Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Camille Paglia on Feminism

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 11:39:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I find her opinions on feminism, politics, art, and culture in general to always be refreshing and interesting, even if I don't necessarily agree with them all of the time. She's also one of the few atheists who share my views on religions. Thoughts on her or her ideas?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Women know who they are from the time of their first menstrual cycle? Because biology. Men have to keep searching for who they are, and that's why they get to be crazy geniuses, whereas women cluster in mediocre herds because biology.

Thank goodness for men! Because of biology, women couldn't coordinate themselves decent shelter even. And please let's perve some more on beautiful women and appreciate it when they dress up nice. That's a really valuable contribution to society.

If only feminists listened to real people. Like, people on reality TV or sports broadcasters. Then they wouldn't be so out of touch.

It's a shame fool_on_the_hill isn't here. He'd love this.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 2:30:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Women know who they are from the time of their first menstrual cycle? Because biology.
No, but women have a biological, inescapable component of sexual identity because it is quite literally forced on them by nature. Men don't. We start feeling sexually attracted to people, but there's no 'oh my god, my vagina is bleeding' that needs to be explained to us, thus drawing all of us into a sexual identity and a community.

Men have to keep searching for who they are, and that's why they get to be crazy geniuses, whereas women cluster in mediocre herds because biology.
Well, that's a mischaracterization. Obviously, she doesn't think that all women are mediocre, that was hyperbole. If she did, then she wouldn't consider herself a relevant and insightful social commenter.

Thank goodness for men! Because of biology, women couldn't coordinate themselves decent shelter even. And please let's perve some more on beautiful women and appreciate it when they dress up nice. That's a really valuable contribution to society.
This doesn't even make sense. She's not saying that women couldn't, but that there wouldn't be enough of an overwhelming desire to prove themselves because women are more comfortable with their identity than men (because they are forced into it by nature).

If only feminists listened to real people. Like, people on reality TV or sports broadcasters. Then they wouldn't be so out of touch.
Yes, they wouldn't. And the word 'feminist' wouldn't be shrouded in so much odium that it is slowly poisoning the movement.

It's a shame fool_on_the_hill isn't here. He'd love this.
He actually hated the idea of feminism entirely. He might hate Paglia a bit less, but he rejected the very idea of feminism, which Paglia is attempting to reclaim.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 3:02:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 2:30:14 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
No, but women have a biological, inescapable component of sexual identity because it is quite literally forced on them by nature. Men don't. We start feeling sexually attracted to people, but there's no 'oh my god, my vagina is bleeding' that needs to be explained to us, thus drawing all of us into a sexual identity and a community.

wtf? Seriously. What the. ..?

Men have to keep searching for who they are, and that's why they get to be crazy geniuses, whereas women cluster in mediocre herds because biology.

Well, that's a mischaracterization. Obviously, she doesn't think that all women are mediocre, that was hyperbole. If she did, then she wouldn't consider herself a relevant and insightful social commenter.

I think we should judge her opinions based on what she actually says. She's an academic, which means she's trained in speaking accurately.

Thank goodness for men! Because of biology, women couldn't coordinate themselves decent shelter even. And please let's perve some more on beautiful women and appreciate it when they dress up nice. That's a really valuable contribution to society.

This doesn't even make sense. She's not saying that women couldn't, but that there wouldn't be enough of an overwhelming desire to prove themselves because women are more comfortable with their identity than men (because they are forced into it by nature).

But where does this idea even come from?

Yes, they wouldn't. And the word 'feminist' wouldn't be shrouded in so much odium that it is slowly poisoning the movement.

Not really. For instance, on this site there's a lot of criticism of feminism, but it's all strawmanning. Feminists hate men or whatever. How can that stuff be poisoning the movement? It's just ignorance. Of course feminists have thought about motherhood, class, and women dressing for other women. There's nothing new with any of that.

It's a shame fool_on_the_hill isn't here. He'd love this.
He actually hated the idea of feminism entirely. He might hate Paglia a bit less, but he rejected the very idea of feminism, which Paglia is attempting to reclaim.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 5:43:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 2:30:14 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Women know who they are from the time of their first menstrual cycle? Because biology.
No, but women have a biological, inescapable component of sexual identity because it is quite literally forced on them by nature. Men don't. We start feeling sexually attracted to people, but there's no 'oh my god, my vagina is bleeding' that needs to be explained to us, thus drawing all of us into a sexual identity and a community.

