Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> At 06:06 AM 7/22/01 -0400, Mike wrote:
> >"Mitchell, Jerry (3337)" <Jerry.Mitchell@esavio.com> wrote:
> >> I really hope this doesnt get out of hand, but Im gonna try to call
> >> this like I see it. Am I the only one picking up the message that men tend
> >> to be more drawn to the dynamic environment of Capitalism, where women tend
> >> to identify more with socialistic view? I think this may stem from some
> >> genetic orgins. It seems that women tend to relate more to "security" then
> >> to potential gains from risk.
There are differences in male and female brains and there are
some generalities (that don't specify specific individual
behavior or "normalcy") that may have some relevance.
That said though, I don't think a contrast of "dynamic
environment" and "socialistic" on the other hand is at all
called for. There is a general tendency of women to think more
in holistic terms and in terms of preserving and strengthening
(nurturing) groups they are part of. This can include the
entire species. There is a tendency to more heart/value level
things. In men there is a tendency to more reason, sense of
justice and earning/acheiving or winning higher status over
others. Again, these are only generalities. I believe they are
strongly hormonal and related to fundamental sexual dimorphism
in fetal development. That doesn't mean that any individual
cannot manifest things along these spectrums.
> I think it's important to paint the entire picture, so please allow me to
> stretch the canvas. Women have been a notch up from a slave to men in many
> economic political environments. In that as early as 100 years ago, women
> were the property of their fathers or their husbands ("Man and wife"), they
> had been trained to live off the male owner like any other animal.
> Property moved from father to son, or husband to son. This could help
> clarify, at least to some degree, why a some women may have felt more
> comfortable with socialism. Today, is another picture. Women preferring
> socialism may have a nostalgia for the past, carry a bit of animosity for
> the many years in slavery, or still harbor the broad consensus that the
> government owes its people - male and female - something in return for the
> heavy taxation. Some have no moral issue with government grants and other
> hand-outs which are not given without hard work and merit.
I don't find this helpful at all. Almost none of us grew up
with oppression of women as active as you talk about. Sure it
was still very present in the 50s (but I was a child then), in
the 60s and getting better in the 70s. Sure some is still with
us and especially outside of the Western world where there is a
tremendous amount yet to be done. But in view of most of us
here not living under such conditions I seriously doubt that our
economic opinions have anything at all to do with such a
scenario as you have painted.
> >And why not? The baby isn't gonna generate any profit this quarter. The
> >guy who wants a family can be all the capitalist he wants, but he needs
> >to give up some of his own earnings for the wife and kids.
> It makes sense to me that in a partnership where both parties want a
> family, that both parties work and pay equally. Producing and raising a
> child is said to be one of the toughest jobs there is.
Do you think that housewives don't work? Ha! It is a bit
better today but in most two wage-earner families I know of the
woman comes home from the office and does most of the cooking,
cleaning and dealing with the children still on top of her
workday at the office.
> >Having to give up your own earnings to fund someone else's laziness is
> >certainly unfair, and I'm sure the socialist system recipient
> >acknowledges this as he/she cashes their government check.
Are you going to claim that guaranteed income or all social
programs only exist to fund the recipient's "laziness"? Do you
really believe this? Because that is sure what you seem to
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:54 MDT