Womyn and Philosophy

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Tue May 17, 2016 10:15 pm

You have outlined the reason for failure. What more is to be discussed?

User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

The Cave Allegory

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand » Sun May 22, 2016 4:24 am

Image
Nick wrote:This is the first time I've ever heard discussing Plato's cave and Simone Weil's dedication to the pursuit of conscious experiential truth as preaching. Yet the idea of living blind is really the same. Plato's cave and the World described by Jesus are the same. I maintain and will always maintain until shown why I'm in error that the goals of Western civilization which include freedom and individuality are impossible without the influence of the essence of religion. I guess you can call this preaching. My interest now concerns the future of America. John Adams explains the situation:
Well, perhaps it won't be the last! Richard Weaver wrote that 'speech is sermonic'. All speech is rhetoric, and the nature and purpose of rhetoric is to influence, to win over, to convince. Yet to have a rhetorical position requires a philosophical position: rhetoric has to give emotive form to substance.

Plato's Cave and 'the World described by Jesus' as the same is too easy a claim. It inclines too easily to prefabricated ideas and opinions. In any case, the salvation experience of Jesus is by definition quite rare - despite any claims to the contrary by the Billy Graham set. Additionally, there is a cogent oppositional position to Roman Christianity and to many and perhaps the majority of Christian forms now operating, as well as what might be called a New Pagan opposition which is non-Christian and Christian-opposed (and for good reasons). Bowden is in this category as a 'Nietzschean'.

So, it could just as easily and facilely be argued that 'the cave' is that of Christendom-as-condition, or a specific Christian ineptitude or lack of vision, or Christianity as the sentimental engine behind flaccid forms of liberalism and the phenomenon of the hyper-liberal SJW. It seems to me that if you are going to float the notion of obscurantism (to be trapped in narrow or obscurantist views of reality) one must remain open to following the lines of thought where they may lead. Plato was more a fascist than you seem willing to understand. It is quite possible that his vision of illumination and that of the modern understanding of Jesus' 'heaven on earth are substantially different.

I would say that what we do not need is hysterics like Simone Weil but rather realists like Lothrop Stoddard. Essentially, I have made an anti-Christian statement of faith! (I think that Christianity - across the board - needs a radical revision).
_______________

The selection included is from T.Z. Lavine's 'From Socrates to Sartre'. She's pretty lucid.

Ansiktsburk
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Ansiktsburk » Sun May 22, 2016 11:33 am

I'm diving right into this thread, I can see that you are quarelling about something, please continue, I will just comment on the thread start:

Women has nothing to do with it. Google up all the big guys. What you will find is that they all, except maybe Kant, came from RICH families. And yeah, in the rich families the gurlz was supposed to play the piano and become nice wifes.

The rich thing still remains. Noone without upper class connections say 4 generations back will seriously study philosophy. Because you cannot get a "proper job" from being a philosopher. The guys who goes to university studying Philosophy (or history, aestetics or whatever) are offspring of money. Even if you dress up like a junkie and live in a shabby block-of-flats.

Nowadays, I think I see, at least in my home country, that there is a reasonable percentage of women at the philosophical institutions, and making statements as academic philosophers in the media.

I cannot really see anything that should keep women out of philosophy. Maybe the way we raise our daughters, to be social creatures rather than individuals, philosophy is still pretty much taking place inside ones brain. In forums like this, it seems that there are quite few females, but that goes for most forums that handles a specific topic, rather than stands out as being a "social media".

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Throng » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:43 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote: 6. Some other option(s) I am missing…
Duh yeah the most obvious one.
Women have been seen for most of history as chattel. And right up to very recent times they have no enjoyed equality of opportunity. Men treat them as potential mates on sight. And in all areas of human society traditionally dominated by men women have to be more than brilliant to overcome that historical inertia.

The way you spell "womyn" is just another piece of evidence that you are incapable of talking women seriously. Why you are puzzled that women are smarter than you is in itself puzzling.

