Welcome to Gaia! ::

Sorry to go a bit off topic with this... 'it doesn't matter' is a common response, but it's usually from men.
I've felt alienated from text that defaults human to male (such as always using male pronouns and words like 'man' to cover everyone) even since I was a child. I now feel increasingly isolated from that word, and generally when reading old texts (because nowadays you cannot get away with using it in academia thank goodness) 'man' did indeed mean only men. There is a large history of the invisibility of women, and this is a HUGE part of it. I simply can't include myself in that collective word.

As for it being more poetic... no way. When I hear 'man' I hear 'patriarchal/colonial/hegemonic masculinity/conquering/polluting/social darwinism'. I know at least my boyfriend feels this way too, so I'm not alone. xD*

*edit: he feels that way about at least some of these things, anyway.

Rationalisation is a form of intellectual discipline, and it's not the only way to overcome an instinct either. Ultimately however, what you're saying is essentially the same as what I said. Seeing as rationality is only available to intellectual beings, of which Humans are and animals are not.

Though you do see very basic forms of rationality from animals. Such as refraining from an action due to fear of repercussion, and doing specifically to elicit a reward. So perhaps, if you think that rationality in any form is a sign of humanity, a dog seeking rewards for doing tricks possesses a human quality, while a rapist, ironically, lacks one as it fails to accept the risks as too dangerous to avoid the impulses.



I disagree, being at the mercy of your instincts and knowing no better than your instinct makes you indiscernible between the two. If you saw a person rape someone else, and then an animal procreate with another of its kind of inferior status in its pack, or something else resembling power play, and you judged the process as an observer, you cannot see any difference. They both acted only on impulse. Whether the human forwent punishment or not pales in irrelevance. Only if it had stopped itself would it be demonstrating rationality --intelligence.




No, because human instincts are not designed to survive alone in the wild. We've always been pack creatures --Tribes, with mothers and often fathers who looked after us while teaching the designs of the tribes. You could put a wolf cub alone in the wild and it might survive where a human couldn't. Because Wolves are more attuned to independence (though not wholly). Humans to interdependence.




You ignored the whole bit about drawing a line at consent?

Anything that rationalises rape as being a biological inevitability should be burned. Possibly at the stake.

Rape is definitely a decision made, and a stupid stupid stupid one that should be punished severely. Rape is not some disorder to be pitied.

Kotka may I ask, seeing as 'human' contains the word 'man'. Does this word alienate you? You used it yourself so I gather not, but you may feel you have no choice as most synonyms also contain the word 'man'.

But you know, and with all due respect (as I have much for you) I find that you told me you are an abolitionist harder to believe given you have now said that gender affects the strength of voice that you deserve. I think you either resent privilege or view those with it as an unwilling change agent, or better yet, a wall, a blockade to acceptance and equality. If you do, then I do not see how you can truly seek the irrelevance of gender. Or at least, I do not see how you practice what you preach, so to speak.

Personally, I do not find male views on female struggles in lower regard to that of females. If you say 'that's because you are male' I will be left confused. I also value female opinions on say, male circumcision (IE, coercive male genital mutilation) especially because mothers often hold the power of decision in that situation, and it is they who have 'privilege' and whose positions might bias to their self-interest. Wouldn't you say your opinion on circumcision is as valid as the next individuals, regardless of gender?

Those who are not victims in a divisive issue of gender, are instead perpetrators. Perpetrator's opinions should definitely not be disregarded, if anything they are of key consequence.

mm, Indeed. I shall leave it and bring it up with you on Skype sometime, if you don't mind that is.

Silly, we're all born queer anarchists who love sprinting through the wilderness naked with our wonder dog Svork.

We kinda pick up varying sexualities/identites, logic, theology, politics, and the forced practice of wearing clothes due to society.
(joking mostly)

It's kinda funny because there has never been a clear cut definition for human nature people just define what it is to fit the need for their arguement sure I can say "yup human natures to be greedy, one time I saw this guy being greedy" or I can say "yup Human nature is to be selfless, I've seen some people being selfless" the point is there is no clear cut thing that people will do, and it isn't "human nature" until we can say this is how we will all react 100% of the time. (of course like with everything there will be exceptions so perhaps I should not put 100% but at least 99% of the time)