So I stopped identifying as a feminist. It's hard to say if it is going to be permanent because a part of me still identifies with certain feminist ideas, and I guess it always will.
I chose feminism because it was an outlet for the anger I had suppressed all my life. An anger that I haven't quite dealt with, but I'm learning to, one day at a time. It was very easy and convenient to call myself a feminist and go H.A.M on anything or anyone that was even slightly misogynist. The truth is, I did not like what I did, not even one bit. Interestingly, I didn't know that I didn't like the angry girl I was.
Shortly after I realized how I had been using feminism as a channel for my emotions, I was hit with another realization, and this pushed me further away from identifying as a feminist. I was thinking through a couple of things and it occurred to me that there might actually be some sense in the existence of various gender roles, and basically, men and women were not made to be compete against each other, but rather, complement each other. It didn't make sense to me then, if we were made to complement each other, then why am I, why are we fighting this war of the sexes? This bugged me for a while because I knew the answer. Men seem untouchable, especially if they have just raped, abused or treated a woman unjustly, as if that is not enough, the women victims are blamed; women are denied opportunities for being women, not for being incompetent, etc.
So while a part of me saw the point of the feminist movement, another part of me was beginning to see how pointless it was.
I tried to analyze it in my own context, that of an African, and a Nigerian woman, because I believed that would make a lot of difference, and it did but slightly. I came to understand that for me feminism might mean fighting different battles than my American or Asian counterparts, but battles nonetheless peculiar to women. Our struggles were different but there was no doubt that some of them might be the very same across borders, so I took into account the geographical differences as well as a difference in cultural values.
I am a 23 year old Nigerian woman, and it is expected that I should be making plans, if I haven't already, to "settle down"..in my husband's house and bare kids, and do whatever else is expected of married women. As much as I understand that none of this is bad in anyway, I have fought it in the past. Probably because we (women) are expected to be defined by our husbands. It is as if we can't be individuals in our own right, we move from being our fathers' daughters to our husbands' wives. At any point a man must claim ownership of us.
So here I am seeking balance. While I don't identify with many issues feminists in other parts of the world may be dealing with, I am stuck dealing with a few of my own that are just as peculiar to me. It is difficult for me not to see the point of wanting to fight for better opportunities for myself and other women, yet, at what cost?
Do I wish rape culture wasn't promoted by victim shaming/blaming? Yes. Do I wish more girls would have access to schools and not be denied due to the fact that they are females? Yes. Do I wish there were (stricter) penalties for rapist/child abusers, especially in Nigeria? Yes. Just how can all that, and other issues be dealt without being labelled as feminist?
One good thing that has come out of all this is my willingness to be more than just a couch-activist for women's issues. So yay, I guess.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Friday, December 6, 2013
Fear & Religion
Is religion based on fear?
Clare Carlisle: Bertrand Russell – part 3: Christian thought is itself aware of the dangers of fear – something Bertrand Russell overlooks in his critique of religion
The most powerful aspect of Bertrand Russell's critique of religious belief is his claim that religion is based on fear, and that fear breeds cruelty. His philosophical arguments against the existence of God may not touch the lives of many ordinary people, but his more psychological point about fear has to be taken seriously by all of us. In his 1927 lecture "Why I am not a Christian" – delivered to the south London branch of the National Secular Society – Russell expressed his point with characteristic clarity: "Religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things." No doubt he was preaching to the converted on this occasion.There are actually two elements to Russell's diagnosis of religion here. The first is that religious belief is a symptom of fear: aware that our lives are precarious and vulnerable, we seek the protection of a powerful deity, to comfort ourselves with an illusion of safety. The second is that fear is a symptom of religion: in particular, doctrines of punishment in both this life and the next cause ignorant believers to live in fear unnecessarily. There is little doubt that this analysis has some truth on both points; perhaps it explains quite accurately the causes and effects of religious belief in a significant number of cases. But do such cases represent religion itself, or are they a distortion of it?
We will focus here on Christianity, since this is the tradition that Russell was mainly concerned with. While Russell argues as if his rejection of fearful belief and fear-inducing dogma comes from an atheistic perspective, the Christian tradition itself contains a vigorous critique of fear. The First Letter of John, for example, puts forth the basic tenet that "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love", and suggests that fear and love are incompatible with one another: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love." In fact, Russell echoes this sentiment in a 1912 essay on "The Essence of Religion, where he writes that "fear tends more and more to be banished by love, and in all the best worship fear is wholly absent." But he did not need to appeal to any biblical text in arguing that "fear is the parent of cruelty", because it is a basic psychological fact that love is inhibited and distorted by fear.
