>with respect to my point is gender, and I'm sure not talking about
>any other culture. Don't take us off the point with nitpicking
>ideas about what the culture is when we're obviously talking about
>our own. I don't need to say something like "Well, except for in
>the Molgolian desert culture of nomads of the fifth century, women
>are treated with the utmost respect." C'mon, argue with me on merit
>and not tangental points.
Matt,
It isn't tangential though. You were saying that it was nature. In
other words biologically based. That was the point I was disputing.
Rather its a culturally normative set of mores and sanctions. It
varies from society to society and culture to culture. The norm is
not the 2.5 children husband and wife and 3 cars in a split level in
the suburbs. I hazard a guess that it's never been that.
You're conceiving a stereotype, an ideal that may have existed and
extending that to normative behavior. Of all the people I know, only
one couple fits the June Cleaver and leave it to beaver type
stereotype you seem to think as normal. And they divorced three years
ago.
Right now our society is in a state of flux, where the traditional is
being reexamined and significant portions thereof are going to be
consigned to the trash heap of history. It a time of extraordinary
freedom. We can redefine what we are and what we want to be. It may
mean the 2.5 kids etc. But somehow I doubt it. But what it will
represent is a redefinition that will be as significant as what
occurred during the industrial revolution, where the familial nucleus
went from the extended clan to the family to the nuclear family. It
may mean a very different sort of marriage definition that is child
centered rather than economically centered.
Regardless, its going to be quite the ride. Be fully prepared to
trash all of your assumptions and take in new ones.
larry
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
