User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 70

  1. #51
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    I think there is considerable debate about the role she supposedly played in the early feminist movement. Why was she not a feminist?
    Only because the whole thrust of her work was to reinforce the traditional class values of the gentry. She personally never married; this was accepted, and became especially common in the Victorian era, but had nothing to do with 'feminism'.

    Feminism as a relevant movement was created by some middle and upper class women in the industrial era who wanted to do more than sit at home. In the past, they would have had a valuable social role at home, but economics was making them obsolete. They didn't like being powerless ornaments, which wasn't historically how things were for most of them, so a few of them started a movement. The lower class women already worked, and this happened without a fuss because the economy needed workers. The society accepted that middle and upper class women should be able to behave like lower class women after a bit because it helped the capitalist economy to have more workers, and it fit with the western platitudes about equal rights.

    That is the most parsimonious explanation. There is no need to complicate things by trying to say that the work of scholars caused an economic transition, rather than admitting that the only reason the scholars and activists arose and had an audience is that they were speaking to the choir. Economic needs meant that women would shift to a more useful work force role. Some feminists helped us rebalance our social and moral 'speak' to rationalize it in the educated classes before it happened. In the lower classes, they didn't have to because people weren't inhibited by that stuff since they were just trying to survive.

    If we still had an agrarian economy, it wouldn't matter one bit what scholars and activists said; women would remain in agrarian roles. If we still lived in a hunter-gatherer economy, women would have the role they are best suited to in that kind of economy, which is relatively more equal, and occasionally a bit better off. Scholars and activists reflect change; it makes no sense to think that they cause it. They are inside the system just as much as the next person, whatever they say.

    They can perhaps catalyze what is already going to happen; society can stagnate in the old modes for a long time, and then scholars can help a rapid catching up, or scholars can 'push on the door' as it opens, but the actual opening of the door has nothing to do with them.

    Given this view, why do we need to bend over backwards to make Jane Austen out to have been a feminist? There are authors who held feminist views throughout history; this doesn't mean it mattered to societal change. We would have had the women's movement in some form no matter what our intellectual history was. Just look at China. People adapt to reality, not vice versa.

    In Austen's case, she was defending the existing order against the Jacobins. She was a conservative clergyman's daughter who happened not to have married. She was a good author, so feminist scholars have a strong incentive to make her out to be on their intellectual 'side'; unfortunately, she simply wasn't. She made a few observations that they take out of context and portray as representative of a philosophy. If she lived today, she might well have been a feminist. But she didn't, and she wasn't. It's as simple as that.

    Feminists, philosophers, and other purveyors of ideas usually inflate their influence. They fail to see that ideas aren't accepted unless conditions make them useful. Conditions are dictated by many factors more important than ideas, such as technology, climate, and the nature of the economy.

    Let us suppose that someday men become useless to society economically. They will lose nearly all influence in that case. Some philosopher will justify why this is a moral state of affairs, and people will adapt. Whatever IS is what is defended. The same was true in the past for women. It would never have changed because some people didn't like it.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Not in their purest form. Quantum physics is not practical. Anyway, you're the one who said it wasn't practical; I'm only thinking of ways you could be right. I think even if philosophy is not practical it's still worth studying.
    Quantum physics is not practical? Only someone profoundly ignorant could make such a statement. It's most often religious zealots, trying to elevate their ideologies to the same standing as science, who make such ridiculous statements. We see more examples of this behavior with creationists, but you're the leftist/marxist example of religious ignorance.