In the 17th century, Spinoza – whom Russell described as "the noblest and the most lovable of the great philosophers" – invoked the First Letter of John to attack the persecution of non-conformists by the Dutch Reformed church. The violent dogmatism witnessed by Spinoza is exactly the sort of thing emphasised by modern atheists who claim, like Russell, that religion is a harmful force in the world. But Spinoza attacked "superstitious" forms of religious belief, which are characterised by fear, as a dangerous perversion of a purer Christian teaching found in the New Testament. Prefacing his Theological-Political Treatise with a verse from the First Letter of John, Spinoza implied that the church was failing by precisely those Christian ethical standards which it claimed as its own.
Another example of a Christian critique of fear can be found in Kierkegaard's analysis of the theological concept of sin. Traditionally, pride has been identified as the fundamental form of sinfulness, but Kierkegaard argued that human psychology is darkened by an inseparable combination of pride and fear, which both get in the way of love. This means that the Christian ideal of love requires us to battle against both pride and fear, to combine humility with courage. According to Kierkegaardian theology, fearful religion is sinful religion.
These two brief examples suggest that the Christian tradition has the resources not only to recognise the dangerous consequences of fear, but to scrutinise them closely and provide a spiritual response to them. However, this is not the sort of perspective that Russell was prepared to explore in his philosophical work. He was certainly unwilling to invoke the Christian doctrine of original sin – presumably because it was closely associated with the Victorian moralism that, to Russell's disgust, lingered long into the 20th century.
But his atheist disciples may be surprised to discover that privately Russell found some meaning in the concept of sin. In his autobiography he describes a visit in 1952 to a small Greek church, where he became aware within himself of "a sense of sin" which, to his astonishment, "powerfully affected" him in his feelings, though not in his beliefs. If Russell had followed Kierkegaard in paying more heed to such "feelings", he might have come closer to understanding that fear is a religious problem, and not just a problem with religion.
Culled from: theguardian,com: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/dec/02/bertrand-russell-philosopher-religion-fear-christian
Friday, November 15, 2013
Nagging
When you hear the word ‘nag’ or ‘nagging’ I am pretty sure the image that comes to mind is that of a woman, and why not? Women are society’s naggers. Or at least that’s what I’ve come to believe. The idea however that every nagging individual is a woman, or that men don’t nag is a rather false one which I believe many people choose to ignore because, there’s nothing that can be done about it, and, they (I’m talking about men here) are not the face of nagging otherwise something would have been done to change that.
What people fail to realize about nagging is that it’s a two way street. An article on The Wall Street Journal stated that the partner being nagged is just as much part of the problem as the partner doing the nagging. The writer goes further to say that women are more likely to nag “…largely because they are conditioned to feel more responsible for managing home and family life. And they tend to be more sensitive to early signs of problems in a relationship. When women ask for something and don't get a response, they are quicker to realize something is wrong.”
At this point I’m beginning to wonder why I can’t get a response when I ask the first time, and the article provides an answer “men are to blame, too, because they don't always give a clear answer. Sure, a husband might tune his wife out because he is annoyed; nagging can make him feel like a little boy being scolded by his mother. But many times he doesn't respond because he doesn't know the answer yet, or he knows the answer will disappoint her.”
What I’m gathering is that in a bid to prevent a bigger problem, nagged-partners choose to ignore provide unclear responses or none at all to the nagging-partners who continue to demand for responses to a point where it becomes a problem for the nagged-partners. Which begs the question, why not just answer them already?
In discussions about relationships where nagging is involved, the part the nagged-partner plays never comes up, for me this paints half a picture. It creates the illusion that the nagging-partner has some issues he/she needs to work through. What I am pretty certain about is that it has to be annoying to remind someone to do something over and over again. And I’d ask that next time we are tempted to accuse our partners of nagging, maybe we should take a second to see just how we are aiding the process.
