Did you watch O'Rieley last night - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2008, 04:16 PM   #121
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think you're making a leap.
Huge leap...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:25 PM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think you're making a leap.

sex = biology
gender = socialization

likewise, people are naturally born male or female, in the way that they are naturally born gay or straight. but they are socialized into roles based upon whatever biology they possess -- women = subordinate roles -- and these roles are reinforced by notions of essentialism that are designed to keep women in said subordinate role.

likewise,

sexual orientation = biology
sexual identity = socialization

thus, we have the phenomenon of what's known as "MSM" -- Men who have Sex with Men. often, at least in an American context, these are men from highly macho cultures who don't think of themselves as "gay" in any sense of the word, and the fact that they seek out male sexual partners is ignored in their social identity. i didn't choose to be homosexual, i did choose to "come out" and identify as a gay person. hence, you were born with a penis, you've chosen to play the role of male in society.
Well, it seems to me that this reasoning is being applied inconsistently. I'm not quite sure what patriarchy means, to be honest, but I think that it's a left wing sociologists' term for the traditional family unit and/or traditional family roles, i.e. father tending to be the principal breadwinner, mother tending to act as homemaker (correct me if I'm wrong).

If you assume that these traditional roles - or to use another example, boys seemingly preferring to play cowboys and indians, and girls seemingly preferring to play with dolls - is purely and simply a construct and nothing else - JUST social condiitioning and nothing else, then it seems inconsistent to insist that sexuality is not - to any extent - a construct.

In other words, why should sexual inclination be in this unique category? Isn't it much more logical to assume that that what you call 'patriarchy' is every bit as natural as sexual inclination (which I fully agree, is not a matter of choice)?
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:25 PM   #123
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Huge leap...
This one's for the adults on the forum. Maybe you can find a thread on Lemonade Stand more to your liking.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:34 PM   #124
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
This one's for the adults on the forum. Maybe you can find a thread on Lemonade Stand more to your liking.
So quick to personally attack...

Is that an 'adult' characteristic?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:42 PM   #125
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I'm not quite sure what patriarchy means, to be honest, but I think that it's a left wing sociologists' term for the traditional family unit and/or traditional family roles, i.e. father tending to be the principal breadwinner, mother tending to act as homemaker (correct me if I'm wrong).
Comments like this really weaken your arguments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
In other words, why should sexual inclination be in this unique category? Isn't it much more logical to assume that that what you call 'patriarchy' is every bit as natural as sexual inclination (which I fully agree, is not a matter of choice)?
History would prove this wrong.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:42 PM   #126
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I'm not quite sure what patriarchy means, to be honest
Perhaps you could do some homework, then.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:45 PM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Well, it seems to me that this reasoning is being applied inconsistently. I'm not quite sure what patriarchy means, to be honest, but I think that it's a left wing sociologists' term for the traditional family unit and/or traditional family roles, i.e. father tending to be the principal breadwinner, mother tending to act as homemaker (correct me if I'm wrong).
A right-wing sociologists' term either. Patriarchaic societies are predominantly ruled by men, whereas a matriarchic society would predominantly be ruled by women.
"The word patriarchy comes from two Greek words —patēr (πατήρ, father) and archē (αρχή, rule)." Source: Wikipedia
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:45 PM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Perhaps you could do some homework, then.
Any particular pointers?
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:46 PM   #129
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
A right-wing sociologists
I've never come across such a creature. Are you sure that they exist?
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:53 PM   #130
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Any particular pointers?

patriarchy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


I didn't know you were so helpless.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:53 PM   #131
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Well, it seems to me that this reasoning is being applied inconsistently. I'm not quite sure what patriarchy means, to be honest, but I think that it's a left wing sociologists' term for the traditional family unit and/or traditional family roles, i.e. father tending to be the principal breadwinner, mother tending to act as homemaker (correct me if I'm wrong).

If you assume that these traditional roles - or to use another example, boys seemingly preferring to play cowboys and indians, and girls seemingly preferring to play with dolls - is purely and simply a construct and nothing else - JUST social condiitioning and nothing else, then it seems inconsistent to insist that sexuality is not - to any extent - a construct.

