Search Results
7/12/2025, 6:12:00 PM
>>11331732
>The fact that you find this an intolerable insult probably explains why you find it appealing, on some level, to be part of the gender that DOES have intrinsic value.
I won't deny the appeal of the taboo - it's indeed the case - but to sacrifice *in duty* (the expectation of others not directly involved) and to sacrifice *out of care for one's own* (such as for a family member or local community) are different (though can happen at the same time). The first might be honorable, but not out of personal investment. The second would be for personal reasons.
Nor do I think women have "intrinsic value" of a kind that isn't also found in men (different, to be sure, but neither lesser nor greater). I'm not such a fool to think "anything men can do women can do better" - there's a reason it's always a "fantasy"-like setting. The things men are "good" for aren't the things that society values, so in this one, men get the short end of the stick while women are uplifted. It's not always ideal to be the one under the limelight either.
The "intrinsic value" that society sees is one that society has put there (millennia ago, etc etc.). Sure, yes, who *wouldn't* want to *also* be liked by everyone? But just because modern society says there's value doesn't mean that there actually is, we just act that way. When society was more manual-labor intensive, men were valued more highly than women, labelled with "intrinsically valued". It means little in the grand scheme of things when the development of a new technology utterly flips everything on its head, and then is flipped once again later.
I need to come here more, this is more intellectual exercise than I get in my day to day. What a shame on my part.
>The fact that you find this an intolerable insult probably explains why you find it appealing, on some level, to be part of the gender that DOES have intrinsic value.
I won't deny the appeal of the taboo - it's indeed the case - but to sacrifice *in duty* (the expectation of others not directly involved) and to sacrifice *out of care for one's own* (such as for a family member or local community) are different (though can happen at the same time). The first might be honorable, but not out of personal investment. The second would be for personal reasons.
Nor do I think women have "intrinsic value" of a kind that isn't also found in men (different, to be sure, but neither lesser nor greater). I'm not such a fool to think "anything men can do women can do better" - there's a reason it's always a "fantasy"-like setting. The things men are "good" for aren't the things that society values, so in this one, men get the short end of the stick while women are uplifted. It's not always ideal to be the one under the limelight either.
The "intrinsic value" that society sees is one that society has put there (millennia ago, etc etc.). Sure, yes, who *wouldn't* want to *also* be liked by everyone? But just because modern society says there's value doesn't mean that there actually is, we just act that way. When society was more manual-labor intensive, men were valued more highly than women, labelled with "intrinsically valued". It means little in the grand scheme of things when the development of a new technology utterly flips everything on its head, and then is flipped once again later.
I need to come here more, this is more intellectual exercise than I get in my day to day. What a shame on my part.
Page 1