What people fail to realize about nagging is that it’s a two way street. An article on The Wall Street Journal stated that the partner being nagged is just as much part of the problem as the partner doing the nagging. The writer goes further to say that women are more likely to nag “…largely because they are conditioned to feel more responsible for managing home and family life. And they tend to be more sensitive to early signs of problems in a relationship. When women ask for something and don't get a response, they are quicker to realize something is wrong.”
At this point I’m beginning to wonder why I can’t get a response when I ask the first time, and the article provides an answer “men are to blame, too, because they don't always give a clear answer. Sure, a husband might tune his wife out because he is annoyed; nagging can make him feel like a little boy being scolded by his mother. But many times he doesn't respond because he doesn't know the answer yet, or he knows the answer will disappoint her.”
What I’m gathering is that in a bid to prevent a bigger problem, nagged-partners choose to ignore provide unclear responses or none at all to the nagging-partners who continue to demand for responses to a point where it becomes a problem for the nagged-partners. Which begs the question, why not just answer them already?
In discussions about relationships where nagging is involved, the part the nagged-partner plays never comes up, for me this paints half a picture. It creates the illusion that the nagging-partner has some issues he/she needs to work through. What I am pretty certain about is that it has to be annoying to remind someone to do something over and over again. And I’d ask that next time we are tempted to accuse our partners of nagging, maybe we should take a second to see just how we are aiding the process.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Mind Control via Sex
This Sunday a friend of mine (who happens to be a guy) sent me this article. I LOLed at the the entire thing, especially of the second paragraph, then continued till the end. I was delightfully shocked by it, I won't even lie. I saved the link and read it first thing Monday morning, but my feelings about it had changed. I became skeptical, and the red flags started going off: STIs, unwanted pregnancies, HPV, and what have you. But something else kept replaying in my head: the thought that this is probably why, or at least one of the reasons why (some) men call us (women) devils.
It's written by a Toni Nagy. Read, and be dazzled.
Want to hear a secret? It’s a good one. Some might call it epic.
You know how, as women, we are constantly being reminded to enhance our appearance and increase our sex appeal so men will be attracted to us? How millions of straight women spend billions of dollars on clothes and beauty products to peacock around for some guy burping at the bar? How long has it been since you’ve really thought about how much time we spend waxing, manicuring, preening, primping, sometimes resorting to surgery, and wearing undergarments that treat our buttcheeks like teeth with corn stuck in them?
If you’re doing this to entrance the menfolk, will you believe me when I say you’re completely wasting your time? We already possess the key to attraction, and the door is located in the hoo-ha.
The vagina is a sorceress concocting magical potions; the hormones our pleasure box produces have a power that is being tragically overlooked. I recently watched “The Science of Sex Appeal,” a documentary explaining the influence that copulins—vaginally secreted hormones—have on men. Here I learned about one fascinating experiment, in which scientists created synthetic copulins for men to inhale.
Yes, really. Isn’t it nice to think that science took the time to both fabricate and administer cooch scent through a gas mask into the faces of male guinea pigs? I think it’s pretty nice. For one brief moment, balance was achieved in this universe.
So: while inhaling the fragrance of a woman’s front bottom, the male subjects were shown photographs of women with varying degrees of conventional beauty and asked to rate their attractiveness. The findings were remarkable. While huffing even the synthetic scent of clam dish, men were unable to discern or rank women’s beauty.
In other words, everyone’s sexy when a man’s wafting on twat.
How is it possible that this study wasn’t widely released, its results instantly becoming common knowledge among women? If ball sweat had these powers, men would not only be harnessing it and using it regularly, but also mass-producing it to yield high profit margins. It’s obviously high time I manufacture a fragrance called “L’eau de Snatch.” Smell like muff and you’ll be sure to attract men, should that be your goal.
And, it gets better. Not only does this particular scent enhance the perception of our beauty, copulins have actual mind control effects on the male brain. When a man is exposed to a woman’s copulins over time, she is eventually able to:
1) Change, remove, or insert memories
2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes
3) Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as male "ideas" or behavior later
4) Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months)
Any man still reading this may be saying to himself, “What the F? Nothing is capable of turning me into that much of a zombie.” Women, you may be saying to yourself, “How might I go about doing this?”
Here’s how. The process is called “coupling.” A man has to be inside you, but not thrusting. You lie together like puzzle pieces, and:
Perhaps you are thinking, “How do I get a guy to hang out inside me while also resisting the instinct to thrust back and forth?” Good question. You have two options.
