Asymmetrical Information

Hey Jane Dig this

appologies for absence of appropriate links
but i am blob foggin 2 nite fast & "fury":)ous

The two aussie nekked demos
??? 700 women
days later
??? 250 men
so you tell me
Who gots the huevos down under?

+++"In general, I am all in favor of getting naked"+++

Query...
can you provide evidence?

THSeaweed@aol

I noticed two things from photo archives:

1) Not a single naked peace sign protest is done in a non-free country

2) Every single group is dead sure that dissent is being squashed

This is starting to look like a goofy fad. I thought the first one was silly and misguided, now they just look buffoonish. If they want to impress me with their daring baring for freedom, then they should get naked in Riyadh or Baghdad, then they might get my attention.

Well, here's one theory --

Demonstrating in the nude is not a reasoned reaction; it's an emotional one. The quoted writer is essentially approaching the debate along those lines: Your child's birth gave you insight on war policy? No kidding!

The debate seems to have polarized pretty heavily along those lines. The pro-war crowd mostly (but not exclusively) is discussing Saddam's hostile intents and how far he might ultimately carry them, whether more people will die if Saddam remains in power than if a war removes him, etc. The peace crowd mostly (but not exclusively) is framing the debate along the "we don't like war in any way, shape, form, or option upgrade package" theme.

As admitted, there are exceptions on both sides -- but consequentialism is dominating one side and deontologism the other. Unfortunately for the latter case, this is politics; the leadership is making consequentialist calculations on a regular basis. If you want to speak to that leadership and influence its direction, better be prepared to whip out some rational basis for your view, and "no blood for oil" and nude protests aren't going to cut it.

However I have realised you don't need to be Einstein to work out what's going on here and that from the point of view of a Mother and a female, THIS IS WRONG.

It's dames like her what give broads a bad name.

Amen, Angie.

I think the reason that young people and women are so often liberal and "idealistic" is because they are more likely to form their worldview on the basis of their experience as members of a family. Young people do so because that is the political and economic experience with which they are familiar: a benevolent leader (mom and dad) bring home the necessities (food, shelter, etc) and provide them to the children on the basis of need and egalitarian fairness. The pie, for example, should be divided equally; that is what is fair. What children can afford to ignore is what was required to get the pie on the table and the roof over their heads; all they concern themselves with is that everyone have equal portions. Similarly, for many women the most important aspect of life is the family and family relationships. In this sense women are natural socialists, and like Hillary Clinton they tend to extrapolate from their family life to the "it takes a village" metaphor when they want a model of how human beings should behave on an international scale.

The problem with the family as a model for human relations on a larger scale is that it simply doesn't work. Our fellow citizens are not like members of our family. International despots do not respond to a stern scolding. What results is socialism and a well-intentioned tendency to appeasement and endless talktalktalk that encourages tyrants and yields squalor.

So, given her stereotypical feminine viewpoint, what the woman said makes sense. Unfortunately it also makes her sound like an unserious person. It's touching and sad and sweet all at once that those women thought that being naked would somehow make the leaders of the world (mostly men) see the world through their eyes, but it's also dangerous because it is not how the world - ruled mostly by men - actually works.

On a related note, have you watched the new Survivor series on CBS? The two tribes are split along gender lines and the women, after nearly a week, still haven't managed to build even a crude roof over their heads, while the men had one the first night. I'm finding it terribly interesting to watch the interaction within the all-male and all-female tribes as they struggle with hunger and the need to get out of the rain.

OK Jane look at it like this.
I heard Garfunkel was at the 2003
Grammy's. Now considering he
is Pre-Alice Cooper I'm thinkin
I ain't ancient
And

I WANNA BE PROTESTED

that's all I'm done now
I'm hoping my laughable
attempts on your blog
tonight gave you one
grin.
Thus My redemption
for wasted bandwidth

How long before Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell get in on the act? With Moore in particular, it can't be long enough.

TX Vet - Why, I'm naked right now!

Don't you know we're trying to attract readers, not repulse them?

TX Vet-
By the way, I'm not Jane. I am a 40ish male. There's a hint at the top of each post indicating the author.

Maybe your nude blogging is a subconcious attempt to get in touch with your feminine side. And I mean that figuratively...no touching while blogging.

oops Dreck
Talk about faux pas à l'extrème
Way too many martinis
My head hurts
any body got a mydol i mean aspirin

Ya know, I must admit... despite all the silliness...

I was kind of impressed by the naked people lying in the Ontario snow.

I mean, a field in California, no biggie. But to lay your nekkid-dissent-luvin-bod down in Canadian tundra? That takes some balls (slightly shrunken from cold, but balls nonetheless).

If we could only get some collegiate gymnastics and swimming teams involved in the nude protest thing; it'd enhance the visual appeal quite a bit.

I realize it's just a silly fad, but how about putting together a naked warblogger response? As we're scattered all around the world we'd have to send in nude pictures, but then you could spell out whatever we wished in a collage. My picture follows forthwith!

Similarly, for many women the most important aspect of life is the family and family relationships. In this sense women are natural socialists, and like Hillary Clinton they tend to extrapolate from their family life to the "it takes a village" metaphor when they want a model of how human beings should behave on an international scale. . .

Okay, you lost me. Perhaps this is an instinctive reaction because I am a woman, one to whom family has always been important, and yet, somehow, I am not a damned fool. It's a shame, because your point about children's idealism was so very strong. I think that women who make assertions like this singer/songwriter/etc. does here are influenced by a certain gender feminism. This feminism has its conceptual roots in the 19th-century "separate spheres" conception of women's role -- the "angel in the house." That posited that women's role into society was to provide uplift, by raising children well and providing a moral refuge for men. But where that idea, in the 19th century, was used to advocate women's confinement to the private, it manifests itself again in feminism by advocating women's inherent differences as an addition to public life. "Women's ways of knowing," etc., etc. In short, this woman has more education than she does sense. And that knows no boundaries of gender.

As for Survivor, I'm not watching it and I'm not sorry. I have no idea why these women can't get it together, but I am certain it has to do with their personal deficiencies. The most I am willing to admit is that they, being women, have a lesser amount of technical know-how than the men, and perhaps this is due to the wickedness of society, or maybe it's just them. Can't say.

Swen:

What, you missed it when Michele ovet at asmallvictory was doing the boob thing at least once a week? :)

Boobs for war? Yes, I missed that. But somehow boobs for peace seems more appropriate considering the thread herein.

Comments are Closed.