    Without other people having an understanding of quantum physics (fortunately for you, this stuff works whether you believe in it or not), you would not be having this conversation over the internet. Transistors would not exist. Computer screens would not exist. Lasers would not exist. And those are just examples off the top of my head. I could make a list pages long of all the things you take for granted that would not exist if not for our understanding of "impractical" quantum physics if it was worth my time (it's not).
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #53
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    The thing is that feminism doesn't have a "definition" per se since it is a collection of theories with central principles in common. It's kind of like what science is or pseudo-science. No feminist theory will be exactly like any other, but there are a group of themes and principles which are common to most of them. There are varying degrees of overlap between any members of a set of feminist theories and sets of beliefs. Basically if I were to give a definition, what they all have in common is the belief that in the event that women are not treated as being equal in value to men that should be changed. By that definition almost everyone on here is a feminist. That's not a sufficient condition really, but it's what they all have in common. Some might say that's sufficient. People just disagree on what exactly that means and how to change it.
    Feminism is not like a science, in any way. Feminism does not start with a hypothesis and test that hypothesis in an effort to prove it wrong. Feminism is like religion. It makes a bunch of claims that are not falsifiable and ideas propagate because they are popular, not because they have been shown to be true. Actually, feminism is not just like a religion, feminism is a religion.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #54
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    On that note: the first point which I will make again, because I was not exactly aware of it until taking a class on intersectional feminism is the following. Feminism as most people think of it is mostly conceived of and practiced among middle class white women and will reflect those biases. Most criticisms directed at "feminism" are in fact aimed at this group, and sometimes rightly so. The focus on adopting masculine traits and trying to supplant men in a patriarchal system, competing with them for money and power, simply continues oppression by failing to reject the patriarchal model of hierarchy and domination. We need to reject all forms of hierarchy and domination to eliminate all forms of oppression. Second, all forms of oppression reinforce each other. Racism, classism, heterosexism, sexism, etc. are part of the same system and must all be dismantled in order to eliminate one. Third, I consider myself and ecofeminist, adding that exploitation of nature is another axis of oppression and gave rise to all the others. It is based on value-dualistic thinking, and it is this thinking which is at the root of oppression, particularly oppression of women and the feminine. I am still studying this, so I don't have all the answers, but I am certain that a correct formulation of ecofeminism could address all criticisms against feminism. Also, before you judge feminism, I would suggest reading some black feminist writers. I've always thought of myself as a feminist, but I didn't realize how different the perspectives are and how intersectionality works.
    All forms of hierarchy? So you want Ken Ham's view on science to have just as much weight as Neil deGrasse Tyson's. That's a form of hierarchy, that some people take NdGT more seriously than they take Ken Ham. You advocate equality of outcomes. That's Harrison Bergeron. Inequality is an inescapable reality in our universe. You cannot legislate it out of existence any more than you can legislate gravity out of existence.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #55
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion 4.5 View Post
    Only because the whole thrust of her work was to reinforce the traditional class values of the gentry. She personally never married; this was accepted, and became especially common in the Victorian era, but had nothing to do with 'feminism'.

    Feminism as a relevant movement was created by some middle and upper class women in the industrial era who wanted to do more than sit at home. In the past, they would have had a valuable social role at home, but economics was making them obsolete. They didn't like being powerless ornaments, which wasn't historically how things were for most of them, so a few of them started a movement. The lower class women already worked, and this happened without a fuss because the economy needed workers. The society accepted that middle and upper class women should be able to behave like lower class women after a bit because it helped the capitalist economy to have more workers, and it fit with the western platitudes about equal rights.

    That is the most parsimonious explanation. There is no need to complicate things by trying to say that the work of scholars caused an economic transition, rather than admitting that the only reason the scholars and activists arose and had an audience is that they were speaking to the choir. Economic needs meant that women would shift to a more useful work force role. Some feminists helped us rebalance our social and moral 'speak' to rationalize it in the educated classes before it happened. In the lower classes, they didn't have to because people weren't inhibited by that stuff since they were just trying to survive.

    If we still had an agrarian economy, it wouldn't matter one bit what scholars and activists said; women would remain in agrarian roles. If we still lived in a hunter-gatherer economy, women would have the role they are best suited to in that kind of economy, which is relatively more equal, and occasionally a bit better off. Scholars and activists reflect change; it makes no sense to think that they cause it. They are inside the system just as much as the next person, whatever they say.

    They can perhaps catalyze what is already going to happen; society can stagnate in the old modes for a long time, and then scholars can help a rapid catching up, or scholars can 'push on the door' as it opens, but the actual opening of the door has nothing to do with them.

    Given this view, why do we need to bend over backwards to make Jane Austen out to have been a feminist? There are authors who held feminist views throughout history; this doesn't mean it mattered to societal change. We would have had the women's movement in some form no matter what our intellectual history was. Just look at China. People adapt to reality, not vice versa.

    In Austen's case, she was defending the existing order against the Jacobins. She was a conservative clergyman's daughter who happened not to have married. She was a good author, so feminist scholars have a strong incentive to make her out to be on their intellectual 'side'; unfortunately, she simply wasn't. She made a few observations that they take out of context and portray as representative of a philosophy. If she lived today, she might well have been a feminist. But she didn't, and she wasn't. It's as simple as that.

    Feminists, philosophers, and other purveyors of ideas usually inflate their influence. They fail to see that ideas aren't accepted unless conditions make them useful. Conditions are dictated by many factors more important than ideas, such as technology, climate, and the nature of the economy.

    Let us suppose that someday men become useless to society economically. They will lose nearly all influence in that case. Some philosopher will justify why this is a moral state of affairs, and people will adapt. Whatever IS is what is defended. The same was true in the past for women. It would never have changed because some people didn't like it.
    Textbook historical materialism. The idea that people merely adapt to economic and geographical factors is historical materialism, you're presenting this as a truism, when it is, in fact, not universally accepted by political philosophers.

