You write about men : "they construe themselves as the universal subject either denying the possibility of a significant other ... or denying the rights of the other, by reducing them to the objects of their delusions"
I respond: sure they do. Isn't that what all persons in positions of power do?
As I said, I don't think sexism is right or good. It should be stamped out in the modern world. But I do think it is likely that it represents the, how should I put this, automatic fallback mode of human social groups. Otherwise it would not be so universal.
--- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> The problem isn't really that men lead or that they
> are more comfortable
> with hierarchical organizations. The problem is that
> they they construe
> themselves as the universal subject either denying
> the possibility of a
> significant other (why is so much medical research
> only done on men?) or
> denying the rights of the other, by reducing them to
> the objects of
> their delusions (these are normally called
> "passions," but I would say
> that dignifies them too much) to be raped, killed,
> traded, bought, sold,
> etc.
>
> And I don't think it's enough to compare men to
> bulls and women to cows,
> especially when we go to so much trouble to
> distinguish human from
> animal. Which is also to say that I don't think, a
> good deal of what is
> deemed "human" is merely epiphenomenal.
>
> Joanna
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com