Feminist Philosophy
Immortalist
The past two decades have seen an explosion of feminist writing on the
philosophical canon, a development that has clear parallels in other
disciplines like literature and art history. Since most of the writing is,
in one way or another, critical of the tradition, a natural question to ask
is: Why does the history of philosophy have importance for feminist
philosophers? This question assumes that the history of philosophy is of
importance for feminists, an assumption that is warranted by the sheer
volume of recent feminist writing on the canon. This entry explores the
different ways that feminist philosophers are interacting with the Western
philosophical tradition.
Feminist philosophers engaged in a project of re-reading and re-forming the
philosophical canon have noticed two significant areas of concern. The first
is the problem of historical exclusion. Feminist philosophers are faced with
a tradition that believes that there are no women philosophers and, if there
are any, they are unimportant. Of course, women are not entirely absent from
the history of philosophy, and that brings us to the second challenge we
face. Canonical philosophers have had plenty to say about women and what we
are like. In general terms, we often find that philosophical norms like
reason and objectivity are defined in contrast to matter, the irrational or
whatever a given philosopher associates with women and the feminine. Our
tradition tells us, either implicitly through images and metaphors, or
explicitly in so many words, that philosophy itself, and its norms of reason
and objectivity, exclude everything that is feminine or associated with
women.
In response, feminist philosophers have criticized both the historical
exclusion of women from the philosophical tradition, and the negative
characterization of women or the feminine in it. Feminist historians of
philosophy have argued that the historical record is incomplete because it
omits women philosophers, and it is biased because it devalues any women
philosophers it forgot to omit. In addition, feminist philosophers have
argued that the philosophical tradition is conceptually flawed because of
the way that its fundamental norms like reason and objectivity are gendered
male.[1] By means of these criticisms, feminist philosophers are enlarging
the philosophical canon and re-evaluating its norms, in order to include
women in the philosophical "us".
The following entry contains 3 major sections. Section 1 ("Feminist
Criticisms of the Canon as Misogynist") describes feminist readings of the
philosophical canon that challenge its derogatory characterizations of
women. These are of three kinds: (a) readings that record the explicit
misogyny of great philosophers (like Aristotle's description of a female as
a deformed male); (b) readings that argue for gendered interpretations of
theoretical concepts (like matter and form in Aristotle); (c) synoptic
interpretations of the canon (like the view that, historically, reason and
objectivity are gendered male). The third category of feminist criticisms of
the canon diagnoses where philosophy as a whole went most deeply wrong, and,
in doing so, it constructs a negative canon of philosophy. The negative
canon exposes the ways in which the views of canonical philosophers
throughout the history of philosophy are explicitly or implicitly misogynist
or sexist. Section 2 ("Feminist Revisions of the History of Philosophy")
discusses the response of feminist philosophy to the myths that there are no
women philosophers and, in any case, no important ones. One response has
been the retrieval of women philosophers for the historical record. A
related development is the elevation to the canon of women philosophers like
Mary Wollstonecraft, Hannah Arendt and Simone de Beauvoir. Section 3
("Feminist Appropriation of Canonical Philosophers") examines the way that
feminist philosophers have been engaged in rereading the canon looking for
antecedents to feminist philosophy in the work of those philosophers (e.g.
Hume) and those theories (e.g. Arisotle's virtue ethics) that are most
congenial to current trends in feminism or which provide most fuel for
feminist thought. This is to use the canon as other movements have done--as
a resource, and as confirmation that a feminist perspective or problem is
securely rooted in our philosophical culture.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-femhist/
...............................................
Feminist Ethics
Feminist Ethics is an attempt to revise, reformulate, or rethink those
aspects of traditional western ethics that depreciate or devalue women's
moral experience. Among others, feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar faults
traditional western ethics for failing women in five related ways. First, it
shows little concern for women's as opposed to men's interests and rights.
