Fed up with seeing terror suspects' photos everywhere

Betty/Ann,

For the record, I don't believe in hitting little kids (or big ones, or adults, or animals) either. I have never raised my hand in anger to any human being in my 54 years on this earth. And I am also a feminist and welcome the changes made by women finally being able to contribute on an equal footing, as they always should have been able to do, and despise the pay disparity and glass ceiling which has been cracked but by no means broken through. But you can't label or dismiss conservative values as paternalistic or equate feminine values with the opposite view. Some of my favorite conservatives are women and all of my closest liberal friends are men. Men and women are different, yes, but political viewpoints are no more definable by gender than are competence, intelligence or the capacity for empathy.

Well said, Ann, Betty and Victor I see where you are coming from.

I agree with you all.

My dad never hit me and I had great respect for him.
Mom had other methods--not good.
My brother and dad tangled frequently--not good.

It is my considered opinion that violence begets violence.

Victor, I cannot imagine you hurting anyone on purpose. Your soul shines through in all your post as an intelligent and compassionate being. I love that.

Love,

Betty

What Betty said.

Alice,

There are many ways a parent can assault a child. Not all of them are with physical force. In fact, I would say most are mental assaults. If you have suffered either, I am sorry.

In my grown up years, I have learned to rationalize my parents actions and chalk them up to their ignorance, or maybe the abuse that they suffered from their parents. As a child, I consider that it is not up to the child to understand the venom that comes from their parents, it is only to live through it and , hopefully, not pass it on down the line. That is the most important part.

Love,

Betty

I cannot spell worth a damn.

5/25/2013

When I was 12 my step-father's sister's kids, I, my brothers
and sister were in the backyard creating hell, my step-father
was furious, he came out and said: " Your not going to the
movies ! Period. " I remember it was a Saturday, I don't
remember the film that I wanted to see so badly. That
punishment hurt me more than if he slapped me. There are
ways, take away what they love most, explain why. Today's
parent's want to friends with their children, not parents and
that's dead wrong....
Cheers Joe

Victor wrote.

Quote :

But you can't label or dismiss conservative values as paternalistic or equate feminine values with the opposite view. Some of my favorite conservatives are women and all of my closest liberal friends are men. Men and women are different, yes, but political viewpoints are no more definable by gender than are competence, intelligence or the capacity for empathy.

Men or women, no. But conservative and progressive perspectives do relate to ideas that have been labeled as masculine/ feminine, going all the way back to the hunter/gatherers. Qualities that are often seen today as biological have more to do with a division of labor that grew out of the differences. Men went out and hunted; women stayed in the camp, tended the fires, and gathered fruits and vegetables. There was a simple reason. Women had the babies. When the groups diverged into planters and hunter/herders, those characteristics took on different values depending on the functions of the group. Matriarchal planters tended to value the "womanly" virtues, such as compliance, conformity, and putting the needs of the group before the rights of individuals because those were the qualities most needed for survival. The opposite was true in the hunting societies, where risk-taking, aggression, and the rights of the individual were the most beneficial to their nomadic lifestyle, and it was those groups that led to the Patriarchal cultures that have dominated over most of the world ever since.

Of course there are conservative women and liberal or progressive men. It isn't about men and women; it is about patriarchal and matriarchal value systems, and the differences between the parties do fall along those guidelines, it seems to me.

Are you familiar with the work of George Lakoff? His metaphors for the moral perspectives of conservatives as Strict Fathers and progressives as Nurturing Parents, especially during the late nineties and early aughts, resonated with me from the first time I heard of them.

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#CONMOR

Ann,
I stand by my comments. Conservative and liberal values and ideologies may be traceable in part to the traditional role of hunters vs. gatherers and may reflect aspects of the traditional male/female roles. That's fine as far as it goes, which is not very far for me. There are deep philosophical issues that have existed since the dawn of civilization that reflect a different world view having little to do with the traditional gender-based distinctions. I am not suggesting that there is no merit to the male/female dichotomy in liberal vs. conservative comparisons, but those who write treatises from a political (including feminist) perspective often grossly exaggerate these tendencies for their own political purpose--including the politics of polarization used by advocates for the left and right (and by feminists and their critics). And no, I am not referring to you or to George Lakoff with whose work I am unfamiliar.

I would argue that liberals are far more paternalistic than conservatives and far more intolerant of those who disagree with them even slightly. They tend to view people as incapable of caring or thinking for themselves ("if you are not with us you're against us"), distrust the free market, are intolerant of criticism, believe in planned economies, government intervention and income redistribution and a government-knows-best ethos. Conservatives rebel against government's interference in the lives of citizens, believe in personal accountability alongside personal freedom, and demand that the rule of law be followed because, unlike liberals, they do not embrace relativistic ethics. At the extremes, both ideologies merge, so that there is little light between a Hitler and a Stalin (or a Castro, or a Che Guevara, or a Chavez). But in the rest of the political spectrum, there are clear, defined differences.

Political scientists, philosophers, sociologists and the rest of us can come up with intelligent theories to explain the genesis of ideologies. Gender no doubt plays an important role in the formation of those differences. But it only takes us so far. The difference between chaos and order is another and it has nothing to do with gender. Innate belief systems based on ethical absolutism and ethical relativism is yet another. And on and on, having little to do with gender.

For me, it is more instructive to look at the distinction at what I take to be its source: the different world views of Plato and Aristotle. One believed in the existence of the realm of the forms, in objective truth, while the other believed only in what he could see, examine and understand with his five senses. Therein lies the essential dichotomy in western philosophy and western political thought: Absolutism vs. relativism. Conservative vs. liberal. The rest is just footnotes.

I know we will disagree and I respect your view and the clarity with which you express your ideas. I don't want to change your mind, just offering a different viewpoint for others to ponder and make up their own minds as no doubt they will each in accordance with his/her own world view.

I have a lot to add, but my manuscript is due this Friday and the software I'm writing about JUST RELEASED A NEW, VERY DIFFERENT VERSION! I knew there was a reason I had avoided software texts!

LC wrote:

I have a lot to add, but my manuscript is due this Friday and the software I'm writing about JUST RELEASED A NEW, VERY DIFFERENT VERSION! I knew there was a reason I had avoided software texts!

Can't wait to see your additions.