  6. #56
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Textbook historical materialism. The idea that people merely adapt to economic and geographical factors is historical materialism, you're presenting this as a truism, when it is, in fact, not universally accepted by political philosophers.
    Political philosophers aside, I think we should cut to the heart of any debate. I argue the following:

    1. The most parsimonious explanation of any given event is the most likely.

    2. We all accept that economics plays a role. Economics is a simple explanation which can account for most or all changes.

    3. We don't have a clear idea of how 'ideologies' would plausibly change societal structure without pre-existing economic mechanisms.

    For example, if we have a theoretical society where there is a given task (herding animals) that men seem to be much better at, we can't envision any plausible mechanism by which men and women live as equals, given that they are functionally not equals. If someone came preaching equality, that would be well and good, but in everyday life, it wouldn't be the way things worked. Thus, no one would listen.

    Thus, my explanation is simple and easy to use. Ideological explanations are not. There should be a compelling reason for us to accept a more complex explanation above a simpler one. It may exist, but I've not seen a good reason other than sentiment to reject the materialist argument in favor of vague ideological triumphalism.

    The lack of objectivity of most of those who advocate ideological causes is another reason to doubt it as a serious account. You find feminists defending feminism as a cause of change rather than a consequence or validation of change, not ideology in general.

    The same is true of religion, which will take credit for many of the same things as feminism. How are we to pick between the hundreds of competing ideologies? Lots of people 'did something' . . . how are we to select the 'One True Ideology' that brought about the change? Or maybe all of them did it in different proportions?

    Note that I'm not saying that ideology can't be a factor. It just can't be a macro-factor. Ideology can't get you from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, for example. Economics distributes technological ideas throughout the system, and this plain and simple is the best explanation for major societal changes which occur alongside major economic changes.

    Was it just a coincidence that feminism emerged in the West when it did?

  7. #57
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I get rather peeved by feminist perspectives that try to accomplish this by getting people to value so-called feminine qualities like compassion, empathy, collaboration, and the whole business of enjoying the physicality of being present in the moment. The implication is that women who don't exhibit much of these traits are bad women, or trying to be men, rather than simply being women who don't fit stereotypes of femininity. We don't achieve feminist goals by rehabilitating stereotypes; we do it by dispensing with them to let everyone be the individual he or she is.
    I understand that, but it's not really about whether these qualities are or should be inherent in women or men; they have been associated with one or the other as a social construct and as such used incorrectly. When we advocate acceptance of these qualities we advocate both women and men valuing them more (or rather not devaluing them) in themselves and others, regardless of gender. At least more enlightened people take this point of view. Some have criticized ecofeminism for being gender essentialist, and rightly so for some people. I don't hold a gender essentialist view, I just use feminine and masculine as handy categorizations to correspond to y8in and yang because most people really don't know what those mean and wouldn't make the association.

  8. #58
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Reproducibility based on observation under controlled conditions.
    Ether theory and crystalline sphere theory also fit this definition, which we agree now to be false.

  9. #59
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Ether theory and crystalline sphere theory also fit this definition, which we agree now to be false.
    @greenfairy --
    Fine, add 'judicious' use of Occam's razor (paucity of models) ;and the correspondence principle.

    I know, I know, adding judicious kills the objectivity, right?

    There's a big hairy mess of metaphysics that people skip over that I really don't feel like delving into.

    But feminism doesn't even *try* for controlled conditions...one might think of "science" not as a binary switch, but as a rheostat, so the error bars, "reliability," and or *confidence in the accuracy of* the error bars, goes up and down, the more rigor is employed.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #60
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    @greenfairy --
    Fine, add 'judicious' use of Occam's razor (paucity of models) ;and the correspondence principle.

    I know, I know, adding judicious kills the objectivity, right?

    There's a big hairy mess of metaphysics that people skip over that I really don't feel like delving into.

    But feminism doesn't even *try* for controlled conditions...one might think of "science" not as a binary switch, but as a rheostat, so the error bars, "reliability," and or *confidence in the accuracy of* the error bars, goes up and down, the more rigor is employed.
    Feminism is non-scientific. It's theory. Controlled conditions, experiments, and the scientific method, are all irrelevant. The similarity is the collective definition.

Similar Threads

  1. Early Menstruation and Teen Depression
    By Nomenclature in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 02:48 AM
  2. [MBTItm] Early thirties and direction in life
    By musttry in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 05:39 PM
  3. Feminism and WW2
    By nolla in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-22-2011, 03:08 AM
  4. Abstract and Modern Art
    By Arclight in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 01:39 PM
  5. Early education and my endless search to do the "right" thing.
    By Tigerlily in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 03:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO