Yes, I agree that children are not treated well by society at large. I
see your point that children are treated as possessions, and I agree up
to a point, but in the example you give:
> societal treatment of children in general, i.e. as belonging to the parent so long
>as the
> parent follows society's rules, belonging to the state otherwise.
>
easily substituted for "belonging" are the words "being the
responsibility of" (but then, clearly you have more elaborate thoughts
on the matter than your brief summary indicates, and I, for one would be
interested to hear them). This society isn't set-up to allow children
freedom of movement because for one thing it simply isn't safe, and for
another, there are so many possessions to be jealously guarded from
those too young to appreciate their "importance", and so on. Perhaps as
society gets more and more complicated, it will seem more and more alien
to children who will be harder and harder to "socialise".
They aren't generally accorded respect. It's a strange hierarchy of
"respect" in our society. I always find it laughable that the
pasty-faced guy who's got his own office, but doesn't have a clue what's
going on and causes more problems than he solves is supposed to be
revered and tiptoed around, while the clerks who keep everything going
are dismissed with contempt. But perhaps this is a digression...
I remember Yoko Ono saying at one time or another (and I thought her
words were sound) something along the lines of "women are the niggers in
today's society, and children are another step behind them" - that's
probably nothing like her original words, but that's the gist of what
she was saying.
> While there is much I could say on the subject, I'm not inclined to
> get
> into a detailed discussion about it at this time, unless you and/or
> others are interested. Patriarchy in general treats children as
> property. I'll just leave it at that for now.
I'm interested.
> Re: aggression. The debate over the "aggressive instinct" has been
> going on for decades. Scientifically, it's unresolved. Anecdotally,
> I've seen tough, pushy little girls and gentle, shy little boys. What
>
> does this prove? Nothing.
Well, perhaps it proves there are exceptions to every rule (not that
that needed further proof).
> The real question -- the one I should have asked -- is, if such an
> instinct exists, does it necessarily preclude the development of a
> harmonious human society? Our present war-making culture seems to
> think so, but the archeological evidence of the
> earliest civilizations suggests that prior to the onset of the
> patriarchy, humans lived peaceably for millenia.
I think the main difficulty for people living in harmony is that there
are just too many of us. It's much easier to live in harmony if we all
have enough space so that we don't constantly have to worry that we are
going to offend someone with our personal habits, but then I understand
that some Asian cultures manage to live quite peacably very close
together. Perhaps this is partly a question of individualism versus
conformity.
I don't believe I implied that current aggression levels in males or
humans generally could never be overcome sufficiently to achieve
harmony. Did I miss something?
> We humans -- males in particular -- may well be naturally aggressive.
> It may be part of our genetic makeup. But so are fins, and we've
> managed to grow hands and fingers nonetheless.
I find it a bit of a contradiction that you dismiss an easily observable
phenomenon on the basis of it being "scientifically unproven" and yet
you state this rather far-fetched bit of scientific religion as though
it were fact. Fins are part of our genetic makeup? I'm sorry, but I
don't accept that.
> I'm much more interested in seeing what we can become, rather than in
> defining what we have been in the past.
I think we have to start from where we are, and assess how far we've
come from where we've been in order to form a hypothesis for where we
might go from here. It does seem that institutional aggression levels
have subsided over the centuries. Torture is no longer considered an
acceptable form of punishment for such things as a disagreement over
religious faiths, for instance. Lynching isn't as widespread as it was,
and so on. Marauding Vikings aren't getting about Europe raping and
pillaging, although wars continue to rage on around the globe...
> We are so indoctrinated with the competitive norm that any idea that
> challenges it is immediately dismissed as unnatural, unworkable,
> naive, etc. I believe competition can have a place in society, that
> games and races and the like can be fun. But in ordering
> an entire society around the competitive model, we end up with gross
> social inequality and ecological ruin. It's part of the dominator
> system, and we have to have the courage and vision to see beyond it.
Yes, I agree.
> Lee's response to my question, "How many of us believe... that, like
> it
> or not, might really does make right?" was:
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> Was it my use of the word "us" that caused the confusion here?
No, it was the use of the words "like it or not" and "really does".
> I'm asking, how many people in our society believe that might makes
> right?
> That the one with the biggest gun wins? Judging from the way people
> in
> this country respond to our military actions worldwide, I'd say a
> great
> many believe exactly that: that we're bigger, we're stronger, we're
> richer, so we're right. It's just one more example of how deeply
> entrenched the patriarchal order is.
Yes, I'm afraid you're right. I think that's the patriarchal mentality
in a nutshell.
> > I think the way to win is to start a new game - a win/win one,
> recruit
> > the many, many players who don't enjoy the dominant one and
> demonstrate it to be more fun.
>
> Yes! That's the real beauty of a society that is not based on a
> hierarchical, competitive, dominator paradigm: that there is much more
>
> joy and pleasure and fun to be had -- for everyone. My point is that
> we
> don't have to accept that what we're being offered is all there is.
> In
> other words, we don't have to play THEIR game.
Hear, hear. And let the new games begin.
Lee.
--
Conflict between separated parents
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/
\|/ \|/
. .
/|\ /|\
Live simply...we're killing the planet
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/
Sustainable Future Webring
http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/webring.html