Maybe it's an idea that's been expanded elsewhere, but it sounds pretty silly on the surface. What does getting your period at age 12 have to do with forming your identity and being drawn into a community so that you can end thinking about who you are and just relax into female mediocrity? There's a lot of steps to the argument and none of them seem justified.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 7:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 11:39:32 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:


I find her opinions on feminism, politics, art, and culture in general to always be refreshing and interesting, even if I don't necessarily agree with them all of the time. She's also one of the few atheists who share my views on religions. Thoughts on her or her ideas?

- I almost agree with her, & I postulate that the western modern society is greatly at odds with nature & historical facts, feminism is just one symptom. I mean, come on, women get pregnant, men don't, how on earth are you gonna get around that?!!! As she said, it's an "inevitable" brute fact of reality. All the fuss about Gender being a fictional construct or a social institution or or is just laughable, who falls for this?!!! Again, who changed the World? Religion? History? Science? Philosophy? Law? Art? Language? Politics? Medicine? Engineering? Buildings? Civilisation?. . . Exactly, MEN. Take any field of human knowledge or influence & check the pioneers of that field, you'll rarely find any women there. I am not saying there are no women whose names are at the top of these lists, but nonetheless, they are rare.

- Even if we take the Islamic Civilisation who has been, by far, the most encouraging civilisation to women's accomplishments, at least in the scholarly realm (in which they had well over 12 centuries of contribution), even then we find no reason to believe that Women can compete against the accomplishments of Men. In Islamic collections of biographies of notable people (rulers, scholars, jurists, historians, narrators, philosophers, scientists, poets, musicians. . .) the ratio between Men/Women is generally 10:1 ; even in the Sciences of Hadith (the narrators), in which women were known to excel, the ratio is still 6:1 ; the only field where females are more or less comparable to males is Music (female musicians sometimes even outnumbered males). That's the product of a 12 centuries of History & Tradition & we haven't seen any evidence of what the feminists professed about Women & Men! This much historical FACTS simply can NOT lie!!! Even in modern western societies these ratios are no different, they rarely surpass the 5:1 ratio (21% in science, & 5% in engineering, in the US), especially when at the top academic level (the Nobel Prize ratio is 20:1, & if we ignore the Peace & Literature categories, the ratio becomes 35:1).

- In the Islamic Tradition, women are the source of Mercy & Compassion in the World, their greatest accomplishment is in being Mothers to the Human Race, & originators to the Human Legacy. Denying the esteemed value of Motherhood in favour of worldly accomplishments is an injustice done to Women, it's against nature & historical facts, & it's high time feminists embrace their nature & pride themselves in the greatness they possess in being the origin of Life on this planet, & stop this irrational shame & cowardice, which they have yet to get over.

- Finally, I'll leave you with this comedic clip from French Tv, Les Guignols, released at Women's Day titled: "Hommage " toutes les femmes qui ont chang" le cours de l'Histoire" >> translated: "Tribute to all the women who changed the course of History". The clip then displays the photo of ONE woman: Marie Curie (the great physicist/chemist):
https://www.youtube.com...
=> The clip was meant to be funny, & we all certainly got the joke. Why? Because it's TRUE.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 7:43:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 7:05:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
- I almost agree with her, & I postulate that the western modern society is greatly at odds with nature & historical facts, feminism is just one symptom. I mean, come on, women get pregnant, men don't, how on earth are you gonna get around that?!!! As she said, it's an "inevitable" brute fact of reality. All the fuss about Gender being a fictional construct or a social institution or or is just laughable, who falls for this?!!! Again, who changed the World? Religion? History? Science? Philosophy? Law? Art? Language? Politics? Medicine? Engineering? Buildings? Civilisation?. . . Exactly, MEN. Take any field of human knowledge or influence & check the pioneers of that field, you'll rarely find any women there. I am not saying there are no women whose names are at the top of these lists, but nonetheless, they are rare.
Women had, undeniably, far fewer opportunities throughout history to make peculiar changes in the world. Alone the fact that they perceived themselves in most societies to have more rigid roles than men (such as being homemakers), and had less access to education, as well as lack of encouragement for pursuing it, made them less motivated and capable to be creators, in ideas and otherwise. There are studies, which you can look up, showing that an individual's perception of his capabilities plays a role in the outcome of performance in say, a test. Thus, regardless of whether or not you were to find exceptions to how women were treated at certain periods back in time, they were undeniably granted more rigid roles than men, and had different perceptions as to their own capabilities. However, men, in my opinion, would nevertheless outnumber women, but to a far lower degree, when it comes to making peculiar changes; it seems that men have a more powerful drive for such a task.

