Journal Com2Kid's Journal: Cultural and logical rule sets, complete revision. 13
Foreword:
This journal entry is complete second revision draft of the second section of my previous journal entry. While grammar and spelling errors where of course an issue, the main concentration was on reforming the sentence structure to reduce complexity and simplify overall reading.
----
Parents are constantly reminding their children to follow the rules. Blind obedience is not encouraged but it is demanded.
When explanations are asked by a female child as to why they have an earlier curfew then sometimes even their younger brother, instead of properly explaining that the danger to a young girl stemming from perverts and deviants out on the streets late is higher then it is for a young boy, the child is instead just told that it is "because they are female."
This lack of an intellectually fulfilling explanation can not only cause stress within the young child but it may also create a situation of artificial gender inequality which can lead to, consciously or unconsciously, a feeling superiority within the male sibling(s) of the young girl. Instead of feeling ashamed for the wrongful actions of his own gender, he instead feels like he is empowered because the females are stuck at home "just because they are female."
Without a true explanation offered up, the young child will not understand the reasons and motivations behind the parents setting forth the given rule set as it been imposed upon the child. Without this understanding the child shall have a merely limited set of choices of which to follow, consisting of either blindly following the rule set by their parents, at the expensive of increasing her own stress and anxiety level,from worrying and becoming angry over the illogicality of the rule, or the child will eventually will break the rule and possibly come to harm because they have not been properly equipped for the world by their parents. If the female does come to harm then there is a good chance that rather then seeing how their own blind obedience to the rule contributed to creating a scenario which allowed for harm to come to their own offspring. the parents will instead only think of their rule as having been validated.
Now here it is apparent that something has gone wrong, but what? Not only must we ask as to why the rule set in place, but we must also ask as to why the parents set the rules in place in such a manner as they did, with little explanation to the young girl as to the reasonings behind the rules.
It is only natural to now think that the rules must be looked into deeper for a true understanding to come from them. Without that deeper understanding commencement upon creating a true logical rule set may not take place.
Perhaps the solution which may at first glance seem easier to implement deals with why it is that the parents did not fully explain to their daughter the dangers of a young female being out late at night.
Reflection upon this question yields quite quickly that often times cultural barriers against speaking about various subject matter. It is quite unfortunate that sexual assault and rape are topics that nearly all cultures have put up barriers against talking about.
The very existence of these barriers is quite sad and unfortunate, as quite far from many parent's and culture's original intentions, not talking about such subjects can often times only make them more prevalent within a society. When children have been properly prepared to deal mentally and emotionally with the topic of sexual assault and rape, the children are able to gauge the possibility of stranger's acting in such obscene and dangerous ways into consideration when evaluating a situation
If a young girl is never told exactly why she is not let out at night, there is a goodly chance that she some day she will be out at night by herself or even within a vulnerable group of friends, but because she has not been taught to think in such terms, the young girl may not be able to properly evaluate strangers within what could be possibly dangerous situations.
Obviously in this particular case of a cultural rule, there is a strong possibility for negative results to come about.
But the exploration of this particular wide spread cultural rule is not yet complete.
Why exactly does it continue to exist, why exactly is it consciously propagated though out a society when other rule sets could create for a better overall and more efficient lively hood?
Part of the reasoning for this is the continued insistence by many cultures, both western and eastern, that females are not supposed to be sexual creatures. (I would like to note that a good part of this next section is often times also relevant for males up to a culturally predefined age as well) Along this line of thought females are either not taught at all, or are just taught as bare a minimum as possible of any thought processes that have even the barest resemblance to, or could lead, to sexual thoughts.
This creates a situation in which the female not only has been shielded from such thoughts, but has also learned from strong negative backlash to her intellectual probings, that certain thought patterns are not to be followed, thought of, or even acknowledged.
Now while in theory this may act as a very good type of barrier against certain actions, it is apparent that flaws exist within the framework. As shall be seen shortly, the main problem comes when attempts to erect these types of mental barriers are done through culturally motivated rule sets rather then through logically motivated rule sets.
Because of the lopsided unequal way in which these barriers are placed throughout and by a culture, it is often times only the females who are restricted from such thoughts. Males are either allowed, or even encouraged, to follow along such thought trails.