Second, it dismisses as morally uninteresting the problems that arise in the
so-called private world, the realm in which women cook, clean, and care for
the young, the old, and the sick. Third, it suggests that, on the average,
women are not as morally developed as men. Fourth, it overvalues culturally
masculine traits like independence, autonomy, separation, mind, reason,
culture, transcendence, war, and death, and undervalues culturally feminine
traits like interdependence, community, connection, body, emotion, nature,
immanence, peace, and life. Fifth, and finally, it favors culturally
masculine ways of moral reasoning that emphasize rules, universality, and
impartiality over culturally feminine ways of moral reasoning that emphasize
relationships, particularity, and partiality (Jaggar, "Feminist Ethics,"
1992).
Feminists have developed a wide variety of women-centered approaches to
ethics, including those labeled "feminine," "maternal," and "lesbian." Each
of these approaches to ethics highlights the differences between men's and
women's respective situations in life- biological and social; provides
strategies for dealing with issues that arise in private as well as public
life; and offers action guides intended to undermine rather than bolster the
present systematic subordination of women (Jaggar, "Feminist Ethics," 1992).
Considered together the overall aim of all feminist approaches to ethics,
irrespective of their specific labels, is to create a gender-equal ethics, a
moral theory that generates non-sexist moral principles, policies, and
practices.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/
...............................................
Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science studies the ways in which
gender does and ought to influence our conceptions of knowledge, the knowing
subject, and practices of inquiry and justification. It identifies ways in
which dominant conceptions and practices of knowledge attribution,
acquisition, and justification systematically disadvantage women and other
subordinated groups, and strives to reform these conceptions and practices
so that they serve the interests of these groups. Various practitioners of
feminist epistemology and philosophy of science argue that dominant
knowledge practices disadvantage women by (1) excluding them from inquiry,
(2) denying them epistemic authority, (3) denigrating their "feminine"
cognitive styles and modes of knowledge, (4) producing theories of women
that represent them as inferior, deviant, or significant only in the ways
they serve male interests, (5) producing theories of social phenomena that
render women's activities and interests, or gendered power relations,
invisible, and (6) producing knowledge (science and technology) that is not
useful for people in subordinate positions, or that reinforces gender and
other social hierarchies. Feminist epistemologists trace these failures to
flawed conceptions of knowledge, knowers, objectivity, and scientific
methodology. They offer diverse accounts of how to overcome these failures.
They also aim to (1) explain why the entry of women and feminist scholars
into different academic disciplines, especially in biology and the social
sciences, has generated new questions, theories, and methods, (2) show how
gender has played a causal role in these transformations, and (3) defend
these changes as cognitive, not just social, advances.
The central concept of feminist epistemology is that of a situated knower,
and hence of situated knowledge: knowledge that reflects the particular
perspectives of the subject. Feminist philosophers are interested in how
gender situates knowing subjects. They have articulated three main
approaches to this question: feminist standpoint theory, feminist
postmodernism, and feminist empiricism. Different conceptions of how gender
situates knowers also inform feminist approaches to the central problems of
the field: grounding feminist criticisms of science and feminist science,
defining the proper roles of social and political values in inquiry,
evaluating ideals of objectivity and rationality, and reforming structures
of epistemic authority.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/
................................................