The first is to be honest. Tell him what you are doing, make him a willing participant, and then go feed that unicorn.
The second is to be discreet and distracting. It takes time for your nectar to stream into him, so the fastest and most effective position is lady on top. My advice is to have sex but then don’t get off of him. Play it cool. Talk about upcoming global warfare, ask him to explain the rules of a sport you hate, or simply pretend to fall asleep because he was “that good.” [Ed. note: The Hairpin does not necessarily endorse the act of pouring vaginal secretion down someone's urethra to control their mind without their prior knowledge.]
After 15 minutes, the copulins have been released like a pack of wild dogs. They travel from his balls up to his hypothalamus. He is now fully susceptible.
Once a hypothalamus is flooded with copulins, the male brain is just sitting on idle, with only the bare minimum of thought process. In this state, the male is probably not thinking of anything at all, but any input from the female will become the male’s singular focus.
The implications are pretty wild. Under the influence, you can suggest acts for him to perform. I recommend staying within reach of his moral compass, but from there, the sky’s the limit. Testimonials are remarkable. Copulin-infused men not only comply with the requests of their women, but also do so happily. Men and women alike attest that “coupling” has genuinely improved their relationships.
While it’s fantastic on a micro level that men can became better partners, I can’t help but think of the bigger picture. Imagine if we get the wives, girlfriends and mistresses of male members of Congress to couple their way into some much-needed legislation getting passed in this country?
Are you ready to change the world?
Find the main article here: http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/one-weird-trick-to-control-your-boyfriends-mind
It's written by a Toni Nagy. Read, and be dazzled.
Want to hear a secret? It’s a good one. Some might call it epic.
You know how, as women, we are constantly being reminded to enhance our appearance and increase our sex appeal so men will be attracted to us? How millions of straight women spend billions of dollars on clothes and beauty products to peacock around for some guy burping at the bar? How long has it been since you’ve really thought about how much time we spend waxing, manicuring, preening, primping, sometimes resorting to surgery, and wearing undergarments that treat our buttcheeks like teeth with corn stuck in them?
If you’re doing this to entrance the menfolk, will you believe me when I say you’re completely wasting your time? We already possess the key to attraction, and the door is located in the hoo-ha.
The vagina is a sorceress concocting magical potions; the hormones our pleasure box produces have a power that is being tragically overlooked. I recently watched “The Science of Sex Appeal,” a documentary explaining the influence that copulins—vaginally secreted hormones—have on men. Here I learned about one fascinating experiment, in which scientists created synthetic copulins for men to inhale.
Yes, really. Isn’t it nice to think that science took the time to both fabricate and administer cooch scent through a gas mask into the faces of male guinea pigs? I think it’s pretty nice. For one brief moment, balance was achieved in this universe.
So: while inhaling the fragrance of a woman’s front bottom, the male subjects were shown photographs of women with varying degrees of conventional beauty and asked to rate their attractiveness. The findings were remarkable. While huffing even the synthetic scent of clam dish, men were unable to discern or rank women’s beauty.
In other words, everyone’s sexy when a man’s wafting on twat.
How is it possible that this study wasn’t widely released, its results instantly becoming common knowledge among women? If ball sweat had these powers, men would not only be harnessing it and using it regularly, but also mass-producing it to yield high profit margins. It’s obviously high time I manufacture a fragrance called “L’eau de Snatch.” Smell like muff and you’ll be sure to attract men, should that be your goal.
And, it gets better. Not only does this particular scent enhance the perception of our beauty, copulins have actual mind control effects on the male brain. When a man is exposed to a woman’s copulins over time, she is eventually able to:
1) Change, remove, or insert memories
2) Tell the male what he sees, hears, feels, smells, tastes
3) Insert subconscious thoughts that will surface as male "ideas" or behavior later
4) Plant trigger words or actions that can cause thoughts, actions, or sensations in the male at later dates (days, weeks, even months)
Any man still reading this may be saying to himself, “What the F? Nothing is capable of turning me into that much of a zombie.” Women, you may be saying to yourself, “How might I go about doing this?”
Here’s how. The process is called “coupling.” A man has to be inside you, but not thrusting. You lie together like puzzle pieces, and:
While the penile duct is being opened, the vaginal walls begin secreting a much thicker fluid, thicker even than the fluid holding the penis in place. The fluid is chemically attracted to semen. In short, the fluid enters the penis, follows the semen down the shaft and directly into the gonads. This process can take as long as fifteen minutes, and requires that the vagina produce up to and exceeding 100 milliliters (a little less than half a cup) of this fluid in order to completely fill the penile shaft and gonads. This is over twenty times as much fluid as is ejaculated by the male during sexual intercourse.Feel free to visualize this process. You’re welcome for the lovely picture of half a cup of fluid flowing down a guy’s pee-hole and nesting in his balls.
Perhaps you are thinking, “How do I get a guy to hang out inside me while also resisting the instinct to thrust back and forth?” Good question. You have two options.
The first is to be honest. Tell him what you are doing, make him a willing participant, and then go feed that unicorn.
The second is to be discreet and distracting. It takes time for your nectar to stream into him, so the fastest and most effective position is lady on top. My advice is to have sex but then don’t get off of him. Play it cool. Talk about upcoming global warfare, ask him to explain the rules of a sport you hate, or simply pretend to fall asleep because he was “that good.” [Ed. note: The Hairpin does not necessarily endorse the act of pouring vaginal secretion down someone's urethra to control their mind without their prior knowledge.]
After 15 minutes, the copulins have been released like a pack of wild dogs. They travel from his balls up to his hypothalamus. He is now fully susceptible.
Once a hypothalamus is flooded with copulins, the male brain is just sitting on idle, with only the bare minimum of thought process. In this state, the male is probably not thinking of anything at all, but any input from the female will become the male’s singular focus.
The implications are pretty wild. Under the influence, you can suggest acts for him to perform. I recommend staying within reach of his moral compass, but from there, the sky’s the limit. Testimonials are remarkable. Copulin-infused men not only comply with the requests of their women, but also do so happily. Men and women alike attest that “coupling” has genuinely improved their relationships.
While it’s fantastic on a micro level that men can became better partners, I can’t help but think of the bigger picture. Imagine if we get the wives, girlfriends and mistresses of male members of Congress to couple their way into some much-needed legislation getting passed in this country?
Are you ready to change the world?
Find the main article here: http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/one-weird-trick-to-control-your-boyfriends-mind
Friday, August 16, 2013
TED Talk: Saki Mafundikwa
Seeing as I started the day by reading about the many exploits my ancestors did, I was delighted when I stumbled on Suki Mafundikwa's TED Talk on "Ingenuity and Elegance in Ancient African Alphabets"
Nutrition: Carbs and The Carcinogenic Acrylamide
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
On Soulmates
“People think a soul mate is your perfect fit, and that's what everyone wants. But a true soul mate is a mirror, the person who shows you everything that is holding you back, the person who brings you to your own attention so you can change your life.
A true soul mate is probably the most important person you'll ever meet, because they tear down your walls and smack you awake. But to live with a soul mate forever? Nah. Too painful. Soul mates, they come into your life just to reveal another layer of yourself to you, and then leave.
A soul mates purpose is to shake you up, tear apart your ego a little bit, show you your obstacles and addictions, break your heart open so new light can get in, make you so desperate and out of control that you have to transform your life, then introduce you to your spiritual master...”-Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat, Pray, Love
First of all, I think it's weird how much I love the movie (haven't read the book), but somehow managed to miss the part where the quote above was made. Except of course it was one of those parts of the book that didn't make it to the manuscript for the movie, in which case, whew! I don't have to spend time looking for the scene where that was said.
I have put in bold the part of this quote that is of interest. Er, I love you Liz Gilbert, but I don't agree that living with your soulmate forever is too painful. For starters, why is it too painful? What's the cause of the pain? Would said pain be different from pain one might feel if they were in meaningful relationships with others who weren't necessarily their 'soulmates'? Secondly the idea that it'd be too painful live with a soulmate forever implies that individuals may have to settle for people they are less compatible with, because they can't stand the pain of being with people that actually complete them and bring forth the best in them. Excuse me, but, what? I'm not buying that.
Liz does say that soulmates are important, "a true soul mate is a mirror, the person who shows you everything that is holding you back, the person who brings you to your own attention so you can change your life. A true soul mate is probably the most important person you'll ever meet, because they tear down your walls and smack you awake" but then she goes to say it'd be a pain to stay with this person. Forever.
