Ends justifying the means

[Zombie_Babies]

perhaps this conversation is simply too nuanced for forums, as I don't know what you're talking about either

Goldo nailed the short of it. And I think the disagreement here is what we think is actually programmed into our nature - especially our animal nature. It's difficult to discuss without straying into topics most feel ill-suited for these boards but, basically, our animal drive is to procreate ... at all costs. This ... it doesn't leave room for protection. That's not exactly something that was programmed by nature to be our concern. Societally things have somewhat changed but that's not where we're at naturally as a baseline.

 

[MJS]

Not really.

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. From insects to humans, its in there. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Not all human males , nor all animal species, will have this trait in equal amounts, but there is no question that male animals protect females.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. From insects to humans, its in there. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Not all human males , nor all animal species, will have this trait in equal amounts, but there is no question that male animals protect females.

Male brown bears kill cubs - male or female - in order to get the female to go into estrous again. And then there's that whole pesky human history thing that kinda puts a crimp in your theory. It's why I made up that cute Thog and Nug story.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't see either side citing facts or research. Both are just asserting. Whether or not something is in nature, I don't think men should hit women.

 

[Kramodlog]

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. From insects to humans, its in there. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Not all human males , nor all animal species, will have this trait in equal amounts, but there is no question that male animals protect females.

Get back to me when you have those facts you say are missing from my posts. For now, this is just your opinion that goes against what we observe in nature and human behavior.

 

[tomBitonti]

That was the kind of example I suspected existed.

In some ways, what Jenner did wasn't that risky, some people already kind of suspected getting sick with Cowpox was safe, and seemed to prevent getting sick with Smallpox.

He just performed a more specific test that he suspected would work.

So my "oh my gosh he used a child!" reaction is watered down by "the kid will probably be fine based on what folks like George Washington already knew"

I bet he felt he had to use a child, so he had a reasonably known medical history (less time alive to get sick with stuff he'd forgotten about).

Very interesting example.

This is what I found as additional detail (just a little more):

While Jenner's interest in the protective effects of cowpox began during his apprenticeship with George Harwicke, it was 1796 before he made the first step in the long process whereby smallpox, the scourge of mankind, would be totally eradicated. For many years, he had heard the tales that dairymaids were protected from smallpox naturally after having suffered from cowpox. Pondering this, Jenner concluded that cowpox not only protected against smallpox but also could be transmitted from one person to another as a deliberate mechanism of protection. In May 1796, Edward Jenner found a young dairymaid, Sarah Nelms, who had fresh cowpox lesions on her hands and arms (Figure ​(Figure33). On May 14, 1796, using matter from Nelms' lesions, he inoculated an 8-year-old boy, James Phipps. Subsequently, the boy developed mild fever and discomfort in the axillae. Nine days after the procedure he felt cold and had lost his appetite, but on the next day he was much better. In July 1796, Jenner inoculated the boy again, this time with matter from a fresh smallpox lesion. No disease developed, and Jenner concluded that protection was complete (10).

Something to keep in mind is the perspective on children at the time. While the exact percentage should be viewed carefully, consider:

High infant mortality rates plagued communities throughout Europe until the beginning of the twentieth century. Even in the middle of the 1800s, a quarter of all babies born in many European countries died before their first birthday. At the start of the nineteenth century in France, less than one half of children lived to be ten years old. In Sweden as a whole, the infant mortality rate in the late 1700s was about twenty percent.

My understanding is that children were rather undervalued compared with modern perspectives. Then, there would be considerably less outrage over the use of a child in the fashion indicated by Jenner. I would say, especially if there were a substantial class difference.

That is to say, we should be very careful when considering examples to understand value differences between us and the people in the example.

Thx!

TomB

 

[airwalkrr]

What I find particularly notable about the smallpox example is not so much that Jenner used a child for his experiment. It was well-understood at the time that healthy young children were more likely to survive smallpox than someone in their 20s or 30s. In the modern age we have come to learn that children have generally stronger immune systems than adults when challenged with a new invasive organism, optimally between the ages of around 5 and 13. And even in the modern age we test medical procedures on children, though only when their parents understand the risks, and usually only on sick children who might otherwise die. So that part is actually fairly understandable. The more serious breach of medical ethics in my opinion is the use of a healthy individual for a medical experiment without their knowledge, a practice which continued well into the mid-20th century.