Feminist Perspectives on the Self
The topic of the self has long been salient in feminist philosophy, for it
is pivotal to questions about personhood, identity, the body, and agency
that feminism must address. In some respects, Simone de Beauvoir's trenchant
observation, "He is the Subject, he is the Absolute -- she is the Other,"
sums up why the self is such an important issue for feminism. To be the
Other is to be the non-subject, the non-person, the non-agent -- in short,
the mere body. In law, in customary practice, and in cultural stereotypes,
women's selfhood has been systematically subordinated, diminished, and
belittled, when it has not been outright denied. Since women have been cast
as lesser forms of the masculine individual, the paradigm of the self that
has gained ascendancy in U.S. popular culture and in Western philosophy is
derived from the experience of the predominantly white and heterosexual,
mostly economically advantaged men who have wielded social, economic, and
political power and who have dominated the arts, literature, the media, and
scholarship. Responding to this state of affairs, feminist philosophical
work on the self has taken three main tacks: (1) critique of established
views of the self, (2) reclamation of women's selfhood, and (3)
reconceptualization of the self to incorporate women's experience. This
entry will survey feminist perspectives on the self from all three of these
angles.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-self/
Joe Creaney
Immortalist wrote:
> Feminist History of Philosophy
>
> The past two decades have seen an explosion of feminist writing on the
> philosophical canon, a development that has clear parallels in other
> disciplines like literature and art history. Since most of the writing is,
> in one way or another, critical of the tradition, a natural question to ask
> is: Why does the history of philosophy have importance for feminist
So what I don't read that stuff. I don't realy care what a bunch of
carpet munches have to say. I am realy pretty distressed about the
amount of damage they have done to the culture. I have had to look out
of the country to the third world to find someone worth getting married
to. My wife can't understand why so many americans don't care about
their children and household.
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Joe Creaney" <jo...@annuna.com> wrote in message news:3D3E2C83...@annuna.com...
What is a carpet munch ?Best WishesGea
Immortalist
1 - I don't read that stuff
2 - I am realy pretty distressed
Therefore - you be suckin
3 - I have had to look out of the country to the third world to find someone
worth getting (dominating)
4 - Someone worth dominating accepts the submisive role
5 - americans care for their children in one of the possible ways to care
for children.
Therefore crimes against women are similare in all countries and you are a
bigot looking to gender as a means to the "ends" of supporting a crippled up
philosophy that deserves an ass woopin'
Chad L
"Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ahltn5$ee3$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
A carpet muncher is one who munches carpets.Similarly, a taco licker is one who licks tacos, and a pole smoker is one who smokes poles. A banana sucker is one who sucks bananas. And a fur berger eater is one who... well, there is a bit of metaphorical extension being applied to these analogous terms. Aren't they great fun?
Joe Creaney
Immortalist wrote:
> Yeh, I did get pretty crude. I do that sometimes. It is fun to piss people
off. I just think that modern feminism is not good. I just think that
we as a society should take better care of our kids. I don't make a
lot probably much less than most of you. I is much better to take care
of kids than make more money.
why is staying at home a submissive role? I am pretty submissive to my
wife, she runs the house I live in. I just go get the money and pay the
bills. I don't understand the power trip, I have enough power at work,
I want to get away from the power thing.
I will now go out on a tangent. I will bet that feminism contributed to
the terrorist attack. Not directly. The Arabs are upset at us for
exporting culture. They see it as a threat to their way of life. They
see our society as screw up. They don't want what they see as screw up
affecting their country. That is no justification for anything.
Basically I would like to kids raised better, people turn out better and
a more stable society with less divorce and violence. As I have said, I
don't much to do with women from this country. I have to work with them
but I never did much with them socially. I will state that the divorce
rate did rise with the spread of feminism. I had to deal with a divorce
growing up. My situation had nothing to do with this. I have to say
for a young kid when parents divorce even under the best of
circumstances can be very difficult and can affect me for the rest of my
life.
Immortalist
thinking about nature, politics, and spirituality. In a nutshell,
ecofeminists believe that the domination of women is directly connected to
the environmental rape and pillage of our planet. From this core tenet a
philosophy has flowered based on the interconnected web of life.
The History
Ecofeminism came into being in the early 70s as Western women became
disillusioned with the ideologies of the day. The environmental movement
lacked a feminist analysis. Feminism had little concern for nature. And the
Left paid almost no attention to women, animals, or ecology. Also, political
organizations rarely included a spiritual component, and few spiritual
groups cultivated a political consciousness.