This creates for an highly unbalanced situation in which in nearly any given multi-gender meeting, one party has access to surface level sexual thoughts, while the same thoughts in the other party may not only just exist at a deeply buried level, but will often times be considered negative or shameful in origin by that second party, leading to even further repression and non-contemplation upon those thoughts.
By having consciousness action to their sexual thought patterns, the males have additional freedoms in their flexibility of thought and as a direct result are given additional power with which may be used to manipulate females who do not have access to those thought patterns.
The females by contrast may not even be aware of the on going thoughts of the male, and will not be able to recognize any early warnings pointing towards a male being one who may attempt to take harmful actions towards her.
Combined with the earlier noted culturally placed taboo topics of discussion, all of this can quickly lead to the end result of the males being able to commit serious physical and psychological harm against the females without the females being able to retaliate in any way. The culture itself commits even further harm to the young girl by denying the female any release from her painful thoughts that the culture itself has, both directly, and indirectly through its male cohorts, inflicted upon her and effectively trapped within side of her. Not only this but the culture will also likely see the harm that comes to the female as not only proof that their rule sets must be imposed and followed, but that even further restrictions and limitations should be placed upon the female in order to prevent such harm from occurring to young girls again. In effect the cultural mass as a whole, through their very attempts to protect the female, are in fact doing her great harm.
From this deepened perspective it also becomes quite apparent that the efforts of the parental units to protect the female from harm by the rule sets imposed on to her and the (lack of) explanations of those rule sets, are in of themselves, regardless of any blame which is to be directed towards the mass cultural grouping as a whole, creating the potential for possible harm of the female.
A logical rule set would have worked towards the ends of imposing the same strictures upon both genders, while taking into consideration the inherent thought pattern differences that exist between the two genders. It is through the creation of a situation in which sexual thoughts present in both parties exist in at least a moderate submerged level within the consciousness, that scenarios which could allow for harm through sexual assault and rape may be prevented.
Now an alternative logical rule set that could be said to go even one level deeper is creating understanding within each person of their emotional, instinctive, and bio-chemical responses to situations that may occur.
Through complete scientific and logical understandings of their own bodies and minds, and the bodies and minds of others, a person is able to fully grasp all that which is occurring within them, and then take the first steps towards control over who they are.
Unfortunately this methodology has been corrupted by western thought. While mandates of bestowing complete knowledge upon our youth have been passed, unfortunately the necessary cultural climate of parental raising and explanation of sexual morals, and the application of proper social pressure by those within and outside of the family household, have yet to be created. Parents rarely explain to their male children the long term psychological pain and suffering that the male can bring to a female through impregnation, sexual assault and rape, and as a further mis-fortune to society, when many males to find out about the pain that they can bring to others through abusive sexual actions, the causing of that pain has not been presented to them in a negative light and as such some may take revelry or pleasure in the causing of that pain to others.
Obviously in these cases it can be seen that purely logically created rule sets can result in equally disastrous and painful results as their culturally motivated counterparts if the logically motivated rule sets are not carried out to their logical forefront.
In this regard it may be said that independent of if a rule set is created based upon logical or cultural bounds, if the rule set is not followed out to its logical conclusion the chances of negative actions counter intentive to the original rule set may actually be strengthened.
But it may further be extrapolated that by the very action of being carried out to its furthest most logical bounds, that a culturally created rule set will in itself be remade into a nearly pure form logical rule set, as it is only through complete logical dissertation of the rule set and the underlying motivations and thought patterns of the culture that created the rule set and the individuals that enforce the rule set, that the rule set itself be carried out to those logical bounds.
Responses are of course more then welcome.
---
Afterward;
This version of this write-up has had removed from it all personal stories and references. For a journal entry which is more slanted towards how I was raised and what my own family believes in, please read the journal entry occurring previous to this one.
Paper grading overview: D+ (Score:1)
- Learn and use the correct forms of "than" and "afterword". Spellcheck.com is not a cure-all for your grammatical woes.
- Trim it down a bit. As it is, you successfully test and defeat my patience.
As it stands, I can give you no more than a D+. I can only hope future drafts improve this.Re:Paper grading overview: D+ (Score:1)
The word "afterword" is used to refer to that which is still within the main topical category of the piece which it follows.
In this instance, "afterward" is correctly used.
Trim it down a bit. As it is, you successfully test and defeat my patience.
