“I thought we were exchanging ideas also, but many of the things that you’ve said are out beyond the realm of reasonable discourse…”
Yesterday’s “beyond the realm of reasonable discourse” is tomorrow’s common knowledge. What would be the use of exchanging old worn out tired ideas when you can exchange brand new never been heard before ideas?
“…such as the notion that slavery was somehow resolving itself without any outside assistance…”
Of course there was outside assistance. The occurrence of an environmental challenge, such as the introduction of an innovation, is outside of anyone’s control.
The ideas I am advancing are consistent with Professor Morris’s historical theories that the environment occupied by a population is the decisive influence in its flow of history.
The social order of the population at large was evolving. It was emerging in a modified form that could take better advantage of the newly introduced innovations. One aspect of that process was the growing obsolescence of slavery. Emerging social order is a natural evolutionary process; you said so yourself:
If patriarchy is replaced, its replacement will evolve naturally as well. Applying this principle in a consistent manner suggests that the social order that replaced the slave owning order was evolving naturally. A war intervened and hastened a process that was already in progress.
The war itself may have been a result of the chaotic nature that social evolution assumes in a rapidly changing environment.
By destroying the Southern economy the war provided an opportunity for those states to build a modern economy from the ground up.
“…rape is not about sexual desire…”
Next you’ll be telling me that robbery is not about a desire for money, and car theft is not about the thief’s desire for the car.
I have no idea what rape is “about” as I have never asked a rapist; if I did, he would probably lie to me anyway. What I know is that an act of rape is consistent with the extreme end of the range of behaviors that are common to a population that is experiencing scarcity of an essential resource. Is that just a coincidence? I will leave it to each reader to judge for himself or herself what rape is “about,” as you have judged for yourself.
Rape aside, there is an entire range of behaviors that occur among members of a population that is experiencing scarcity. They pursue the scarce resource more aggressively than they would if the resource were abundant. They develop strategies intended to gain access to the scarce resource. Most seek to act lawfully and remain within the limits of common decency, but they exhibit a greater tendency to test limits and stretch boundaries in pursuit of the scarce resource. Those behaviors are common to any population experiencing scarcity of any resource.
“…apparently, every thing is just made up to reinforce individual personal biases, according to you.”
The study I cited allows that 5.63% (100% -94.37% = 5.63%) of statistics are not numbers that somebody made up, but how does one tell the difference?
Often in the course of an adversarial dialog on the internet one of the participants may cite some statistics to support his or her claims. The other participant will cite contrary stats and present a critique of the first participant’s stats. The first participant will then declare the second’s stats to be invalid for some obscure reason. The second will then defend his stats and attack those of the first. And on it goes — “ my statistics are better than your statistics.”
The only conclusion that I can draw from these statistical artillery duels occurring on the internet is that figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
“…apparently there is no reason for you to consider the pain or disenfranchisement of anyone else or how that might matter to or affect you in any way.
Apparently there is no reason for you to consider the previous statements that I have made to the contrary:
Nevertheless, I thank you for the opportunity to repeat that statement for emphasis.
I assert that I am the best judge of what is harmful to me. My judgement as to what specific practices are harmful to my community is as sound as anyone else’s. I can identify what I consider to be harmful practices without necessarily attributing them to patriarchy. Based on the descriptions of the six non-patriarchal societies it seems clear to me that they engage in practices that you have identified as harmful. Harmful practices occur whether or not the social order qualifies as a patriarchy by whatever criteria anthropologists and sociologists use to assign that classification.
If I act to correct a harmful practice and patriarchy is the cause of the harm then I have acted against patriarchy whether or not I have specifically identified it as the cause.
You obviously place a high priority on whether or not a society is classified as a patriarchy by anthropologists and sociologists. You are welcome to continue that focus. I would prioritize consideration of whether a society or its specific practices is desirable or undesirable, regardless of its status as a patriarchy.
I suspect that what is really aggravating you has nothing to do with some alleged failure on my part to consider the welfare of the larger community. You are aggravated because rather than doing things your way, I insist on doing it my way — — because my way is better.
“Take care and I’ll see you around Medium.”
I hope you have enjoyed my bastion of defensive Gish Gallop as much as I have enjoyed yours.