I am pleased to know many women who could unpack your ridiculous bit of flim-flam and have you for breakfast, but you'd probably be too stupid to see past their tits.
At least one female professor at the University I attend uses the word 'womyn', and I'm positive that she takes womyn seriously. 'Womyn' is a discursive strategy to undermine the Biblical notion of a man (Adam) naming her 'woman' because she is 'part of man'. It is this very long tradition that situates 'women' as secondary to men that undermines the female position in the social imagination. "Womyn" is a symbol which implies that a female can articulate herself, rather than being 'named by man'.

I think this also has bearing in philosophy, as the history from Socrates, Plato etc etc etc, is a masculine discourse associated with truth and wisdom, and in the same historical perspective, if we use the social position of women at Plato's time as a example, women are not thinkers - they are not 'their own person'.

In the 'creation stories' of both Western religious and secular philosophical thought, there was Pandora who couldn't resist the temptation of opening her notorious box and bring ills upon mankind forever, and there was Eve who, tempted by Satan's snake, brought to unknowing Adam the forbidden fruit. The beauty of a woman as man perceives her makes her irresistable, so where the devil can not tempt man into degeneracy from God(s), a woman can, so our cultural legends situate women as both easily tempted and as 'the temptress'. Feminine beauty then, because it is so mesmerisingly wonderful to the male gaze, is horrific by the same token as the very thing that is mans undoing. We see this reflected in cultures. For example, the veil is used to conceal from men the beauty so horrific that it tempts them into impurity. This 'truth of the monster' might also be read into the contemporary Western womyn who applies makeup to conceal her 'true face of horror' in order to appear deceptively attractive. I think the legend of Medusa expresses it well. Her open displaying of her beauty and self admiration is blamed for her being raped by Poseidon in Athena's temple of the virgin. She was cursed by Athena, not to ugliness, but to a beauty so tempting to men, that when gazed upon, would turn them into stone. Such a fearful beauty...

If we use this as metaphor to represent 'the beautiful mind', what man may hear as 'knowledge' from the sweet lips of femme fatale could be likened to gentle whisper of Eve as she had Adam partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Perhaps this discursive symbol, 'womyn', also suggests that a womyn undertaking philosophy is expected to 'represent' womyn, and her agenda is perceived to be feminist. We must accept that 'womyn', is itself a feminist discursive strategy that conveys meaning beyond referring to the female form. We see here, too, that 'female' implies not-male more than represents a person who can be known without reference to a dominant sex. Since philosophy is a 'deep' pursuit, one can not over look the deep roots of the social narrative that represents the deeper fundamentals of the social imaginary within which womyn have no voice but through men because they are somehow mere, as his part.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:45 pm

Throng wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote: 6. Some other option(s) I am missing…
Duh yeah the most obvious one.
Women have been seen for most of history as chattel. And right up to very recent times they have no enjoyed equality of opportunity. Men treat them as potential mates on sight. And in all areas of human society traditionally dominated by men women have to be more than brilliant to overcome that historical inertia.

The way you spell "womyn" is just another piece of evidence that you are incapable of talking women seriously. Why you are puzzled that women are smarter than you is in itself puzzling.

I am pleased to know many women who could unpack your ridiculous bit of flim-flam and have you for breakfast, but you'd probably be too stupid to see past their tits.
At least one female professor at the University I attend uses the word 'womyn', and I'm positive that she takes womyn seriously. 'Womyn' is a discursive strategy to undermine the Biblical notion of a man (Adam) naming her 'woman' because she is 'part of man'. It is this very long tradition that situates 'women' as secondary to men that undermines the female position in the social imagination. "Womyn" is a symbol which implies that a female can articulate herself, rather than being 'named by man'.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I addressed these comments to the person using the term "womyn", not some professor. And my comments were apt and accurate for the discussion.


