between women and men, in which rationality has been chucked out the window and the two most obvious backup power positions (man's physicality and woman's sexual attraction) are overemphasized."
So, you're admitting that these backup power positions exist. (Which contradicts your nonsense earlier in the post about that power not being “natural.”) Which was precisely my point when I brought this up: that because they exist, and because the explanation for every sexual conflict can be traced down to them, the importance of *rationality* is emphasized.
Although I think it's rather foolish and a product of wishful thinking to believe that the "perennial irrational interaction" (which is hardly confined to Western Culture) has nothing to do with the often overwhelming nature of the “backup” power positions. The point about such persisting confusions as the sexual harassment fiasco is that women dressing sexily to work *don't realize* the extent of their power, the affect they're having on men, the signals their sending. So they go all shitwire when a guy hits on them. I certainly think that with most women, the problem is a *lack of awareness* rather than an intentional abuse of their power. The power comes through without people knowing it – even more reason to *acknowledge* and thus deal with it rationally.
So to an extent we agree; you’re just too startled to realize it. The extent that we disagree is laughably characterized in your rationalistic comparison of a buyer in the house market with a buyer in the sex market. If you truly believe the actions of the two are exactly the same – that the sexual field and the real estate agency are tantamount – then I’ve got a shack I’d like to sell you.
And, yes, gays do defy Mother Nature – as do priests, nuns, prostitutes, and a great many artists. And I agree with Paglia that they should be commended for it. Mother Nature is looking out for the species, sometimes at the expense of the individual. For example: Mother Nature wants grandchildren, despite the fact a great many individuals simply don’t. (Prosperous populations are receding as a result.) A defiance of MN is commendable because it often constitutes a stand for individuality.
Alec
P.S. I guess your accusations of “misogyny” and “chauvinism” prove that knee-jerk name-calling is not merely the tactic of the PC Left, but a more naturally-inclined response of humans when faced with unfamiliar views.
|
|
