🚀 go-pugleaf

This is an Orange Highlighter alert.

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
		      ^^^
>Steve Reiser (reiser@pmafire.UUCP or ...!uunet!pmafire!reiser)

	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
used "person" in place of "man".


					Walt Pohl
		"alt.walt?  It has a certain ring to it, no?"

In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>		       ^^^
>
>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
>used "person" in place of "man".

"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.
God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

"Homo sapiens" would have been correct and not at all ambiguous, but
I suppose you would argue that because it translates to "wise man"
it too would have been confusing.

Sheesh - Brett
bjohnson@athena.mit.edu
bjohnson@micro.ll.mit.edu

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
>

An excellent discussion of this topic is given in Elaine Morgan's book
'Descent of Woman'.

Her conclusion is 'no', based on comparison with the truly monogamous
species.

>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>>   		       ^^^
>>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
>>used "person" in place of "man".
>
>"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.

I don't think the point was intended to be grammatical, but you're right.

>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

Get used to it.  Besides, it's not so much de-sexing as it is removing
the overwhelming "male" influence.  What's so difficult about saying
"human nature" or something?  I admit I read right over the original
sentence without alarms yelling "sexist!", and I doubt the original
post even intended to be sexist.  But women are people too, and there's
no reason to flame someone for pointing it out.

Just my humble opinion,

Craig

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
>
>With the diversity of relationship styles in modern America, I have
>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>monogamy, however many people choose serial marriages, many one lifetime
>mate, many choose to remain single, some choose homosexual
>relationships, some polygamous, etc.
> { deleted stuff about dogma, extreme opinions }
>When you look at nature in the wild, it does vary - many bird species
>are mongamous, the deer family is such that the strongest males have
>harems, chimpanzees are intereestingly as variant as humans at times
>with the same kinds of relationship problems of jealousy.
>
>Steve Reiser (reiser@pmafire.UUCP or ...!uunet!pmafire!reiser)

I think it's important not to try to assign any behavioral characteristic
(or even physical characteristic) as the 'true nature' of that species.
Your citation of different mating patterns in other animals is a good
indication of the fact that population characteristics do change over time.
This is called evolution. Without variation within (and between)
populations, evolution can not occur. So perhaps society shouldn't worry about
trying to figure out man's 'true nature', and let people experiment.
Evolution will occur, as it always has.

===============================================================================
Brian Fristensky                | "What IS the secret of life?" I asked.
Dept. of Plant Science          | "I forgot," said Sandra.
University of Manitoba          | "Protein," the bartender declared. "They 
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2  CANADA    |  found out something about protein." 
frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca          | 
Office phone:   204-474-6085    | 
FAX:            204-275-5128    | from  CAT'S CRADLE by Kurt Vonnegut
===============================================================================

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?

All this is IMO, of course.

Human beings rarely, if ever, occur as individuals in "the wild." (That
is, outside of organized, large-scale civilizations.)  Indigenous peoples
all seem to occur in clans.  These may be bands of gatherers/hunters,
agrarian villages, or nomadic tribes.  The mating customs in each of these
types of clans are probably adapted to suit their practical needs.

However, in each of these cases, the lifestyles don't change much over
the years.  Thus, individuals aren't pushed to grow and change beyond
their expected, familiar roles.  A good husband stays good as long as
he continues to behave in the ways expected of a good husband.  It may
be much easier to remain mated in a clannnish culture, whatever arrangements
are used.

Since individual humans don't have much in the way of instinct to go
by, we have to learn for ourselves what tends to work and what doesn't.
In a clannish culture, what works is probably different than what works
in a modern urban culture.  Arriving at what works in this relatively
new cultural setting is being done through trial and error.  I suspect
that in a climate of constant change, it would be much harder for
persons to stay mated for life.

The way my life seems to be going, it looks like serial monogamy might be
the best bet.