I think this also has bearing in philosophy, as the history from Socrates, Plato etc etc etc, is a masculine discourse associated with truth and wisdom, and in the same historical perspective, if we use the social position of women at Plato's time as a example, women are not thinkers - they are not 'their own person'.

Yeah, and we all know about "herstory". You should have been able to tell from my tone that I am perfectly aware of all this, as it has been a key part of academic discourse since the 1960s, and the "disgendering" has been well established by the 1990s.

In the 'creation stories' of both Western religious and secular philosophical thought, there was Pandora who couldn't resist the temptation of opening her notorious box and bring ills upon mankind forever, and there was Eve who, tempted by Satan's snake, brought to unknowing Adam the forbidden fruit. The beauty of a woman as man perceives her makes her irresistable, so where the devil can not tempt man into degeneracy from God(s), a woman can, so our cultural legends situate women as both easily tempted and as 'the temptress'. Feminine beauty then, because it is so mesmerisingly wonderful to the male gaze, is horrific by the same token as the very thing that is mans undoing. We see this reflected in cultures. For example, the veil is used to conceal from men the beauty so horrific that it tempts them into impurity. This 'truth of the monster' might also be read into the contemporary Western womyn who applies makeup to conceal her 'true face of horror' in order to appear deceptively attractive. I think the legend of Medusa expresses it well. Her open displaying of her beauty and self admiration is blamed for her being raped by Poseidon in Athena's temple of the virgin. She was cursed by Athena, not to ugliness, but to a beauty so tempting to men, that when gazed upon, would turn them into stone. Such a fearful beauty...



If we use this as metaphor to represent 'the beautiful mind', what man may hear as 'knowledge' from the sweet lips of femme fatale could be likened to gentle whisper of Eve as she had Adam partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Perhaps this discursive symbol, 'womyn', also suggests that a womyn undertaking philosophy is expected to 'represent' womyn, and her agenda is perceived to be feminist. We must accept that 'womyn', is itself a feminist discursive strategy that conveys meaning beyond referring to the female form. We see here, too, that 'female' implies not-male more than represents a person who can be known without reference to a dominant sex. Since philosophy is a 'deep' pursuit, one can not over look the deep roots of the social narrative that represents the deeper fundamentals of the social imaginary within which womyn have no voice but through men because they are somehow mere, as his part.
The only way this is going to be made effective, rather than a male joke in the discourse is for women to take on more jobs, as they are, in academia, and to do the job they are more than capable of. University intake of women now exceeds that of men. There are two possible ways for it to go. One is that gender no longer becomes a issue of divisiveness, or two, that the discourse continues it disabling sexism, but this time in history it simply achieves a feminist bias to the denigration and traduction of men. The path of discourse that insists on "womyn" or "herstory" is of the latter kind and can only alienate half of the population to the general detriment of human kind.

I think with My previous interlocutor he was childishly attempting to acquire the "women as a joke" discourse.

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Throng » Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:36 pm

double post
Last edited by Throng on Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Throng » Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:45 pm

Throng wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Throng wrote:
At least one female professor at the University I attend uses the word 'womyn', and I'm positive that she takes womyn seriously. 'Womyn' is a discursive strategy to undermine the Biblical notion of a man (Adam) naming her 'woman' because she is 'part of man'. It is this very long tradition that situates 'women' as secondary to men that undermines the female position in the social imagination. "Womyn" is a symbol which implies that a female can articulate herself, rather than being 'named by man'.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. I addressed these comments to the person using the term "womyn", not some professor. And my comments were apt and accurate for the discussion.


I think this also has bearing in philosophy, as the history from Socrates, Plato etc etc etc, is a masculine discourse associated with truth and wisdom, and in the same historical perspective, if we use the social position of women at Plato's time as a example, women are not thinkers - they are not 'their own person'.

