It’s a biological imperative. Sure people can overcome or ignore it, but the species would die out without that instinct to mate and procreate. Which is my point. The gender roles are based upon necessary, natural biological needs.
Men cannot bring a baby to term, and women cannot procreate daily. These are substantial gender differences.
I’m in no way promoting that men should be the hunter gatherers, or that women must be baby machines, so the feminist perspective to me, is irrelevant. I am talking about the biological facts of being biological beings. Absolutely, (wo)man could choose extinction, rationally, as a revolt against nature. I hope that is not your argument.
Wow, that was cleverly obfuscated. Let me restate the question. Do you believe intelligence is related to biology, and if so, is it unreasonable to shop for a mate, friend, employee in the marketplace based upon their intelligence?
What about their looks? Should we treat potential mates and employees the same whether we find them physically attractive or repulsive?
Could be. There is no biological imperative to reproduce on the individual level.
It would be interesting to see the “market reaction” to a rapidly decreasing world population.
I was only making the point that “smart” is a social construct like any other. Just like the tall man, the smart man’s role in society (ie. his job) is defined not by his smartness but by the expectations of other people. Here he is a businessman, there he is designing the next five-year plan. Or, maybe, from our point of view, the smart man is the one who is sabotaging the five-year plan. It’s not obfuscation, it’s postmodernism.
I believe that intelligence, or aptitude to learn - or whatever - is less related to biology than tallness.
I am, of course, not opposed to your choosing your mates on whatever basis you like; however, I don’t believe that the choice you make is any less socially constructed than another, since as I stated above there is no imperative purpose for mating. Maybe you prefer ladies with wide hips to bear your numerous progeny, maybe you like a woman who doesn’t stick around in the morning, maybe you dig dudes. For employees it’s somewhat different: you obviously want the candidate most fit to carry out the task at hand. But, again, this assumes that you want to maximize your profits, which is not necessarily a given. A person can be “biologically fit” for a certain purpose, but that purpose is necessarily representative of (subjective) values - and values are constructs.
Equality is a silly essay, it’s just an attempt by Long to sneak his egalitarianism in through the back door, the first two essays are good though. Nonetheless, he’d be better off sticking philosophy, he’s not too strong on economics or the culture stuff.
But then again besides intelligence I don’t think he’s got too much going on for him in the world, so no wonder he wants to level society.
Well, I agree with his anti punishment stance, but for different reasons. Punishment isn’t a viable business option without the state, the state can only act in such a way because it can externalize the costs. As for gender and race being constructs, it’s a joke, it often seems to me that the lefties don’t really have a problem with homophobia, they have a problem with heterosexuals.
You asked whether intelligence was linked to biological facts. It is, though probably less than things like tallness. This has no incidence on the question of social construction. Color of skin is also linked to biology, yet race is still a social construct.
Indeed, and if it was, would it be unreasonable for me to make market decisions (personal and commercial) based on those biological differentiations?
To which you continue to provide,
It’s a yes or no question, then proceed to part two. How much you subjectively value intelligence biologically vs. tallness biologically is irrelevant.
I never asked a question of social construction. You continue to bring it up regardless.
There are distinct biological differences in skin colour, which translate into different environmental responses and capacity. Sunburn is not a social construct, nor is skin cancer.
My preferences are subjective, but the biological difference between someone with two arms or one arm is objective fact.
I think we agree. Or at least you now understand the point I was making.
Gender as a social construct (per Long) is ridiculous. As Dr. Block indicates, heterosexuals and homosexuals are sexist. The only group which is not, are bi-sexuals. It is impossible to have a market process, or evolutionary selection, the latter of which is a biological, natural process separate from society, without discrimination.