 

[MJS]

Get back to me when you have those facts you say are missing from my posts. For now, this is just your opinion that goes against what we observe in nature and human behavior.

in birds: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102949675891

in insects: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6

in apes: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6

In other words, it happens - constantly, in nature. Not exactly chivalry, but chivalry is not my point. When a man says he has a deep-rooted feeling of protecting women, it is evolutionarily based, and I think, something to be preserved even as we tear down our cultural biases. Not all men have to share this instinct for it to be real, as there are different roles male animals express.
What your opinion suggests is that our natural tendency to protect females/nest is somehow "wrong", even to the point of denying its factual existence - perhaps because you yourself do not have this urge, and see it as a cultural problem.
For instance, a man taking the road side, or wanting to, when walking with a woman. Is that nature or culture? I say mostly the former, and point to evolution. You might point to men not giving women priority on a lifeboat.
How all of these things can be true at once is hard to fathom. I don't think you and I need be at odds on the issue, and it seems to me what matters is self-awareness in any case. I might say to my feminist beloved, "thousands of years of evolution are making me want to walk on the inside of the sidewalk", and we might laugh about it, and she may even honor / witness that feeling as authentic, similar to how she likes my animal reaction to her emerging for a night out, and I'd exclaim "god DAMN!" at how nice she looks.

 

[Kramodlog]

in birds: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102949675891

in insects: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6

in apes: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6

No evidence for humans, what a surprised. Funny how apes often kill the babies of female apes or that some orang-outangs commit rape or that divorce (and being forced to pay a pension) are so common. It seems the common thread is spreading genetic material. The question is, are these strategies genetic or cultural (young ape saw older ape act, does the same, pays off, cultural trait is passed on).

When a man says he has a deep-rooted feeling of protecting women, it is evolutionarily based,

In your opinion. It certainly can be cultural too. Women beater, rapist, murderers or just divorcers are rather common. Are they common enough to also be genetic, in your opinion? I'm curious.

and I think, something to be preserved even as we tear down our cultural biases. Not all men have to share this instinct for it to be real, as there are different roles male animals express.

You still need to prove it is an instinct of males. So far it is just your opinion, you haven't proven that these aren't manifestations of culture.

[quoe]What your opinion suggests is that our natural tendency to protect females/nest is somehow "wrong",[/quote]I didn't pass any judgment, I'm interesting in facts, not opinions. From your comment it seems you are the one passing judgement on me.

What I'm saying is we do not have a need to protect women or kids. Rape, other types of violence, divorce, two timing (hurting emotionally), all sort universal behavior of men show otherwise.

even to the point of denying its factual existence -

You haven't shown any evidence this behavior is genetic in nature, do not misrepresent what I said.

perhaps because you yourself do not have this urge, and see it as a cultural problem.

See, you are the one judging me and taking a swipe at me. Amusing.

For instance, a man taking the road side, or wanting to, when walking with a woman. Is that nature or culture? I say mostly the former, and point to evolution.

Of course, we have evolved with the dangers of cars running over us for millions of years.

You might point to men not giving women priority on a lifeboat.

Or rape and other forms of violence. Two timing, divorce, abandonning your family, etc...

How all of these things can be true at once is hard to fathom.

Maybe for you...

I don't think you and I need be at odds on the issue,

Yes we do. I cannot support people who think their opinions are fact. Especially baseless and mostly sexist ones. I'm sure you think that women have a maternal instinct. Surprise, they do not have one as far as it has been observed. It is not just infanticide committed by some women, but how they do not suddenly become all motherly and protective of their new born. Some do, but is it just that they are more prepared mentally (culture) to take on that new role, rather than a gene kicking in?

and it seems to me what matters is self-awareness in any case.

Have you considered that you are not aware of all your cultural biases? Or that you refuse to awknowledge them by rationalizing them?

I might say to my feminist beloved, "thousands of years of evolution are making me want to walk on the inside of the sidewalk", and we might laugh about it, and she may even honor / witness that feeling as authentic, similar to how she likes my animal reaction to her emerging for a night out, and I'd exclaim "god DAMN!" at how nice she looks.

/snickers

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Sure, if we only consider the lovey-dovey stuff then it would seem as though there's some protective instinct. I believe, however, that there are enough men in prison today for violent acts against women to counter any of the nice crap - especially considering that walking on the right side of the sidewalk kinda pales when compared with murder. And consider this: Only recently has it become illegal to hit a woman. Some folks still don't consider rape that occurs in a marriage to be rape. How's that for protective?

For the record, I've never struck a woman outside the confines of a martial arts class. I also open doors and all that crap. Why? Cuz I was taught that stuff. Guess what I don't do: Walk on the inside of the sidewalks. Know why? Nobody ever taught me that one.

Also please try to keep in mind that kids mimic adults. If we see daddy acting all protective then that's what we may well end up doing. Acting protective toward women, then, is learned and not our default action.