An Interdisciplinary Approach
Even today, most entities still seem concerned with their own focused
agenda. While working on single issues to accomplish specific aims is often
necessary, single issue thinking is not. In striving to address the whole,
ecofeminism's interdisciplinary approach encompasses politics, spirituality,
nature, and a pre-patriarchal understanding of history.
The Political
Issues of power, domination, and subordination are important to ecofeminism.
High on the list is toppling patriarchy, the 5,000-year-old system in which
men exert power over women. Ecofeminists also struggle against other
oppressions such as racism, speciesism, heterosexism, classism, and
imperialism. This broadbased support for the total spectrum of social
justice issues is one of ecofeminism's greatest strengths.
The Spiritual
Ecofeminism is infused with a deep affinity for the non-linear,
non-rational, emotional realm. All spirituality was originally earth-based
and centered on a oneness with nature. This in part explains why alternative
spiritualities such as paganism, women's spirituality, shamanism, and New
Age ritual are so popular with ecofeminists. Organized religion based on
monotheism (i.e., a single, male god) is not in keeping with the ecofeminist
sensibility that sacredness is interwoven throughout all life.
An Emphasis on Nature
As noted above, deep feelings for nature strongly influence ecofeminism's
spiritual composition. As activists, ecofeminists struggle the world over to
save the environment and protect the rights of other animals.
Intellectually, ecofeminists have helped develop bold new theories based on
nature such as bioregionalism, speciesism, anthropocentrism, and deep
ecology. By parlaying insights from nature-based theories, ecofeminists have
helped expand the analysis of "traditional" political issues such as race,
class, and gender.
Pre-Patriarchal History
Many ecofeminists advocate for a more open-minded excavation of our
prepatriarchal roots. If we are to forge a just and balanced world, let's
look to the full period of human presence on earth for clues to a time when
gender equality and an unalienated relationship with nature seemingly
existed. This is not to legitimate or sentimentalize some past paradise, but
rather to allow ancient memory to fuel our imaginations as we uncover more
life-affirming ways of living on this planet.
Different Interpretations
It is important to note that ecofeminism is fairly new and still finding its
voice. As such, there is no single definition of ecofeminism. On the
continuum of the political to the spiritual, the academic to the grassroots,
some ecofeminists are strictly front-line activists; others create social
change through a dedicated spiritual practice. Some are uncompromisingly
radical; others operate within more conventional frameworks. Ask a room full
of ecofeminists just what is ecofeminism anyway, and you're likely to get
many different interpretations.
The Western Worldview
Also, ecofeminism is not the be-all, end-all belief system. There are other
"wisdom traditions" (ex., those of indigenous peoples or Buddhists) for
which Western ways of knowing have little meaning or insignificance. The
Eurocentric world view based on conquering nature and power-over
relationships, however, is achieving global hegemony at an alarming pace and
therefore the Western paradigm demands urgent attention. Ecofeminists assert
that from within a Western framework, ecofeminism offers a singularly
powerful and comprehensive vision for attaining planetary peace and harmony.
Immortalist
My characterization of your statements were also overly crude. You think
that making life more equal genderwise is harming children? Then women
should stop working altogether or just less hours? If women desire to go to
college and try and get involved in life they should stifle it? You have hit
on the main dilemma though in trying to live in equality.
> why is staying at home a submissive role? I am pretty submissive to my
> wife, she runs the house I live in. I just go get the money and pay the
> bills. I don't understand the power trip, I have enough power at work,
> I want to get away from the power thing.
>
What would be different if a man stayed home and the woman went out to earn
all the money? Could each parent work different shifts so that one is there
all the time, in this way sacrificing some of their relationship for the
children. In history we can find many times when life was very hard on all
members of the family.
> I will now go out on a tangent. I will bet that feminism contributed to
> the terrorist attack. Not directly. The Arabs are upset at us for
> exporting culture. They see it as a threat to their way of life. They
> see our society as screw up. They don't want what they see as screw up
> affecting their country. That is no justification for anything.