Yeah, and we all know about "herstory". You should have been able to tell from my tone that I am perfectly aware of all this, as it has been a key part of academic discourse since the 1960s, and the "disgendering" has been well established by the 1990s.

In the 'creation stories' of both Western religious and secular philosophical thought, there was Pandora who couldn't resist the temptation of opening her notorious box and bring ills upon mankind forever, and there was Eve who, tempted by Satan's snake, brought to unknowing Adam the forbidden fruit. The beauty of a woman as man perceives her makes her irresistable, so where the devil can not tempt man into degeneracy from God(s), a woman can, so our cultural legends situate women as both easily tempted and as 'the temptress'. Feminine beauty then, because it is so mesmerisingly wonderful to the male gaze, is horrific by the same token as the very thing that is mans undoing. We see this reflected in cultures. For example, the veil is used to conceal from men the beauty so horrific that it tempts them into impurity. This 'truth of the monster' might also be read into the contemporary Western womyn who applies makeup to conceal her 'true face of horror' in order to appear deceptively attractive. I think the legend of Medusa expresses it well. Her open displaying of her beauty and self admiration is blamed for her being raped by Poseidon in Athena's temple of the virgin. She was cursed by Athena, not to ugliness, but to a beauty so tempting to men, that when gazed upon, would turn them into stone. Such a fearful beauty...



If we use this as metaphor to represent 'the beautiful mind', what man may hear as 'knowledge' from the sweet lips of femme fatale could be likened to gentle whisper of Eve as she had Adam partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Perhaps this discursive symbol, 'womyn', also suggests that a womyn undertaking philosophy is expected to 'represent' womyn, and her agenda is perceived to be feminist. We must accept that 'womyn', is itself a feminist discursive strategy that conveys meaning beyond referring to the female form. We see here, too, that 'female' implies not-male more than represents a person who can be known without reference to a dominant sex. Since philosophy is a 'deep' pursuit, one can not over look the deep roots of the social narrative that represents the deeper fundamentals of the social imaginary within which womyn have no voice but through men because they are somehow mere, as his part.
The only way this is going to be made effective, rather than a male joke in the discourse is for women to take on more jobs, as they are, in academia, and to do the job they are more than capable of. University intake of women now exceeds that of men. There are two possible ways for it to go. One is that gender no longer becomes a issue of divisiveness, or two, that the discourse continues it disabling sexism, but this time in history it simply achieves a feminist bias to the denigration and traduction of men. The path of discourse that insists on "womyn" or "herstory" is of the latter kind and can only alienate half of the population to the general detriment of human kind.

I think with My previous interlocutor he was childishly attempting to acquire the "women as a joke" discourse.
I'm saying the professor takes it seriously, and because of that, there is no reason to say a person using the term doesn't take womyn seriously.

I don't agree that womyn have to do anything in particular to be taken seriously - get more jobs or anything else - nor do I 'get the joke' in regards to what 'womyn' represents. The notion, "I shall call her 'Woman' because she is part of man," on the other hand, is laughable.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:13 pm

Throng wrote:
Throng wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The only way this is going to be made effective, rather than a male joke in the discourse is for women to take on more jobs, as they are, in academia, and to do the job they are more than capable of. University intake of women now exceeds that of men. There are two possible ways for it to go. One is that gender no longer becomes a issue of divisiveness, or two, that the discourse continues it disabling sexism, but this time in history it simply achieves a feminist bias to the denigration and traduction of men. The path of discourse that insists on "womyn" or "herstory" is of the latter kind and can only alienate half of the population to the general detriment of human kind.

I think with My previous interlocutor he was childishly attempting to acquire the "women as a joke" discourse.
I'm saying the professor takes it seriously, and because of that, there is no reason to say a person using the term doesn't take womyn seriously.

I don't agree that womyn have to do anything in particular to be taken seriously - get more jobs or anything else - nor do I 'get the joke' in regards to what 'womyn' represents. The notion, "I shall call her 'Woman' because she is part of man," on the other hand, is laughable.
So in other words your contribution was utterly without merit.