Maybe I just don't get her point, but in my head, a soulmate would stay forever, in spite of the pain because it's what soulmates do. They don't just get up and leave when it's not convenient for them anymore. A soulmate would not only be a catalyst for change but he/she would be a part of the process of that change, holding their partners hands and being encouraging all the way.
They are your soulmates, they must have searched their entire lives for you, and I would think that after they've found you, leaving you would be the last thing they'd want to do.
P.S
I don't even believe in soulmates. I believe many of us are blessed enough to meet people who can put up with us, and everything concerning us, good or bad. I believe that people [we] struggle with thoughts of leaving or staying with their significant other, and that some of them never leave is not an indication that they were meant to stay.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Lesley Hazleton Discusses Faith, Doubt, and Fundamentalism
I happened to stumble upon this video on the very day I was doing some reading on Muhammad and Islam. I found this quite profound, as well as informative especially the part where Muhammad contemplated suicide. He must have indeed experienced something quite out of the ordinary.
I especially love how this talk was delivered. She carefully selected her words and spoke them as if deliberately giving time for them to sink in.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Wisdom Nugget
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate"---Rick Warren
Is Love a Social Construct?: Responses from Quora
I was going through one of my favorite Tumblr blog (which happens to be a sociology blog) when I stumbled upon the discussion of whether or not love is a social construct. I read through and I found a link that led me to another discussion, on the same issue, on a site called Quora.
The following are responses I found interesting, especially the first one which I completely agree with, and which puts a lot into perspective.
Is love a social construct?
"Yes and no. There's a triggered biological reaction we call "in love" and then there's the social construction of what love means and how it unfolds. The former is largely biological. The latter is largely social.
Be careful about the cultural portrayal of romantic love in media. There's a reason why all fairy tales end in "happily ever after" but all protagonists start the story with broken families (e.g., both parents dead, divorced, step-parents). We end up with this mythical perspective of "love" that contradicts itself even in fairy tales.
The biological reaction we call love isn't designed to last. See Dorothy Tennov's book on Limerence. The biological fire often leads to irrational, emotional, drama-filled scenarios. Great for starting a relationship. Awful for sustaining it.
The problem is that the transition from burning fire to sustained warmth is something that gets much less air time. We're simply bombarded with the same media message of "fire, fire". Robert A. Johnson said it best in his book on love. We're so intoxicated by this cultural myth of fiery love that "if a direct, uncomplicated, simple relationship offers us happiness, we won’t accept it."
Many people who have difficulty with relationships have unrealistic expectations of what love is due to these media portrayals of love--i.e., they're waiting for the "perfect" person, or they want to feel fiery love all the time."--- Nick Yee, Research Scientist: Psychology of Virtual Environments
"Love is a unequivocally a physiological response. The heart palpitations, the constant flashes of that person in your mind, the "warm fuzzies"...all that is biological. If love were a social construct, then it would not appear in all cultures. But it does. Men fall head over heals for women, and vice versa from Mississippi to Mumbai."--- Rod Graham
"Helen Fisher, Biological Anthropologist and leading expert on the biology of love and attraction, gives this answer in the new issue of United Academics Magazine "Love Hurts."
"No. Romantic love is a brain system that evolved millions of years ago to drive ancestral men and women to focus their mating energy on a specific individual to start the mating process. It has specific pathways in the brain, is associated with a specific constellation of psychological traits, and is found in every society on earth.”
---Carian Thus
"Society certainly DOES tell us how to love one another and whom we should love. Just think of all the media (movies and television in particular) that present a specific kind of romance and version of love to us. This media reinforces certain ways of dating, certain types of partners, and certain ways of experiencing love that strongly influence how we approach love and what we expect from it." ---Robert JonesThis next one!!
"Love is a force of nature, it might be THE force of nature.
It certainly is not a strictly human social construct - your dog in fact really does love you. Mommy dolphins really love their baby dolphins, just like mama bears and mama wolves and mama gorillas, and other animals that will kick your ass for getting anywhere near their children.
In the same way we build physical constructions around forces of nature, we have built social constructions around the force of love. Sure, society has harnessed this force for it's own purposes, just as we use dams to harness the power of gravity and the flow of water to generate power.
Hold your baby for the 1st time. That feeling is not you being manipulated by the media. It's just as real as gravity, and just as powerful too."---Chris Keath
Find the entire discussion here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)