>
Are we exporting culture or is their own culture bringing it in. To the
wider point, should we limit our way of life in the West because others
people's are worried about it? How would we go about doing that. It seems
whatever culture we had would offend them. I cant see enough weight to this
notion to decrease womens freedoms in society or to drasticallly change what
we do. Don't those countries let the religious leaders run the government?
> Basically I would like to kids raised better, people turn out better and
> a more stable society with less divorce and violence. As I have said, I
> don't much to do with women from this country. I have to work with them
> but I never did much with them socially. I will state that the divorce
> rate did rise with the spread of feminism. I had to deal with a divorce
> growing up. My situation had nothing to do with this. I have to say
> for a young kid when parents divorce even under the best of
> circumstances can be very difficult and can affect me for the rest of my
> life.
>
Could we go back to the way it was so many decades ago even if we wanted to?
Roy Anderson
What you are really saying is you want predictability and control of
your family life (aka, going to some 3rd world country for love), and
for you that entails having a stay-at-home woman. Instead of seeking a
dynamic, educated, independent female counterpart, you want a static,
no doubt lesser educated, dependent female counterpart. Further, you
want clearly defined roles in your relationship, so as to minimize the
boat rocking. Bah. The 50's are dead, long live the 21st Century.
Equal rights and anti-discrimination laws have done a tremendous
amount of good to this country. The high divorce rates and such which
you describe as "damage" are reaching equilibrium and I personally
believe they're just the death throes of a culture past. Those divorce
numbers would've always been there if women (and men for that matter)
had always had a way out. Good riddance to a socially repressive past.
-Roy
The Dark Magus
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Feminist History of Philosophy
Feminazi Lesbo Trash.
The Dark Magus
--
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Immortalist
"The Dark Magus" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3d40638a...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:38:22 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Feminist History of Philosophy
>
> Feminazi Lesbo Trash.
>
ah ha, when i was a kid they could smack a bitch down but now all you can do
is whine rush limbaug help me help me. men are such little wussies now
compared to us back then. women have rightfully begun to take over control
so suffer.
Joe Creaney
Immortals wrote:
I realy don't know it would depend on the family and ages of the
children. I think there would be better if women were home more raising
children. I realize that both parents working is needed to maintain a
desired standard of living. I am not speaking so much for the families
struggling to survive but this where both parents are professionals and
spend lots of money on their kids instead of time.
My life is not long enough to see fully the changes in society. Back
before I was born, it seems that we didn't have so many social problems
as we do today. I think welfare damage the lower end and feminism the
upper end. I realize that we can't go back time goes forward and we
have to deal with the situation as we find it.
>
>
>>why is staying at home a submissive role? I am pretty submissive to my
>>wife, she runs the house I live in. I just go get the money and pay the
>>bills. I don't understand the power trip, I have enough power at work,
>>I want to get away from the power thing.
>>
>>
>
> What would be different if a man stayed home and the woman went out to earn
> all the money? Could each parent work different shifts so that one is there
> all the time, in this way sacrificing some of their relationship for the
> children. In history we can find many times when life was very hard on all
> members of the family.
>
Great. It doesn't have to be the woman.
>
>>I will now go out on a tangent. I will bet that feminism contributed to
>> the terrorist attack. Not directly. The Arabs are upset at us for
>>exporting culture. They see it as a threat to their way of life. They
>>see our society as screw up. They don't want what they see as screw up
>>affecting their country. That is no justification for anything.
>>
>>
>
> Are we exporting culture or is their own culture bringing it in. To the
> wider point, should we limit our way of life in the West because others
> people's are worried about it? How would we go about doing that. It seems
> whatever culture we had would offend them. I cant see enough weight to this
> notion to decrease womens freedoms in society or to drasticallly change what
> we do. Don't those countries let the religious leaders run the government?
