I'm glad to see this thread has always been the home of intelligent discussion.
Agrees.
Also something that I've also been thinking of lately is the concept of nature vs nurture/society. I've been getting the feel lately that a lot of people have tried to argue that as much as possible is a so called "social construct", aka. society has created it, it's not natural. And I think that it has been gone too far. And that there has been less talk about what is natural or "hard-wired". I got the feel that a lot of phenomenon probably has something to do with nature, and is just as it is. And it seems to me that a lot of people who argues that everything is just "social constructs" argue like that with positivity trying to convince people that "Everything is our hands. We (humans) can do whatever we want", and trying to convince people that "society and it's norms are holding people back. Putting people in chains. And through realizing that everything are just social constructs, people can become free -and live a better and happier life". And I'd argue that that's a very naive way of thinking. And that you could as well make the argument that norms are good in making people disciplined and civilized. And that there's kind of a false vision of happiness thinking that people should break free and just live life, sort of like the hippies in the 60s, 70s and 80s. I personally feel that society should have norms, to be a well functioning society. And I think that people should also make clear about the nature part of humanity and not only think that everything are just "social constructs". I think that if you study different civilizations, you'll see various patterns between them. Pretty much proving that there's a "red line" within humanity, that there were people who worked in various industries, did politics, play music in the ancient roman times, and there are people doing the same thing nowadays. And you can see various similarities and differences. Explaining the concept of nature and society. I think that a lot of things that are considered "traditional" or "conservative" are the phenomenons that are most "attacked" by the idea that there are just "social constructs". Things like: religion, traditional gender roles, cultural traditions, concept of nation states etc.
It came to my mind when I thought about how many people are talking about the "inequality" of there being more men than women at higher posts in society (like CEO's and "Wall Street people", politicians etc.). And I've always been pro gender equality. But I do think that one reason that there being less women at higher posts has to do with that I think that men are somewhat more competitive. Throughout my life, I've been getting the feel that men are more likely to "take the first step", and maybe also are more competitive. So I think that that's a reason to it also, and I don't think it's "this evil patriarchy that has... been existing since like... the beginning of time? stone age? who knows?". But I also want to stress that I think there are advantages with there being somewhat gender equal. I think that there's a risk when there are only men that they get to cocky and just kind of dumb everyone down, like some stupid "last man standing game". So I think that it adds value that both genders are represented. I think that creates a better well functioning society, and you can also see that a lot of great societies have been having that sort of structure. Like that both men and women work and also take more fiscal responsibility, creating a good "family-like society". And I think that there are advantages if both gender also are involved in the leadership of a society.
So y, I think that people should try to both get the nature and the society part when arguing different phenomenons in society.
