Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i2ONm2m16558; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:48:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:48:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <08DF74FF.751D547D.0AB94E44@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1197] Re: Readability Formulas X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 1675 Lines: 28 Andrea: I agree with you that maleness and $$$$ are the determinants of value in a culture. However, is this an rational way of measuring and valuing things, or is it arbitrary and hegemonic? This is why I posed the example and the question. What if we don't have nuclear physisists. Possibly, nothing. I will be healthy and happy and be able to live a long and productive life. What if there are no people that raise children and care and provide quality food for them. The consequences on quality of life are more serious. Quality of life is the rhetorical inheritance of the enlightenment, positivism and capitalism. The models that governments are always espousing as ideal, ie: democracy, freedom, capitalism, etc are rhetorically grounded in quality of life. So, then why don't we compensate those things that improve our quality of life the most. Otherwise, why don't we all agree that valuations are grounded on special interests of those in power. Andres In a message dated 3/24/2004 1:01:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, AWilder106 writes: > > Andres, > > In our culture value is attached to maleness and money, the nuclear physicist would be more valued. The house"wife" is a woman and earns nothing, therefore of little value as neither male nor an earner. If she earned money at a job, the male who had a comparable job would make more money than she does. > World-wide, by gender, women are less valued, I am thinking about domestic violence, an index of value and non-value. > > You are implying that there is an informal measure of > value, namely the person who cooks food. > > Andrea > > > go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:43 EST