I don't think that women "naturally want that (all people use their full potential)", at least I do not think it is inherent to being a woman. I also do not think that women "have a tendency to defer to (men) to their own detriment" in all, and perhaps even in most situations. Finally, it is not necessary that most women inherently are "more inclusive of all". I think your statements are more near-sighted and rosy-coloured. I think that women, as a group, will continue to define themselves but that the definition is not necessary so good-natured. I have a hunch that you will bring up a litany of charges against men or patriarchal institutions. If not, then forgive me for my assumption.
I think that your mention of Afghani women is disingenious, and rather Starbuckish, ie., oh look i know the current moral fad. The topic implies women in Western states, and bringing up Afghani women, while a cute display of solidarity, misses the topic.
Jul 12 2011: His stats are only for the US and Europe. What about the death squads in Latin America, the Balkans, the killings of kurds, Palestinians, &c. Sierra Leonna, Rwanda, Congo, Uganda, Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan-Bangladesh, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, Bosnia-Serbia-Croatia, Ukraine, USSR, &c? A lot of that happened in the 20th century but his stat only mentions US and Europe.
The entire western hemisphere was cleansed and he doesn't even mention it.
Also, what about the violence of extreme poverty? I mean like pop-bottles for shoes poverty?
And what about forced displacements? Wouldn't that be a type of violence? Isn't it horrific to live in a refugee camp?
Does strike breaking, like at the Coke plants in Columbia, constitute violence? Forced labour or labour under duress like in the sweatshops? What about the dangers of mine conditions in the rest of the world, ie., not US or Europe? How about incarceration? Is that violent?
Why does he only mention a narrow definition of violence?
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: The "Glass Ceiling" Will Reverse with Women on Top and Men on the Bottom.
I don't think that women "naturally want that (all people use their full potential)", at least I do not think it is inherent to being a woman. I also do not think that women "have a tendency to defer to (men) to their own detriment" in all, and perhaps even in most situations. Finally, it is not necessary that most women inherently are "more inclusive of all". I think your statements are more near-sighted and rosy-coloured. I think that women, as a group, will continue to define themselves but that the definition is not necessary so good-natured. I have a hunch that you will bring up a litany of charges against men or patriarchal institutions. If not, then forgive me for my assumption.
I think that your mention of Afghani women is disingenious, and rather Starbuckish, ie., oh look i know the current moral fad. The topic implies women in Western states, and bringing up Afghani women, while a cute display of solidarity, misses the topic.
A comment on Talk: Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence
The entire western hemisphere was cleansed and he doesn't even mention it.
Also, what about the violence of extreme poverty? I mean like pop-bottles for shoes poverty?
And what about forced displacements? Wouldn't that be a type of violence? Isn't it horrific to live in a refugee camp?
Does strike breaking, like at the Coke plants in Columbia, constitute violence? Forced labour or labour under duress like in the sweatshops? What about the dangers of mine conditions in the rest of the world, ie., not US or Europe? How about incarceration? Is that violent?
Why does he only mention a narrow definition of violence?