From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 02:11:50 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Watching a libertarian man argue with a sort-of socialist
> > woman at dinner one night made me realize that self-reliance
> > could very well be more programmed into men in general than
> > women, with rather obvious political consequences! And why
> > the hell not; in pre-history women needed more support, and
> > men might have needed to be more self-reliant. Baby stuff.
> > That can hardly be a new observation.
>
> But Corbin, what difference does it make?
This novel use of my last name instead of our customary
first name basis can be but a comment or joke on why I
named the thread "Broderick's Tetrahedral Model" instead
of "Damien's". Once upon a time I accidentally confused
his first and last name, but it was very late at night,
I was very tired, and I later explained that to me--an
American--both names were not so usual.
But this time it was quite deliberate, and for the
precise reason that were it to gain widespread
acceptance, then that's what people would call it.
No one goes around quoting "Isaac's Three Laws
of Robotics", or "Charles' Theory of Evolution",
or "Roger's 'The Emperor's New Mind'" :-)
You were probably just being playful ;-)
> Let's suppose you're right and there are different
> distributions in self-reliance for the two genders;
> a self-reliant human would still be a self-reliant
> human regardless of whether he occupies point A on
> the male curve or she occupies point B on the female
> curve.
Oh yes. The difference it makes is entirely
political. When men in the West permitted women to
vote (there's no denying they had the power to do
so), I speculate that it meant that foreign policy
between nations would ultimately be less aggressive.
For example, the only vote in the American congress
against going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor
was a woman's. On the other hand, socialist agendas
are accelerated at election time by the presence of
so many women voters who, statistically speaking,
lean towards the collectivist/nurturing stance.
> ... So why make the observation?
The relevance is that in Damien's model the blue
side (self-reliance; will; conscience; individual
consciousness) seems to me in some of those
regards to be associated with "maleness", while
the red side (mutual support; communal aspects of
life; self a mutable construct of language; family
and social traditions) I associate more in several
respects with "femaleness".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:13 MST