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Throng » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:37 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Throng wrote:
Throng wrote:
I'm saying the professor takes it seriously, and because of that, there is no reason to say a person using the term doesn't take womyn seriously.

I don't agree that womyn have to do anything in particular to be taken seriously - get more jobs or anything else - nor do I 'get the joke' in regards to what 'womyn' represents. The notion, "I shall call her 'Woman' because she is part of man," on the other hand, is laughable.
So in other words your contribution was utterly without merit.
I fail to see how that paraphrases anything I've said.

HexHammer
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by HexHammer » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:48 am

From nature's side women are highly social and wants educations and jobs that interacts with other humans, besides physics and such requires logical thinking which they are less good at.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 am

Throng wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Throng wrote:
I'm saying the professor takes it seriously, and because of that, there is no reason to say a person using the term doesn't take womyn seriously.

I don't agree that womyn have to do anything in particular to be taken seriously - get more jobs or anything else - nor do I 'get the joke' in regards to what 'womyn' represents. The notion, "I shall call her 'Woman' because she is part of man," on the other hand, is laughable.
So in other words your contribution was utterly without merit.
I fail to see how that paraphrases anything I've said.
:roll: I think you might want to look up the word "paraphrase". :lol:

mickthinks
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by mickthinks » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:45 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Throng wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So in other words your contribution was utterly without merit.
I fail to see how that paraphrases anything I've said.
:roll: I think you might want to look up the word "paraphrase". :lol:
I think Throng's objection is, at least prima facie, a valid one, HC. And I think you are trying to shrug it off on false pretences. But if you really want to pursue this line of defence, perhaps you can explain how your "In other words ... " wasn't meant to introduce some kind of paraphrase* of what Throng was saying.


* paraphrase verb [WITH OBJECT]
: Express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paraphrase

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:02 pm

mickthinks wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Throng wrote:I fail to see how that paraphrases anything I've said.
:roll: I think you might want to look up the word "paraphrase". :lol:
I think Throng's objection is, at least prima facie, a valid one, HC. And I think you are trying to shrug it off on false pretences. But if you really want to pursue this line of defence, perhaps you can explain how your "In other words ... " wasn't meant to introduce some kind of paraphrase* of what Throng was saying.


* paraphrase verb [WITH OBJECT]
: Express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paraphrase
I have no interest in paraphrase. I think you have something confused here.
My response would have been to counter his argument not paraphrase it.

The use of "IN OTHER WORDS" is idiomatic in this instance not literal.

mickthinks
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by mickthinks » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:12 pm

But you didn't counter Throng's argument in any sense that a philosopher would understand as countering. I understand that you want to counter his argument, and even that you want to appear to have countered his argument. But you haven't. You've just claimed that Throng's argument has no merit and implied that his own words demonstrate such.

The use of "IN OTHER WORDS" is idiomatic in this instance not literal.
Then it was rather crass of you to suggest Throng needed to check the literal meaning of the word "paraphrase" in order to understand you.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:24 pm

mickthinks wrote:But you didn't counter Throng's argument in any sense that a philosopher would understand as countering. I understand that you want to counter his argument, and even that you want to appear to have countered his argument. But you haven't. You've just claimed that Throng's argument has no merit and implied that his own words demonstrate such.

I'll give you 50 words to paraphrase what you think his arguement is, then I'll respond to you. But since I do not think you have bothered to read the whole exchange between us `i'll not be holding my breath.
So what argument do you think he made?

The use of "IN OTHER WORDS" is idiomatic in this instance not literal.
Then it was rather crass of you to suggest Throng needed to check the literal meaning of the word "paraphrase" in order to understand you.

I think you both do. You, for one have it backwards, I have no interest in paraphrasing anything, obviously. You are either still confused of just trying to pull my chain.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Greta and 1 guest