Additionally, gender is different from sex because we have socially constructed roles, be they objective or subjective. Women give birth; that is related to their sex. That they should, as a result of this birth, be the ones to take care of the child's well-being, is gender related, because this role is not inherent to them, although they are better at it (if we exclude homosexual men, who excel at duality when it comes to the mind).
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 8:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 7:43:53 PM, Mirza wrote:

Women had, undeniably, far fewer opportunities throughout history to make peculiar changes in the world.

- That is simply not true! Women in the Islamic Civilisation, at least for the first 8 or 9 centuries, had immense opportunities, the same as men. & in the last century also, women in the West had access to almost all which was previously thought of as men's domain, & we haven't seen any evidence to suggest Women can compete with Men. I live in France, & here they do a yearly national exam to enrol in the most prestigious Graduate Schools in France (SCEI), & there are hardly any girls in the top 100, & the ratio is generally 10:1 to 5:1 in enrolment. These are facts that haven't changed throughout History. Sure, we have great women that achieved the highest of positions in Civilisation, such as Aisha, or Sawada, or Sukayna, or Nafisa, or Rabia. . . but these cases are rare compared to Men's positions, & that's no different today either.

Alone the fact that they perceived themselves in most societies to have more rigid roles than men (such as being homemakers), and had less access to education, as well as lack of encouragement for pursuing it, made them less motivated and capable to be creators, in ideas and otherwise.

- That's also grossly inaccurate. Women in Islam have much softer roles than Men, in terms of mental & physical requirements. Women had much more free time in their hands than Men ever did, yet, this didn't help them compete with them, even though, they were both equally encouraged to pursue knowledge, & had the same access to education as men did. 88 of az-Zarkashi's teachers were women, over 80 of as-Sakhawi's were women, over 40 of as-Suyuti's were women (& these teachers were real scholars who spent their life time in pursuit of knowledge).

There are studies, which you can look up, showing that an individual's perception of his capabilities plays a role in the outcome of performance in say, a test.

- That's an individual perception. But when you take the Gender in itself, the performance of Men is superior to that of Women, always has been the case, suggesting otherwise requires equally compelling reasons against nature & brute historical facts.

Thus, regardless of whether or not you were to find exceptions to how women were treated at certain periods back in time, they were undeniably granted more rigid roles than men, and had different perceptions as to their own capabilities.

- What rigid roles are you talking about?!!! Women were exempt from 90% the burden of Men. It's the modern western society that puts the same burden on both, on top of the women having to get pregnant. & in both cases, their performances didn't show any sign of competition.

However, men, in my opinion, would nevertheless outnumber women, but to a far lower degree, when it comes to making peculiar changes; it seems that men have a more powerful drive for such a task.

- It doesn't *seem*, it IS, & always has been. & not to much lower degree! Maybe compared to the pre-20th century West, but in societies that encouraged the accomplishments of Women, the ratios are roughly the same. & the ratio shrinks the higher the mental & physical requirements are.

Additionally, gender is different from sex because we have socially constructed roles, be they objective or subjective. Women give birth; that is related to their sex. That they should, as a result of this birth, be the ones to take care of the child's well-being, is gender related, because this role is not inherent to them, although they are better at it (if we exclude homosexual men, who excel at duality when it comes to the mind).

