VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:04:07 05/15/02 Wed
Author: Icon
Subject: Me too! :)
In reply to: Perceptor II 's message, "Just because I care, Icon. ;-)" on 22:02:42 05/15/02 Wed

>>>That's very naive of you to say.
>>And that's very patronsiing of you to say.
>How so?

To accuse someone of naivete in that way is to imply that they are lacking in worldly experience. I have been living in this world for over three decades, making a living in Human Resources and being a general purpose human being, and have seen both the good and the bad that Mankind can throw at each other on a personal level from first hand experience, and on larger scale level by observation. I will not be told by someone who does not know me personally that I am naive, however well intentioned it might be.

>But in classically liberal societies (such as those of the
>European Union nations, Canada, the United States,
>Austrailia, etc), who our leaders are is determined by the
>people at large.

Or those who can vote, which is not always the same thing. "Clasicallly liberal" is a very vague term, consider the problems the US has had with segregation less than half a century ago. (I'm not saying the UK has clean hands either in that department of course)

>Even in religious institutions, the leaders lead at the
>consent of those they lead, since either they are elected
>into that position or if not the people leave to find a
>place more to their liking.

In the cases I cited, it's men who elect men, because of custom, practice and tradition.

>While a leader does exert an inordinate influence upon the
>people he or she leads, he or she would not be able to
>ascend to that position without sharing the values of the
>society as a whole. So the society creates its leaders
>more than the leaders create society.

Except that apathy can swing the vote considerably in elections and still ahvea major imapct on society. A largely apathetic society, such as we have at present judging by official returns from elections, is not reflected in the power stucture maintained by those who are activists.

>This just further proves my point, that men and women are
>different, that they have different subcultures within our
>common culture that exert different pressures and
>influences upon the two genders, and that every once in a
>while the two sides need to be addressed on their own.

Perhaps, but I found that was not the tone or intent of the original quote, which was directed at men helping women in need. I want men to help people in need, regardless of gender.

>You're not saying that politics is "men's work", are
>you? ;-)

More than a little.... :) Politics is what women convinced men they were interested in so they'd be out of the way.


>Also, I'm a bit confused. First you say that the
>politicians define society, then you suggest that they are
>very irrelevent. Which is it?

I am saying that politicans can, by their actions, influence and maintain the society they see as. Whether that has any bearing on the totality of society is another matter. Certainly in the UK, there is a feeling of dissassociation of the public from those who lead them, becasue the ones in charge are focussing on what interests them, not what the "person in the street" is bothered by.

The current UK fox-hunting debate is a classic example. Masses of Government time devoted to a relatively small scale idea that will not impact significantly on the vast majority of the population. This in turn increases the sense of discontinuity between those in power, and those not.

>You've got to be both negative and positive. There's still
>a lot of regressive attitudes in our society, we've just
>pushed them a little below the surface so we can fool
>ourselves in to thinking that we have gender or racial
>equity solved and give ourselves a pat on the back. Yes,
>we've come a long way, but we've still got a long way to
>do. There is still a lot wrong that needs to be torn down,
>but a vision of the positive and good must also be
>emphasized to replace it.

This sort of encapsulated the problem I had with the initial quote. It seems to convey to me the same "We must be good people, or else" approach that I've heard a hundred times before. It hasn't really worked wonders as an approach in the past, largely because of it's automatically critical tone.

Then there bits like;

"The clear duty for real men goes beyond "live and let live". "

I've never once felt that was a duty or something to strive for, it's a cop out. The real challenge to all of us is "Love your neightbour as yourself".

It's harder to be positive in a negative atmopshere than negative in a positive atmosphere.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.