It is barely three pages, stop whining you pussy. I have written thirty page reports, your meager complaints suggest that maybe you need the prescription for your bifocals adjusted. Either that or a new computer monitor, if you are doing paper grading online, I suggest that you purchase an LCD screen to alleviate any eye strain which you may be experiencing.
Re:Paper grading overview: D+ (Score:1)
[*1}"Malfunctional" is about the only useful conjugation of "malfunction" that exists, be it a real word or not.
What language do you speak? (Score:1)
No. Afterward is an adverb [dictionary.com] meaning "subsequently" or "next". Afterword is a noun [dictionary.com] meaning "epilogue". You're using it as a section header, which would be a noun.
Regarding your other comment, why would you make up the word "malfunctional" when the perfectly good (and real) word "malfunctioning" already exists?
Re:What language do you speak? (Score:1)
Because I did not think of malfunctioning until later.
Grading graded: F (Score:1)
The grading completely ignores the substantive issues explored in the paper. Are they persuasive? Are they fair? This lack indicates that the grader is mostly interested in mindless pedantry rather than actual constructive criticism. As such, the grading is completely worthless. F
Re:Minor mistakes I caught (Score:1)
They are NOT pronounced the same.
Sorry, lack of specificity lost me (Score:2)
'Kids' and 'children' can mean all sorts of different things. The idea that a child of 2 needs choices and rational thoughts to justify (for example) touching a hot stove is absurd. Or to explain why he goes to the bathroom with daddy, but his sister with mommy (in a public place). You do it because.
The other possibility is that you think I'm wrong. At that point I'll just say: you don't have a child.
I believe I'm backed by the science. There are many texts available on cognitive development. Essentially, children don't have certain reasoning abilities at certain ages.
But I will grant you a few things (and since I didn't read in depth because you weren't specific enough for my tastes, I may be missing the point. Trust me, I'm going to reread, and get through this, but I'll be applying my best judgement in places I find ambiguous). First, it is entirely possible to have created various stereotypical thoughts in children, even before they are capable of reasoning. Second, it's detrimental for all involved.
(Hell, opened up a window to recheck something. Let me try to do a bit more analysis. But let me state that without having the question you were asked or are trying to answer in front of me, it's hard to tell if you are hitting the point.)
It would help to investigate how often this sort of treatment leads to feelings of shame. Does it always happen? Certainly these 'explanations' don't occur in a vacuum. Is it the explanation by itself, or something else in the environment?
(Much snipped)
Again, a complete understanding is not necessary for many things at many ages. Things aren't quite so pat. I think it is particularly in this section where the lack of specificity lets you down. The section I cut is an interesting example. But is it indicative of a general rule, or merely an example contrived to buttress your point? Or, depending on the audience, it could be personal enough to drive the point home.
She was 4 years old when the rule was mentioned. She wasn't capable of understanding the consequences. The parents gave that reasoning for expediency and to avoid oversexualizing a four year old, which has other consequences that are better documented. If she was 8, 12, etc.... I'd question it. It seems that the answer to the broader question you pose is: the parents didn't 'think' about being a parent, they merely reacted or parroted long held beliefs.
You haven't built a good case for implying negative backlash (feedback would be a better term, IMHO).
It's all about tradeoffs. Like I said, I haven't read through this all the way yet. I hope you wind up proposing a workable alternative. Finding fault or problem is easy. Finding a solution is where true genius lies.
Picking a particular culture to analyze in the piece may help bring focus. I would also question the comments made in this quoted section, in light of MTV and generally changing mores (sp?) over the past 40 years in the US.
I'll leave it to your female readers to decide if your statements are just as chauvinistic as those you deride. Your choice of words like 'may' and 'often' really begin to show weakness here.
I would also implore you to look at biological differences in mating, and not forget that males and females are hardwired to look at and think about sex in different ways and to value different qualities. And do these differences form the core of thinking about 'appropriate' sexual thoughts for men and women?
Some would say that men are burdened by 'constantly thinking about sex'. Not me, but some.
I'm sure the philosophers, biologists, theologians, psychologists, etc. would agree with your statement. However, the 'truth' seems quite relative with respect to understanding of the body and mind of another. At the very least, you would have to explain what you mean by 'understanding'.
Some would argue that the traditional arbiters of this, women, have relinquished that role with their newfound sexual freedom.