- It IS inherent in them, BIOLOGY requires the Mother to assist the Child in conception & nurture (breastfeeding), that's not the case for Fathers. & both are incomparable. This whole fantasy about Motherhood being a social construct is farcical & completely irrational.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 9:19:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You are grossly mistaken and uninformed, and I'm not interested in a lengthy discussion on a plethora of points that will distract us from the issue. I'd be keen on debating you on this in the future. Remind me what exactly what your position is on the creative nature on men and women; and, do you assert that gender is inseparable from sex?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 9:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 5:43:33 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:30:14 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Women know who they are from the time of their first menstrual cycle? Because biology.
No, but women have a biological, inescapable component of sexual identity because it is quite literally forced on them by nature. Men don't. We start feeling sexually attracted to people, but there's no 'oh my god, my vagina is bleeding' that needs to be explained to us, thus drawing all of us into a sexual identity and a community.

Maybe it's an idea that's been expanded elsewhere, but it sounds pretty silly on the surface. What does getting your period at age 12 have to do with forming your identity and being drawn into a community so that you can end thinking about who you are and just relax into female mediocrity? There's a lot of steps to the argument and none of them seem justified.

It has to do with the fact that in every culture, because of their biological capacity for child birth, women have as a social class clustered around the home and hearth and formed a distinctive culture around that. Because of biological characteristics girls are pulled into this culture in their attempts to deal with their nature and role in society, and as a result are, in part, formed by it. Feminism's own history bears this out, as by far the most influential schools in the formative movements were not the egalitarian feminists but the conservative, maternal feminists. It was only when these two movements combined forces that feminism made great strides in the pursuit of liberation.

Because they had this space, this support area, for most of history there was a comfort in that. Men didn't really have this same phenomenon, our existence was much more fiercely competitive. But it was precisely that competition which drove society to the heights which astound and inspire us. Now, is this system ideal? NO. Paglia makes this clear when she appeals to the idea of the old masters that there is beauty in the defiance of nature. She just thinks that it's crazy to deny that nature's influence exists in the first place and that we start with perfect parity.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:05:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 9:53:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Because they had this space, this support area, for most of history there was a comfort in that. Men didn't really have this same phenomenon, our existence was much more fiercely competitive.
This is, indeed, a fact that cannot be escaped; it has, surprisingly, found a path around Yassine, and I do not understand why he reaches a different, and rather ambiguous, conclusion than do you and I, and, hopefully, most other people as well. It is not sufficient for a woman to know only what she can pursue in life, and thereby find an easy path toward success. It is far more complicated than that. Even in Islamic societies during Medieval times was it difficult for women to break a rigid cycle; they were strongly encouraged to deal with traditional motherly duties, for instance, or other social duties, which severely suppressed their intellectual drive. It still does for women; today, as well, women tend to focus on social aspects of their life, which can stall their intellectual progress. Thus, the biological differences we may have do not suffice as explanations for the great gap between female and male achievers; societal structures are a factor not to be ignored.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:12:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 9:19:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
You are grossly mistaken and uninformed, and I'm not interested in a lengthy discussion on a plethora of points that will distract us from the issue.

- Which is?

I'd be keen on debating you on this in the future.

- I would to, I am just not sure on what exactly!

Remind me what exactly what your position is on the creative nature on men and women; and, do you assert that gender is inseparable from sex?

- My position is obviously the Islamic one, all the way ;)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:53:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 10:05:21 PM, Mirza wrote:

This is, indeed, a fact that cannot be escaped; it has, surprisingly, found a path around Yassine, and I do not understand why he reaches a different, and rather ambiguous, conclusion than do you and I, and, hopefully, most other people as well.

- & what conclusion would that be?

It is not sufficient for a woman to know only what she can pursue in life, and thereby find an easy path toward success. It is far more complicated than that. Even in Islamic societies during Medieval times was it difficult for women to break a rigid cycle; they were strongly encouraged to deal with traditional motherly duties, for instance, or other social duties, which severely suppressed their intellectual drive.

- I happen to know about Islamic History & Islamic Law. Mothers have duties & their husbands are also strongly encouraged (i.e. forced by law) to deal with fatherly duties, which are even more rigid than those of mothers (in bare physical & mental requirements). & please don't call it 'traditional motherly duties', it sounds like an insult to mothers!
- Women are spiritual beings, that's how God created them according to Islam, & in that respect (moral & spiritual) they are superior to Men, & History is also testimony to that, even in western modern societies (religiosity among females is significantly higher than that among males, & criminality among males is significantly higher than that among females).
- Motherly duties doesn't suppress the intellectual drive, nor does fatherly duties suppress it either. 50% of females in the Islamic World are not married, & evidently a higher percentage don't have kids, where is their intellectual drive compared to the married ones? More so, the overwhelming majority of the women who contributed to the Islamic Tradition & Civilisation were evidently mothers (except for Rabi'a, I can't think of one that wasn't a mother, & I have hundreds in my head right now).