-r

In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu
(Brett W Johnson) writes:
>In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
>wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
>>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve
>>Reiser) writes:
>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>>		       ^^^
>>
>>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
>>used "person" in place of "man".
>
>"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.
>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

	Actually, what would have been suitable here would be one of
"peoples'" or "humanity's."

	What you call "feminist quibbling" is in fact a perfectly legitimate
attempt to remove discrimination.  After all, the original sentence really
does (even if that was not the intent of the poster) give first place to men
and leave women out.  The use of the masculine where neuter should go has
evolved for centuries to give supreme linguistic representation to men, and
would do so even had that not been the original intent, simply due to the
definitions of the words involved.

	By the way, of the newsgroups in the header, I only get sci.bio.  I
realize that sci.bio is not the most appropriate newsgroup for this subject,
but the issue of sexism in language is important enough that I had to
respond.

--
|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chi9@midway.uchicago.edu

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
>

I have not ever checked this out...but I have been told that human
beings are probably not naturally monogamous, and that one of the 
indicators of this is the size discrepancy between the male and
the female of the species, which is supposedly common in 
non-monogamous species.
 
Gerald

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:

|> Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
|> be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?

Both!

I think that there are several distinct biological drives that direct hyman beings into
associations with others for the purpose of procreating.  The classic "sex drive" is
probably the most overrated of those, and it is not per se monogamous.  However, there is
a totally different drive which only operates on a singly member of the opposite sex, and
which might bear the apellation "romantic love" (eg. see posting 5337).  The trouble is
that cultural institutions, legends and expectations regarding this feeling are so
pervasive in the western world that many who have not really experienced the monogamous
drive will feel peer pressure to pretend that they do and misinterpret some other drive (
I an not sure how many there are) as the "real thing".

Does this seem to correlate with other peoples' feelings about the issue?

In article <1990Oct26.182603.342@athena.mit.edu> cedar@athena.mit.edu (Walid F Nasrallah) writes:
>
>I think that there are several distinct biological drives that direct hyman beings into

And non-hymen beings.


--

In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) writes:
)In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
)>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
)>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
)>		       ^^^
)>
)>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
)>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
)>used "person" in place of "man".
)
)"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.

"begun to wonder what person's true nature really is" - is defintiely
not correct.

"begun to wonder what people's nature really is" seems a little off - 
"begun to wonder what people's nature really are" seems worse

"begun to wonder what human nature really is" is a little better, IMO.

The difference between people's nature and human nature isn't very great -
I think it boils down to a matter of personal preference here.

chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:

>In article <1990Oct25.131109.28884@athena.mit.edu> bjohnson@athena.mit.edu
>(Brett W Johnson) writes:
>>In article <1990Oct24.233638.1774@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
>>wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) writes:
>>>In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve
>>>Reiser) writes:
>>>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
>>>		       ^^^
>>>
>>>	When I read this article, at first I was confused as to whether you
>>>meant "male" or "person".  All possible ambiguity would be removed if you 
>>>used "person" in place of "man".
>>
>>"Man" is used correctly here.  "Person" would NOT have been correct.
>>God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.

>	Actually, what would have been suitable here would be one of
>"peoples'" or "humanity's."

>	What you call "feminist quibbling" is in fact a perfectly legitimate
>attempt to remove discrimination.  After all, the original sentence really
>does (even if that was not the intent of the poster) give first place to men
>and leave women out.  The use of the masculine where neuter should go has
>evolved for centuries to give supreme linguistic representation to men, and
>would do so even had that not been the original intent, simply due to the
>definitions of the words involved.

>	By the way, of the newsgroups in the header, I only get sci.bio.  I
>realize that sci.bio is not the most appropriate newsgroup for this subject,
>but the issue of sexism in language is important enough that I had to
>respond.

>--
>|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chi9@midway.uchicago.edu

I agree, women have just as much right to be non-monogamous as men.
And they DO.
                            -Rob