>
WI was saying that some people see our culture and that we communicate
it as a threat.
>
>>Basically I would like to kids raised better, people turn out better and
>>a more stable society with less divorce and violence. As I have said, I
>>don't much to do with women from this country. I have to work with them
>>but I never did much with them socially. I will state that the divorce
>>rate did rise with the spread of feminism. I had to deal with a divorce
>>growing up. My situation had nothing to do with this. I have to say
>>for a young kid when parents divorce even under the best of
>>circumstances can be very difficult and can affect me for the rest of my
>>life.
>>
>>
>
> Could we go back to the way it was so many decades ago even if we wanted to?
>
>
>
>
No. We live in the situation we do today. I don't see too much changing in that direction.
It is not just feminism but other factors like court deceptions and new
laws that we have to day. They say that poverty causes crime why wasn't
there a crime wave during the depression?
Joe Creaney
Roy Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 04:26:32 GMT, Joe Creaney <jo...@annuna.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Feminist History of Philosophy
>>>
>>>The past two decades have seen an explosion of feminist writing on the
>>>philosophical canon, a development that has clear parallels in other
>>>disciplines like literature and art history. Since most of the writing is,
>>>in one way or another, critical of the tradition, a natural question to ask
>>>is: Why does the history of philosophy have importance for feminist
>>>
>>So what I don't read that stuff. I don't realy care what a bunch of
>>carpet munches have to say. I am realy pretty distressed about the
>>amount of damage they have done to the culture. I have had to look out
>>of the country to the third world to find someone worth getting married
>>to. My wife can't understand why so many americans don't care about
>>their children and household.
>>
>
> What you are really saying is you want predictability and control of
> your family life (aka, going to some 3rd world country for love), and
> for you that entails having a stay-at-home woman. Instead of seeking a
> dynamic, educated, independent female counterpart, you want a static,
> no doubt lesser educated, dependent female counterpart. Further, you
> want clearly defined roles in your relationship, so as to minimize the
> boat rocking. Bah. The 50's are dead, long live the 21st Century.
More or less. I don't have a great personality and don't have the skill
to pick up women. I am pretty boring, I like wargamming and philosophy.
>
> Equal rights and anti-discrimination laws have done a tremendous
> amount of good to this country. The high divorce rates and such which
> you describe as "damage" are reaching equilibrium and I personally
> believe they're just the death throes of a culture past. Those divorce
> numbers would've always been there if women (and men for that matter)
> had always had a way out. Good riddance to a socially repressive past.
>
> -Roy
>
I don't know I know enough people who went through messy divorces.
Having survived one not so mess, I realize the damage they do.
Joe Creaney
The Dark Magus wrote:
What does this have to do with. At least go out on a limb like me. It says all men. Are you like the Greeks who believe that women were for children and you could only truly love another man?
Joe Creaney
Immortals wrote:
> "The Dark Magus" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3d40638a...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:38:22 -0700, "Immortalist"
>><Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Feminist History of Philosophy
>>>
>>Feminazi Lesbo Trash.
>>
>>
>
> ah ha, when i was a kid they could smack a bitch down but now all you can do
> is whine rush limbaug help me help me. men are such little wussies now
> compared to us back then. women have rightfully begun to take over control
> so suffer.
>
Rise up and be divorce for all you have then sent to jail? We have laws
and people get prosecuted. Again there is no solution for bad people we
all have to deal with it.
Egad
traditional gender roles in favor of the greater flexibity found by making
all roles gender neutral. Should reason, stated in the original post as
masculine, be assigned predominantly to a single gender? Is that any less
racist than to assign it to one skin color or nationality? The same could
be said of any of the other traits mentioned. We, as the human race, need
to move beyond stereotypes.