It still does for women; today, as well, women tend to focus on social aspects of their life, which can stall their intellectual progress. Thus, the biological differences we may have do not suffice as explanations for the great gap between female and male achievers; societal structures are a factor not to be ignored.

- Society is a product of Nature & Nurture, & in this case, since it obviously has to do with Biology to a great extent, it's Nurture that decides the Design. & the proof is History, there has been millions of societies with different norms & different constructs, where are these women that competed with the accomplishments of men in these millions of societies??? Show me.
- That been said, Societal Structure may lessen or worsen the gap, that also is true. For instance, in Medieval Europe, or even Modern Europe (19th century & back), women have constituted a very tiny portion of the elite, as opposed to their status today. So, surely, Society & specifically: Education, Religion & Law do influence greatly the flux of the gender gap. However, it can NOT eliminate it. & the higher the positions get, the greater the gap is.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:54:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 9:53:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

- Skep what do you think?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 10:59:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 10:05:21 PM, Mirza wrote:

- Society is a product of Nature & Nurture, & in this case, since it obviously has to do with Biology to a great extent, it's NATURE that decides the Design.

- Typo: Nurture >> Nature.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:05:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 10:54:00 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/25/2015 9:53:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

- Skep what do you think?

I don't subscribe to anything as absolute as what you're proposing. I don't think that women are intrinsically suited on a categorical level to any particular anything. I think that a small group of women are suited to stereotypically manly tasks, while the vast majority are either neutral or averse to such roles, due to a combination of nature and nurture which is way too convoluted for anyone to unpack at that point. I think that this is a state which ought to be rebelled against by those who are being subjected to it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:11:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
And please let's perve some more on beautiful women and appreciate it when they dress up nice. That's a really valuable contribution to society.

I didn't address this early because I had to go to work and didn't have time, but I found this to be an outright disturbing statement. Let's unpack this. What does 'to perve on' means? As far as I can tell, it's an unwarranted pejorative substitute for 'to feel sexual attraction towards', and the inclination to resort to such substitutions smacks of puritanism. Paglia is a lesbian, of course she's going to be attracted sexually to beautiful women. That's sort of the definition of her sexual orientation. And even if we aren't talking about lesbianism, why do heterosexual males not have the right to feel attracted to what they, by definition, find sexually attractive? When did feminists become Victorians? Why are sexual desires and an appreciation for beauty not valuable contributions to society?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:23:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 3:02:13 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:30:14 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Men have to keep searching for who they are, and that's why they get to be crazy geniuses, whereas women cluster in mediocre herds because biology.

Well, that's a mischaracterization. Obviously, she doesn't think that all women are mediocre, that was hyperbole. If she did, then she wouldn't consider herself a relevant and insightful social commenter.

I think we should judge her opinions based on what she actually says. She's an academic, which means she's trained in speaking accurately.

Alright, we'll forbid any academics from ever utilizing a rhetorical device. I'm sure that will go over well.

Thank goodness for men! Because of biology, women couldn't coordinate themselves decent shelter even. And please let's perve some more on beautiful women and appreciate it when they dress up nice. That's a really valuable contribution to society.

This doesn't even make sense. She's not saying that women couldn't, but that there wouldn't be enough of an overwhelming desire to prove themselves because women are more comfortable with their identity than men (because they are forced into it by nature).

But where does this idea even come from?

Her brain. She goes over her ideas in more detail in her books.

Yes, they wouldn't. And the word 'feminist' wouldn't be shrouded in so much odium that it is slowly poisoning the movement.

Not really. For instance, on this site there's a lot of criticism of feminism, but it's all strawmanning. Feminists hate men or whatever. How can that stuff be poisoning the movement? It's just ignorance. Of course feminists have thought about motherhood, class, and women dressing for other women. There's nothing new with any of that.