You would also have to explain why rape is not logical for a man. (Ladies and gentlemen, simmer down.) What is the ultimate goal of your set of social ruleset? If it is to keep the species alive, rape is a possible way to do this. If it's something else, you'll have to tell me (or whomever the audience of the piece is). You would also have to explain why we shouldn't hurt people. I mean, big fuckin' deal. You may not like it if I hurt your mother/daughter/wife but why should an entire social system be predicated on that?
Or if the logical end is pointless, stupid, etc. What is the end you wish to meet by changing the means? And not the ruleset, I mean the ultimate goal.
Would that it were possible to take this kind of time. By the time you figure it out, and get all of mankind to agree with you, I doubt your little swimmers will be able to propagate.
That's the end of the paragraph by paragraph. I won't call it an analysis or a rebuttal. Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough there to warrant either of those. If this is the proper length, you need to tighten your focus. Given the amount of time spent on sexual issues, that's where you should lean. But even that is a broad topic, given the space constraints.
In Economics, once you have a model, the first thing you attack is the 'assumptions' going into it. That's where I'm inclined to go. But you haven't given enough of those assumptions. I've mentioned them, but to reiterate: what is the ultimate goal of a logical system? Is there a universal system?
Anyway, I should have been in bed 30 minutes ago. If this is for class or something, I hope you can find some useful critique of technique, style, and content.
Re:Sorry, lack of specificity lost me (Score:1)
Well yes, but I am assuming that a child who is asking to stay out late at night is older then 2 or 3 years old.
I guess I forgot that many people do not share my viewpoint that anybody under the age of 18 is a child. ^_^
One of the sort of mini-summaries that I make within the middle of the paper states that I believe that the situation is self occuring. I quote:
The culture over time builds up its own incorrect viewpoint of the situation, a sort of feedback loop.
I would raise a lot more questions if I 4 year old was seeking to go out partying late at night or some such other activity.
Hehe, hey, I said that!!!
and that is followed up by about a page and a half of exploration into why cultures encourage such blind placement of rule sets.
Yah I was worried about that one, err, heh, truthfuly I was just kind of hoping to fill that section with emotionaly loaded words and hope that people took it without thinking to much about it.
Hehe, you definantly did not read through it all.
Anything but the . . . .
Heh. I am sure that you have, err. . . . guessed. . . . as to my opinion of people who follow along that cultural trail. . . . (yah, err, uh, I refuse to watch anything that glorified sex drugs and violence. . . . icky disgusting stuff. . . . err, but mass cultural brainwashing of a population into Fucking Anything With A Hole In It(tm) is a whole seperate journal entry. ^_^ )
I was trying to avoid that by the use of . . . .
Mentioned by
Bio-chem proccesses with their inheriant relationships to psychological happenings within the human mind. You know my school of thought, every thought has a bio-chem origin.
Hahahhahahhahahhaa, oh man, that is an EASY one!!! LOL!!!! Sorry man, just waaaay too easy to answer. ^_^
Because for survival the human species has relied upon the system of passing down knowledge from one generation to the next. Long term dual parenting scenarios have shown to, on average, increase the success rate of the next generation that has come forth from those pairings. This has made out to be both evolutionary and is backed by scientific data showing that corrolation.
In otherwords, sure you can begot children left and right, but the odds of your children SUCCEEDING are HIGHLY reduced, and this was even more so true back before the term "social programs" even existed at all.
Long term survival of an individual's genetic makeup, which is directly linked to the general survival of the species at a whole, is linked to the children being raised as best as possible.
Which, is, as previously stated, best accomplished through both a mother and a father being there to provide for the child.
Was I redundent enough? hehehehe. Sorry I just like doing that from time to time, see how many paragraphs I can go on for saying the same darn thing over and over and over again. ^_^
Hehe. Also handled.
Hehe, I wrote it in about 2 hours just for the heck of it, kind of came out of another journal entry I was doing, and then I revised it in another two hours. ^_^
Err, sorry, but classes start tomarrow, I am not spellchecking this thing, hehe,
zzZzZzz
---tired And doing tech support over phone right now. ^_^
Re:Sorry, lack of specificity lost me (Score:2)
And I also hope you can figure out that I was frequently playing devil's advocate whilst looking at it. Glad that you were thinking about the questions I had, even if no explicit in the actual writing.