Archie comics CEO being sued for calling employees "penis"

[Dave_Baxter]

@sprocket

Most cultures use a base 10 number system (there are probably some exceptions). We agree on the fact that any culture could come up with arbitrary numeric systems, e.g., base 43. Would you say that the traditional choice of a number system is purely cultural / coincidental?

First off, I don’t think anything is coincidental. Culture is certainly not synonymous with coincidental. Why do you make that comparison?

There is plenty of evidence that cultures, especially early in their formation, did not use base-10 as prevalently as you’re claiming. The French used base-20, as did the Scottish and Gaelic, Chinese units of weight are base-16 (though other Chinese measures are base-10), and Latin was originally base-20, Babylonians base-60. So it wasn’t that cultures - all on their own - decided to use base-10, but rather a homogenization effect occurred when other cultures that DID use base-10 imposed their will on others, either aggressively (the Spanish forcibly ridding the Mayans of their base-20 system) or benignly (through the need for unified system of commerce between cultures)

@sprocket

Most cultures organize in family units according to kinship relations. There have been some exception (e.g., to some extent a Kibbutz). Would you say the fact that we organize in this way is purely cultural / coincidental?

I simply don’t know enough about this one to have an educated opinion. So I can’t say one way or the other until I do. All I can say is an educated guess: we’re a tribal species, by nature, and so I suppose kinship were the first “groups” of people aka “cultures” before larger cultures were able to be formed. Once we formed them, though, we had the ability to change this if we cared to. Why didn’t we? My argument: because it served the people in power. Even in cultures where the family unit tends to be matriarchal, these are cultures that are patriarchal outside of the family, which suggests that the family was the one cultural space the men decided the women could exert power without contesting their control of the larger social, economic or political spheres. And this proves to be trues in most cultures: having influence on the family unit does not translate directly to cultural power. Sometime it can be indirect, if the woman is clever enough (scheming to place sons on thrones), but it does not directly offer this influence.

@sprocket

In most cultures, women tend to take on a stronger role in childcare and warriors tend to be men. Do you think this is purely cultural / coincidental? Clearly one can imagine a culture where positions are reversed.

Part of this is answered above (the family being the one space where women were allowed power of any kind preserves the economic and political power of the patriarchy). Further, warriors were rarely powerless within the politics of culture as well. In most cases, whoever controlled the army wielded the greatest influence. Allowing women to childrear does not offer any cultural power. Being a warrior absolutely does.

I understand that you’d argue there was a natural difference in physical prowess between men and women, but this does not explain why one grants cultural influence and the other does not. Discrimination, on the other hand, does.

@sprocket

Most sufficiently large cultures develop some basic form market economy. Would you say that the this is purely cultural / coincidental?

I’m pretty sure no market economies existed until cultures were very much pouring through one another. These were not established within single cultures but as responses to cultures encountering one another. The fact that market economies exist through many economies, when it was created during a time of heavy economic exchange between cultures, makes perfect sense. And, again, in cases of economy, it’s often the case that powerful economies can force their system onto weaker economies. Again, a form of oppression, not independent development.

@sprocket

Just because you can explain the status quo and how it came about as a more likely alternative to other systems, doesn’t mean you are justifying it. I understand that we have a base 10 system because we have ten fingers. Just because I know the explanation doesn’t mean I’m justifying it, far from it, I think base 2 is much better for many purposes. Again, I’m with you in your political beliefs. I just think the justifications for your beliefs are confused.

Almost. Again, the ten finger thing isn’t the whole truth, far from it - oppression (both aggressive and benign) caused the homogenization of number systems into base-10 standard far more than ten fingers ever did.

But more to the point: the element of my argument both jsroberts and yourself are missing is that a natural difference does not have to equal cultural disparity/disadvantage, only a difference. Taking your own example, women as warriors - the problem is not that women aren’t warriors in most cultures; the problem is that not being a warrior puts them at a cultural disadvantage from a social, economic, and political standpoint (social, economic, and political has been my definition of cultural from the very start, I’ve stated this numerous times, not changing anything here).

So take an inverse example to the situation in your own home country: let’s say men were forced to enlist and women were not allowed to enlist at all. But let’s say men who enlisted actually got better pay, better jobs when they were done, and better social standing. If that were true, then not letting women enlist would be discrimination, not because women should be warriors, but because in this culture warriors are given advantages that should not be denied women. By lumping these advantages in with “being a warrior”, something that is entirely unnecessary, it is active discrimination against women. Do you see?

@sprocket

So we agree that women’s situation in today’s workplace is not justified. Do you think there is an explanation though, or do you think it is a complete accident of history that things turned roughly the way they did? If the latter, how certain are you and how do you justify this belief? Don’t you think we should figure out exactly how and why things have historically tended towards “the patriarchy”, so we can figure out how to avoid it in the future? Or would you consider such speculation to be immoral?

Immoral? What? Why would I think that?

You’ve lost me a little bit with this last paragraph. I think you’re attributing too many motives and beliefs to me that I don’t have. I don’t think anything is an “accident of history”, no. Probably not even one single thing. I think everything is an active decision made by those in power at any given time. I think men having physical superiority over women made them natural oppressors (I know that’s a loaded word, but it’s also true if you take it in an unemotional way) to begin with. Once any group is in power, they shape culture to reflect their needs and to keep influence and cultural power. None of that is accidental. But it is a whole lot of oppression.