Feminism, as it exists in academia, and as it has branded itself, is out of touch with the vast majority of people to the point where the label is becoming a mark of shame. I think that feminism still has an important role to play in the role, and see this as a critical problem which needs to remedied post-haste. Establishment feminists need to abandon their tendency to 'excommunicate' people, their use of debunked statistics, and the other cult-like symptoms of this particular brand. The whole #gamergate last fall was a particular nasty example, and feminism is seen in a much worse light because of things like that. Feminists have thought of those things, but the nuances are lost on the feminists who interface with the working class, and the whole movement is seen as shrill, fanatical, and delusional as a result.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 1:36:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:05:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I don't subscribe to anything as absolute as what you're proposing. I don't think that women are intrinsically suited on a categorical level to any particular anything.

- How about Motherhood?
- You're aware I am a proponent of Natural Law, & here, one of its neat arguments can be made about Women, based objectively on Biology:
1. Women are necessary for the conception of Life, Men aren't.
2. Women are necessary for the sustenance of Life, Men aren't.
3. Women are necessary for the birth of Life, Men aren't.
4. Women are necessary for the nurture of Life (breastfeeding), Men aren't.
. . .etc.

I think that a small group of women are suited to stereotypically manly tasks, while the vast majority are either neutral or averse to such roles, due to a combination of nature and nurture which is way too convoluted for anyone to unpack at that point.

- Look, we can clear up this complexity by a simple inductive argument with a certain conclusion:
P. So far, the gap existed.
C. The gap exists.
=> (P) is true, & History is testimony.
=> (C) is certain, because the frequency of (P) is 100%.
- Now, here is my case: in a real society, where there reigns a random social structure, the gap will exist. Now, this is obviously supported by all the evidence we have so far, the only issue is whether or not this is also true in a hypothetical society with some artificial construct that could eliminate or reverse the gap? If not, then my point is factually objective.
- The same inductive argument can be made about the other sort of gap I talked about where women are on the higher ground, which is the spiritual/moral gap.

I think that this is a state which ought to be rebelled against by those who are being subjected to it.

- Not necessarily a good idea. The basis of this issue is why? or why not?
> As to why, this will bring us back to the above inductive argument.
> As to why not, this will bring us back to why is the gap even important to begin with? & why not the gap of morality? What is the principal based on which humans are valued? Does it include intellectual/physical achievements? Is it a universal principal such as Excellence? Or even more universal principal such as Happiness?. . .
.
- Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Men are superior to Women in the Intellectual & Physical realm, or that Women are superior to Men in the Spiritual & Moral realm, though I do postulate that that is generally the case. & I see you sharing my view on this though with a more subjective approach. That is to say, potentially, Men & Women are virtually equal in all realms, i.e. a woman can achieve potentially the highest intellectual/physical levels, & a man can achieve potentially the highest moral/spiritual levels, & we certainly have examples of both (Aisha & Marie Curie are good instances, & Prophet Muhammad also). However, for some very good reasons, yet to be disputed, the gap exists.
- Paglia's explanation of this is that these facts are related to search for identity & trying to prove oneself, which I almost agree with, as will Islamic Psychology. & I commend her for that beautiful insight. That is, according to Islamic Psychology, Ego has certainly something to do with it (which I'd rather not get into here).
.
- What I would advocate is not a 'rebellion' against the Norm, because that's exactly what the feminists are doing, & because it blurs the lines between what is originated from Nature & what is originated from Nurture, & also because it's random & might be detrimental to society in ways we do not yet conceive of. Instead, I would advocate Equity:
> Women bear children, then exempt them from work, & thus make Men work for them, they are better at it anyways.
=> This way, they are both on equal grounds concerning natural burden.
> Make worldly & otherworldly pursuits equally enjoined on everyone.
> Make worldly & otherworldly pursuits equally accessible for everyone.
> Value worldly & otherworldly pursuits, not by any subjective or social scale, but by a universal scale (in religion that would relate to Piety, in irreligion that would relate to Ethics).
=> This way, the state of affairs will take its natural course, without the need of forcing anything on anyone, or weighing some in the scale of others. . . Now, if women get to the top in whatever domain, then that would be due to both passion & merit. Indoctrinating little girls to love science or engineering as means to rebel against what seems to be a fact in society does not promote passion nor merit. Or forcing institutions to hire quotas of gender. . . this is madness.
.
- I reckon you realise I am basically preaching my worldview against the western one ;) . I feel between wanting to be challenged, & wanting to discuss. So, I await your response.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:55:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:23:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
...and the whole movement is seen as shrill, fanatical, and delusional as a result.

