Boys and Girls in Space

Wow, Brad, you raised too many issues to even begin to cover, but
maybe the point has been made, that we must think about these
issues.

I hope that there will be support for the side that believes in
sexual purity, as defined by the elevation of sexual activity to a
spiritual as well as physical event between a man and woman in the
service of the creation of new life, with related restriction of
sexual activity for other reasons like personal pleasure, and also
with related appreciation of the roles that go with the natural, un-
tech-assisted, bodies of men and women. Real respect for those roles
and no intention of blending them. (This is all as taught by the
catechism of the Catholic Church. It means no gay sex, no private
masturbatory sex, no out-of-wedlock-yes-wedlock-heterosexual sex,
yes, all that. Pretty horny society, hey? Could you imagine that
might not be a bad thing?)

To me, that formula means that the very highest ideal life possible
for women is on the playing table for your consideration. Really
it's a great deal for women if only it were really lived.

Women would be have to be well educated, the first bone of
contention, the first difference, as Brad alluded to, unlike in many
societies and very unlike muslimism at least as practiced. Why is
this? Because the product of her body, her offspring, earns an
incredibly high individual respect, is the purpose, the reason for
all sexual activity, may not be killed for any reason, even by her,
and second, because she is the best person to nurture her offspring
for their first years, she must be well educated. (This high value
on the individual and their rights is part of the catechism of the
Catholic Church and was part of the European ideal until very
recently.) When human life is held as sacred, and when the logical
deductions are drawn from that equation so that social practice is
actually affected, women's treatment is incredibly enhanced.

Of course, this hardly ever happens, that social practice is
actually affected in a society that thus gives only lip service to
the ideal. The ideal is usually deformed, as in the elevated
treatment of comfortable southern white ladies and the often
heartless treatment of the poor woman, black and white.

But it is my own belief that economic pressures in contradiction to
the ideal are the cause of this inequal application. Specifically,
there is often no positive economic value to the individual child
matching the philosophic value given by the prevalent social norm in
a Christian society, in a society that tries to apply Christian
values.

But what if suddenly every individual child were really economically
valued? Man, would things change for kids and for women, too. And we
have every reason to think that could be true once mankind has
passed the barrier for life off the planet. We have every reason to
think that we will have seen the end of unemployment. The only
limitation to human comfort--I mean the end of poverty and the
discomfort of poverty--would be population.

When this ideal is deformed, when bullshit rules and women get to do
all the baby having and baby raising and have to do all the work in
society, too, and cannot even fully participate in all the decision-
making but must trust to men to do more in this regard as well as
heavy lifting--then this ideal is hell on earth. It is the ideal
deformed that cause women to turn to feminism.

But when the ideal is lived, it is perfect for women and is really
what most women want even when measured by secular organs like a
Cosmo survey (that is, a life long monogamous marriage, with kids,
ability to stay home with the kids when they are little with no
threat to economic security, good education and ability to work when
kids are in good schools).

I know, the ideal has never been lived. But the conditions on Earth
have never been exactly economically right. Maybe they won't be
right for all kids and women in all locations, all the time, when we
break into the high frontier, either. But there seems a chance. And
if so, this ideal, this Christian (not Muslim, not Hindu, not
tribal) ideal, is the best yet. I hope that side wins. Yes, I am
defining Christian as covered in the Catholic Church's catechism and
not Reformist distortians.

So Brad and I differ on a couple things, but maybe not in the long
run. Time will tell.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>
> > > I wonder what it will take to get boys and girls together
again in
> > > the baby-making business.
> >
> >A glance at teen pregnancy statistics suggest that they never got
out
> >of that business. Calm down everybody. It isn't like NOBODY EVER
> >HAS BABIES.
> >
> > > I wonder if we're too far down the road already.
> >
> >See above.
> >
> > > If so, you can forget the space colony. All the tech talk is
just
> > > jerking off,
> >
> >First off, a little jerking off never hurt anybody. Second,
without
> >the tech, no amount of babies will get us out of the gravity well.
> >Rockets and tethers and electro... AH! AH! OH! electromagnetic
> >launchers get us out of the gravity well.
> >
> > > in spite of of those test tube uterus fantasies.
> >
> >So are you saying that somehow the uterus is so "special" that no
> >mere machine could do it? Ever? I believe that used to be said
> >about the heart.
> >
> Guys I think I see where Jan is going, and a lot of people are
missing her
> point. Technology may some day replace the physical aspects of
> reproduction, but gestation and delivery are just the beginning.
Yes people
> are reproducing like rabbits today. But are they RAISING
children? Are
> they producing responsible adults, or just stamping out more whiny
adults
> with the personality of a 4-year-old? I do think this is a topic
for
> Spacesettlers.
>
> While it may be true that a little jerking off never hurt anybody,
a nation
> of 10 million porn addicts tends to change society, and not for
the better.
> I'm not a preacher; recovering addict is more like it. But I
think guys who
> demand their rights in this regard should remember the old phrase,
your
> right to swing your fist stops just short of the other guy's nose.
>
> Ok, say you just got a letter in the mail from Kofi Annan,
announcing that
> you had been put in charge of designing a successful human society
that
> would lift people up, all people, bring them to their full
potential. The
> UN will commit its full resources to assure that your social
design will
> stand for 500 years, or until it collapses in failure. And the
first thing
> you write on your new letterhead is "Free Porn for All." But
think a
> second. The more men are swept up in fantasies of women of
physical
> perfection and unrealistic personalities, the more the real women
around
> them everyday seem worthless, insignificant and demanding. An
awful lot of
> living, interacting and learning from social experience is being
replaced by
> hours of fun with joysticks.
>
> Meanwhile young women, who in their drive for a mate or a date
want to do
> what pleases, are faced with simultaneously perfecting their
appearance and
> suppressing any part of their personality that might give offense
to these
> hypnotized guys. Not only are most gals unlikely to reach the
physical
> perfection that will make them even visible to men, they're
stunting their
> psychological growth by denying who they are on the inside.
Sanding off the
> interesting edges of young women's personalities to make them
easier to
> handle is really a form of amputation. I fear for my quirky,
funny
> 13-year-old daughter, when she faces that choice.
>
> Now nobody is advocating making yanking your wankie a crime. But
Jan's
> point, I think, is that the skills of childrearing, working
together with a
> mate and nurturing young minds may be "too far down the road
already," and
> that lives of instant gratification, vapid surface perfection and
relative
> isolation from human interaction are stunting psychological growth
of much
> of the current generation of young adults.
>
> One place where Jan and I differ is in gender roles. If somebody
had tried
> to force my parents into roles of housewife, breadwinner,
disciplinarian,
> etc., based on their reproductive morphology, my family would have
> self-destructed long ago. And many of you have known someone who
was an
> "absentee father" or "unskilled as a mother" or a "failure as a
> breadwinner." I think the social revolutions of the past 50 years
have had
> the unintended side effect of allowing nurturing men hard-charging
career
> women to be less ashamed of their natural talents. Guys who are
gentle men
> as well as gentlemen don't have worry quite so much about being
embarassed
> into being wife-beating, beer swilling callous tools. The
traditional roles
> of family members that she talks about may have come to rest in
> non-traditional places, as people's talents allow. If it has
always taken a
> village to raise a child, part of the reason may be that a village
is large
> enough to give rise to a few truly talented parents and
breadwinners, and
> yet small enough for them (whatever their sex) to become known and
> appreciated.
>
> So what social structure would I recommend for orbital habitat
societies?
> Maybe more people trained in early childhood education, making
preschools
> more than just warehouses, subtly keeping the children separate
from the
> sybarites, child protective agencies that have some science and
some legal
> muscle on their side, real financial assistance for foster parents
and good
> school teachers. All sound investments in the future. Also
making
> discussions about porn versus reality a little more open and
honest. But is
> this all too new-wave? Are the only successful strategies for
child-rearing
> going away with Mother Goose, spanking and safe flower-carpeted
hillsides?
> Personally I doubt it, but a case could be made. What do you
think?