In other words, why should sexual inclination be in this unique category? Isn't it much more logical to assume that that what you call 'patriarchy' is every bit as natural as sexual inclination (which I fully agree, is not a matter of choice)?

this is a very old discussion -- nature vs. nurture -- and i don't think anyone has an answer.

what i mean by "patriarchy" is the traditional power structures (in families, in politics, in everything) that's engineered to increase male domination over women. this does not mean, now, that every woman who chooses to stay at home and not earn an income is a victim. as a result of feminism and all sorts of important social work done in recent decades, women (and men) now get to *choose* how they will perform the social duties they have decided they will accept. i'm not surprised that more women will choose to stay at home then men, nor am i surprised that now there are women who will choose not to get married, not to have children, or to have children but not get married.

what we are getting at here is that traditional gender roles were once inherited. there was no choice in the matter, lest one face tremendous social repercussions. now, there is choice, to varying degrees, depending on culture.

i do think men and women are different. i do think some of that is due to biology. we'd be foolish to suggest otherwise. i also think some of it is due to socialization and expectations. likewise with sexuality, it's fairly accepted that there's a large genetic and developmental component to sexual orientation and that sexual orientation is 100% involuntary. simply, it is not chosen. however, how one chooses to *express* one's identity as a homosexual person often comes as a result of socialization. heaven knows that there's a hackneyed template for what gay men should and shouldn't do -- and it's not that different from how we used to expect boys and girls to act, "sugar and spice and everything nice" and all that -- and what they could and couldn't do.

so, as always, it's complex. so it's not so much that i've been socialized to respond sexually when i see Daniel Craig walk out of the water in his blue skivvies, but that how i understand myself as a gay person in what's known as gay culture -- which is good, and bad, and trite, and profound, and everything under the sun -- comes through a combination of socialization and clear, conscious choice (i.e., i've spent as much time pondering how i'm similar to the "gay template" as i have spent enumerating the ways in which i'm quite very different from said "gay template.")

the other wrinkle in this is that "gay" is a minority definition, and much of said template is shaped and formed by an oppressive majority, but to get into that would require me to write much more than i really have time for right now.

so, as always, it's complex.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:54 PM   #132
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Comments like this really weaken your arguments.
Looks like BVS dug himself a hole again.

Poor little feller.

Why Do Sociologists Lean Left — Really Left? Organizations and Markets

44:1 Democrat/Republican leaning of sociology faculty members. The highest of any discipline.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:56 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I've never come across such a creature. Are you sure that they exist?

Doesn't matter, they would still call that a patriarchy.


Quote:
It’s no secret that academic intellectuals tend to favor socialism and interventionism over the free market,...
Why do I get the feeling for the writer there exists nothing in between?

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Looks like BVS dug himself a hole again.

Poor little feller.

Why Do Sociologists Lean Left — Really Left? � Organizations and Markets

44:1 Democrat/Republican leaning of sociology faculty members. The highest of any discipline.
You have given your answer. 44:1 means right-wing sociologists definitely exist.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 04:57 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post

44:1 Democrat/Republican leaning of sociology faculty members. The highest of any discipline.


does this beg the question of whether or not there are any "left-wing economists/professors at business schools"?

also, is this kind of a chicken and egg question? could it be that the study of sociology leads one to adopt a more left-wing viewpoint? you don't think that people decide to get PhDs in sociology -- facing a good 5-8 years of grad school and a brutal job market -- simply because they want to further a political agenda? there are much easier ways to do that, and you wont incur nearly as much debt.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2008, 05:02 PM   #135
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
could it be that the study of sociology leads one to adopt a more left-wing viewpoint? you don't think that people decide to get PhDs in sociology -- facing a good 5-8 years of grad school and a brutal job market -- simply because they want to further a political agenda? there are much easier ways to do that, and you wont incur nearly as much debt.

Don't forget the exceptionally high pay that college professors get.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com