You're a sophisticated and clever person. I don't think you would make the mistake of referring to a political movement as "shrill" unless you were deliberately trying to wind someone up. Almost worked. I had a lot to [scream hysterically and whine about in my feisty way] say about objectification of women. But then I realized. :)
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:00:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 3:52:30 PM, Mirza wrote:
I much prefer a formal take on this, Yassine. We'll have to get around something.

- I would prefer that too, I have seen some of your debates, they are methodical. I generally prefer a debate setting instead of a forum one.

- What exactly is your take on this?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:05:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:55:50 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:23:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
...and the whole movement is seen as shrill, fanatical, and delusional as a result.

You're a sophisticated and clever person. I don't think you would make the mistake of referring to a political movement as "shrill" unless you were deliberately trying to wind someone up. Almost worked. I had a lot to [scream hysterically and whine about in my feisty way] say about objectification of women. But then I realized. :)

- Sophisticated? Most definitely. LoL, this is cleverely funny . . . :D :D
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:00:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:55:50 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:23:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
...and the whole movement is seen as shrill, fanatical, and delusional as a result.

You're a sophisticated and clever person. I don't think you would make the mistake of referring to a political movement as "shrill" unless you were deliberately trying to wind someone up. Almost worked. I had a lot to [scream hysterically and whine about in my feisty way] say about objectification of women. But then I realized. :)

Note the bolded. I was not saying that feminism is shrill, I was saying that it is seen as shrill. Big difference.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:15:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 1:36:20 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I reckon you realise I am basically preaching my worldview against the western one ;) . I feel between wanting to be challenged, & wanting to discuss. So, I await your response.

Haha, that's what I was thinking throughout the whole post. Religiously, culturally, and artistically, rebellion against nature is a central theme in the West. The virgin birth and resurrection, motifs which also appear in older pagan myths, these are direct contraventions of natural norms. Our art is so often an idealization of human forms. Even the romantic landscapes of Turner, Vernet, and the Hudson School, so famous for their stark realism, idealize nature and twist it in subjugation to the human imagination. Impressionism breaks it into pieces, surrealism directly deconstructs it in order to reorder it through a distinctly human psychological lens.

Islamic culture opposes this. In religion, Muhammad is pretty distinct in being not a worker of miracles but a moral exemplar and messenger. He does not undergo die and resurrection; even the Christian rendition of the death of Christ is overturned in order to strip it of its abrogation of the natural order of things. Muhammad simply moves on to paradise. Your art draws on geometric and floral motifs which describe nature instead of subverting it or supplanting it. Depiction of the human form is discouraged. A man is seen as, ultimately, the tool of divine design instead of 'a hero in the strife', as Longfellow envisions it. I always though that his 'A Psalm of Life' captures the unresolved conflict between the old, pre-Christian heroism of Western societies and the Semitic mysteries which eventually came to bind those shattered cultures together.

It is fitting that one would see great value and beauty in the defiance of nature, while the other would see it as less than desirable.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:18:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:26:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Maybe males should be circumcised at age 12 so they can have a bleeding penis moment.

Unless we could encode some sort of spontaneous self-severing of the foreskin into the Y-chromosome, it misses the point entirely.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:15:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/26/2015 1:36:20 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I reckon you realise I am basically preaching my worldview against the western one ;) . I feel between wanting to be challenged, & wanting to discuss. So, I await your response.

Haha, that's what I was thinking throughout the whole post. Religiously, culturally, and artistically, rebellion against nature is a central theme in the West. The virgin birth and resurrection, motifs which also appear in older pagan myths, these are direct contraventions of natural norms. Our art is so often an idealization of human forms. Even the romantic landscapes of Turner, Vernet, and the Hudson School, so famous for their stark realism, idealize nature and twist it in subjugation to the human imagination. Impressionism breaks it into pieces, surrealism directly deconstructs it in order to reorder it through a distinctly human psychological lens.

