| | Dean,
Does the "majority" indeed have this agenda, or just a minority of leftist-activists, "elite" college-poisoned fools, and the politicians that pander to them and are members of their Skull-N-Bones or whatever cliches they insulate themselves in?
It sure seems like a majority of Americans are in denial of reality, being well-brainwashed by political-correct feel-good non-sense and projections of guilt and inferiority.
No doubt 50 - 100 years ago (in Europe/America) women were viewed as inferior, but that isn't true anymore. Pushing women into science & engineering, & pushing men into child-care, flower-arrangement and interior design is likely to make frustrated & impatient children, stagnant technology and ugly buildings.
Sarah,
My, you like to put words in my moulth! I'm not proposing rules and regulations, unless you feel the world is so full of 2nd-handers, it can't bear for me to make statistical observations. Men tend to like to shop in the tool department, women for decorations. Women tend to "display" to attract mens attention, and men pursue. Somewhere I remember some study about how forward women tended to be seen as more offensive than forward men.
As for double-standards, I propose none. People should follow their bliss to the extent it harms none others. Ask a leftist why its more blessed for women to work and give their children to day-care or government schools for inculcation. Ask big business.
As far as man-worship, it seems demeaning to me from Rand's comments on Fountainhead she wanted a one-way relationship, a man like Roark so independent he could be happy without any woman, and used sex merely for pleasure like a drug, rather than valuing his affection. Certainly respect is diminished by groveling and begging for affection, but the reality is women test/evaluate men all the time (deliberately or not) to see how much/far men will go for them by their actions.
Luke,
Several times now in my posts I've used the term "generaly". Surely as an engineer you know the value of statistics, and the consequences of focusing on red-harrings and dropping context.
Kat,
Sorry for dragging Rand's notions of gender-roles into cultural and political contexts from romance. It seems fair-game to me, since Sarah in post ! and Hong in post 6 asserted gender = irrelevant (in the context of leadership abilities and whatnot)...You can't find anything more individual and personal than the styles or preferences in romance. It shouldn't be generalized.
Nay, I assert you can indeed identify patterns and make generalizations differentiating male and female behavior, especially in regard to mating, in most species.
As far as "Love, not biology", I agree with Rand's take on love in the Romantic Manifesto; you fall in (long-term) "love" with a "sense-of-life" integration. Infatuation (falling in lust) deceives many, if not most people into relationships that, when the endorphin-levels wear off, leaves them with conflict and strife.
To me, biology, the science of life, subsumes the phenomena of "love" is fair-game for technical analysis.
Scott
|
|
