|
Post by brandt on Mar 23, 2012 11:32:35 GMT 10
Is that your measure? Do you really think that society is that shallow?
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Mar 23, 2012 13:11:24 GMT 10
I have much to be thankful for from the Sexual Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Mar 23, 2012 13:17:32 GMT 10
Grow up and open your eyes. Women are no longer stuck with children, kitchen and church. They are in politics, business, sports, academia, defence, arts, ministry, professions, community work and so on. They are even leaders of governments. Those changes are not shallow, they go deep, really deep. I am woman, hear me roar In numbers too big to ignore And I know too much to go back an' pretend 'cause I've heard it all before And I've been down there on the floor No one's ever gonna keep me down again
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 23, 2012 15:12:41 GMT 10
So the legal differences are covered now. We can just go back to work?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 23, 2012 17:13:41 GMT 10
Women are at work
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 25, 2012 7:06:09 GMT 10
What I rail against is the idea that the body (and therefore our genetic heritage) has no effect (lost instincts) on human behavior. Obviously behaviour is limited by what we can and cannot do, includes the capacities and limitations of our bodies. The question is, are our enabled behaviours psychologically innate (genetic)? Earlier I used the examples of being born without or subsequently losing one’s thumbs and our different accommodations to our thereby not having an opposable grip. On a positive note there is the common addition to our natural abilities learnt in driving. For an experienced driver their car becomes a technological extension of their bodies. Beyond the instrumentation, they can feel when a tyre is underinflated; sense when the engine is misfiring; respond to sudden changes in traffic conditions; etc. Clearly our driving skills are not innate. On another note, thinking about our opposable grip made me think about handedness. Might this be an instance of innate behaviour? Granted, under the evidentiary conventions of this debate, left-handers are each individual exceptions and may not carry much weight here. However, right-handedness remains as the norm and is equally interesting — Why are we not ambidextrous (I’d give my right arm to be ambidextrous)? Being right or left handed does limits a number of behaviours which are otherwise physical possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 25, 2012 11:55:45 GMT 10
I would love to be ambidextrous. It would make my life easier and I am sure the lives of others. Odd that we have no example of a society that was taught to be so.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 25, 2012 17:58:29 GMT 10
I would love to be ambidextrous. It would make my life easier and I am sure the lives of others. Odd that we have no example of a society that was taught to be so. But we have had societies that taught lefties to use their right hand.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 25, 2012 20:19:09 GMT 10
Do not be too quick to dismiss it. Apparently handedness can be observed in the womb and may be genetically linked.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 26, 2012 9:42:27 GMT 10
Do not be too quick to dismiss it. Apparently handedness can be observed in the womb and may be genetically linked. On another thread you said genes structure proteins and because of that innate behaviour would be fixed. What if the genes associated with handedness were not directly related to behaviour but to something like the side on which the foetus developed? The relatively free hand would move more than the other and by birth handedness would have become entrenched as a fairly robust habit. This is only a Just So story but it would save us from having to make a one-off exception and it may be possible to test experimentally.
|
|