I also am beginning to believe that the difference in gender should no
longer be relegated only to the physical. The more salient point would
domination. By this, I am speaking of the relationship of the penetrator,
in the sexual act, versus the penetrated. Using the act of penetration to
define dominance (gender) rather than physical appearance or external
genetalia might help to clarify some of the conflicts in the area of sexism.
Is a submissive homosexual man really all that different from the stereotype
of a woman? Almost by a definition...no.
SuperNova
Namely child rearing. It's not a coincidence that as women move out
and expand their horizons-in regards to education and the
workplace-the birth rate drops. People today, at least in the
"developed" world, have far fewer children,than even a generation or
two ago. Having children makes education and work significantly more
difficult for women-due to the inevitable fact a woman must rear and
nurse that child-thus you don't see as much procreation these days
because many women choose to be educated-and no doubt their are those
that don't.
Moreover, a man can never have the *type* of connection a mother has
with child. Simply due to the fact that the mother has borne the child
in her womb for many months and no doubt will nurse that child-in many
instances-for many months after the fact.Thus the mother was
physiologically suited for the role. Thus as women choose to be
educated, you see the birth rate drop.
Immortalist
"SuperNova" <Agnostic...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:8315dd99.02072...@posting.google.com...
Humans have learned to live in any part of the world and we can adapt to
about any situation. I see the above as trying to romantisize the "thats the
way it is in nature" rap so we must conform to it. And the conclusion is
that we had better keep the women at hom or we might have less people in the
world.
Immortalist
"Egad" <Eg...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3d407...@newsa.ev1.net...
cool idea, at least make equal opportunities and see who can do what, we
might be surprised.
>
>
Joe Creaney
SuperNova wrote:
I don't disagree with you on these points. I don't think we need such a high birth rate. We have enough people and kids don't die young like they used to. Still I have 2 and that is enough. Again my wife is a 3rd worlder. She comes from a fairly large family (5) still we want to stop simply because we want to say sane and give attention to both kids. They won't spend their lives working in the fields or the shop like the days of yore.
Joe Creaney
Immortalist wrote:
I said that I agree with the first part. But there is little evidence
to support that. I can say in our house that statement is the case. My
wife is better at it than I am. It is realy hard to come down firmly on
either side of the argument when it comes to all people. Women beat
kids as well as men. I don't like generalizations. Just because I am a
certain way I don't expect everyone to be identical. I still have my
opinions and I will share them. I will say that in the past we had
stronger families and we had alot less social problems than today. I
have heard that during industrialization there was a worry about kids
growing up because the fathers worked outside of the home. It didn't
realy matter the factory jobs kept kids busy any ways.
Joe Creaney
Egad wrote:
Sorry I completely disagree. I think that would take too much social engineering. I guess to convince me you have to start with one gender bathrooms and showers.
Immortalist
that reminds me of a book i read a while ago called the dissapearance of
childhood, by neil postman. He chronicled the emergence of grades in school
and all that and spoke about how it was in the middle ages. I think most
libraries got that one tucked away.
then there is the rise of selfishness by a guy named collier that really
gets into the effects of the industrial city and moving from the farms to
the city
and then a book called no sense of place. a history of the effects of
electronic medias on social arrangements literally a "social geography"
It seems you would really get into those three books, though their view
hasn't taken over culture but seem like they should.
>
>
Immortalist
ya its a tough one. when i was 16 i hitched around the country and there
were still places where blacks had their own bathrooms and people debated
letting them go into the same bathroom. they also had to drink out of
seperate drinking fountains and it was strange! the people in those place
looked at it as we do segregated bathrooms for women now.
Russ Rose
Immortalist wrote:
I believe Mr. Creany is using that phrase as a derogatory term for lesbians.
It is sad that such homophobia and misogyny exists when this group of women
has produced some of the most visually enthralling cinematic experiences
known to man...
Russ Rose
"Roy Anderson" <*REMOVE*royd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f130kusuqdan3amui...@4ax.com...
Aint' it grand that these modern women don't hold us responsible for the
lives we create...