normalcy

[Guest guest]

Dan says: >>The prospect of ongoing conflict - i.e., normalcy - doesn't frighten me. The lack of conflict, resulting in a fall into universal homgenity and mediocrity - that frightens me.<< --Dan, we've been fighting conflicts for half a century by proxy, with little real involvement or sacrifice. That's why we're complacent. You're not talking about the consequences of peace. You're talking about the consequences of avoiding conflict and fighting video-game style, from a distance. Ask anyone who has lived in a war zone. They won't agree with you on what you consider frightening. Ending the kind of warfare that kills more civilians than soldiers would not lead to the disappearance of conflict. It would only involve resolving conflicts before the sacrifice is pushed onto those who are least prepared to carry it. I don't consider myself a mediocre person, and I did not get any of my attributes from violent conflict.

I hope that counts for something in your eyes. >>My own occupation has become, in the last twenty years or so, female dominated. Some of us (and not just the men) think that that is one of the reasons that we are losing prestige and income.<< --Sorry if I don't feel pity for you there. Who cares about prestige, anyway? As for income, join the club. A lot of people aren't getting paid for the amount of work they put in. I don't think men OR women should be in a priveleged position because of their gender, so if there's some role reversal going on and women are exploiting their gender to their advantage in your field, it's just as bad as men doing the same thing. But you'd have to be more specific about exactly why you see an increase in the number of women as a problem, for me to say anything more about it.>>What I would expect as a reaction to increased conventional power held by women is increased

violent acting out by males.<< --True enough. As women in the Islamic world gain a voice, the men are acting out violently. And we can either coddle men by keeping women from undermining their dominance, or denounce violence by insecure men and work to stop it. I'll go with the latter option. If Muslim men can't handle women having equal rights, tough for them. If American men can't handle women rising to their natural level, tough for them too. Either way, we deal with the fallout, because you can't prevent nature from taking its course. By gaining a voice, women are expressing the will of nature, and you work against that at your own risk. >>Men who do not have their place in society, who have been replaced by the state, who are no longer needed by women, who have lost their natural roles as protector and provider to the family, will not become "metrosexuals," lol. They will look for

trouble.<< --And you, being a real man, will put your foot down when those men get violent. Or else you will chicken out and blame women. Take a stand, Dan. Your sympathy for men feeling out of place is reasonable. But if men express that need for sympathy in violent ways, then step up to the plate, be a man, and teach them another way. >>We will fuel our cars with fuels made from oil bought from the supplier with the lowest price (see today's _Dilbert_). To change that, you will have to eliminate capitalism.<< --Capitalism is sensing the changing winds and is beginning to promote biofuels and other alternatives. Market forces are not entirely on the side of oil addiction. We've just gotten over a period of self-indulgence and habit, and now we're thinking about the ecological web and what it means for us when we consume. Capitalism won't die, it will evolve, as it always does.

Ultimately, capitalism is driven by us, and when we consume ethically, we change the course of every company that listens to consumers, which is pretty much every company that depends on sales.>>You expect the people to become philosophers. This is a mistake.<< --You belittle them by thinking they are not already philosophers. That is a bigger mistake.

Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.