Islamic culture opposes this. In religion, Muhammad is pretty distinct in being not a worker of miracles but a moral exemplar and messenger. He does not undergo die and resurrection; even the Christian rendition of the death of Christ is overturned in order to strip it of its abrogation of the natural order of things. Muhammad simply moves on to paradise. Your art draws on geometric and floral motifs which describe nature instead of subverting it or supplanting it. Depiction of the human form is discouraged. A man is seen as, ultimately, the tool of divine design instead of 'a hero in the strife', as Longfellow envisions it. I always though that his 'A Psalm of Life' captures the unresolved conflict between the old, pre-Christian heroism of Western societies and the Semitic mysteries which eventually came to bind those shattered cultures together.

It is fitting that one would see great value and beauty in the defiance of nature, while the other would see it as less than desirable.

- Now I feel like we are arch enemies! x) & you're not wrong, at least to a substantial degree. Here everything is God's decree & God's design, rebellion has no place, only submission does. Here it's about balance, moderation, rest, calmness, nature, serenity, remembrance, awareness. . . The West, as you said, is more into the extremes of things, especially in these post-modern times. There it's about freedom from the divine, heedlessness from the divine.

- You haven't responded to my take, what do you think about ensuring basic Equity between Genders by compensation & staying neutral thereafter?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 8:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:00:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:55:50 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:23:03 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
...and the whole movement is seen as shrill, fanatical, and delusional as a result.

You're a sophisticated and clever person. I don't think you would make the mistake of referring to a political movement as "shrill" unless you were deliberately trying to wind someone up. Almost worked. I had a lot to [scream hysterically and whine about in my feisty way] say about objectification of women. But then I realized. :)

Note the bolded. I was not saying that feminism is shrill, I was saying that it is seen as shrill. Big difference.

So... the movement is seen as "shrill" as a result of being out of touch with the working class? Are perceptions of voice pitch really that important, or are you trying to convey something else here?

Feminism, as it exists in academia, and as it has branded itself, is out of touch with the vast majority of people to the point where the label is becoming a mark of shame. I think that feminism still has an important role to play in the role, and see this as a critical problem which needs to remedied post-haste. Establishment feminists need to abandon their tendency to 'excommunicate' people, their use of debunked statistics, and the other cult-like symptoms of this particular brand. The whole #gamergate last fall was a particular nasty example, and feminism is seen in a much worse light because of things like that...

My understanding of gamergate was that a few women tried to express their opinions about the way women are represented in video games and as a result were subjected to a large and coordinated campaign of threats and harassment.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know much about it, though, so I'm just checking we're referring to the same thing before I make snide remarks about your comment that women are "seen in a much worse light" after being harassed and threatened for expressing an opinion.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 8:52:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:11:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Garbanza wrote:
And please let's perve some more on beautiful women and appreciate it when they dress up nice. That's a really valuable contribution to society.

I didn't address this early because I had to go to work and didn't have time, but I found this to be an outright disturbing statement. Let's unpack this. What does 'to perve on' means? As far as I can tell, it's an unwarranted pejorative substitute for 'to feel sexual attraction towards', and the inclination to resort to such substitutions smacks of puritanism. Paglia is a lesbian, of course she's going to be attracted sexually to beautiful women. That's sort of the definition of her sexual orientation. And even if we aren't talking about lesbianism, why do heterosexual males not have the right to feel attracted to what they, by definition, find sexually attractive? When did feminists become Victorians? Why are sexual desires and an appreciation for beauty not valuable contributions to society?

The difference between being attracted to someone and perving on them is the difference between treating her as a human or as an object. You can be attracted to someone and acknowledge that the attraction may not be reciprocated and, more importantly, that that person is not deliberately attracting you, necessarily. That is, a beautiful woman at the supermarket may just be trying to buy groceries and she can't help being beautiful. The fact that you're attracted to someone is not, of itself, an invitation or a right. Whereas, someone who is perving doesn't acknowledge that.

Paglia was talking about beautiful women being valuable to society because they are beautiful. Most times that people are valuable to society, it's because they make a deliberate choice to be, or as a result of their actions. Most people who are beautiful can't help it. They haven't chosen it. To say that the fact that they're attractive to people like Paglia (and no, I'm not meaning that she's a lesbian particularly - just that she values her own perceptions so highly) is the most valuable quality they possess is to objectify them. It's horrible.