Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by jimhaz »

We like to be played, if we didn't we would go back through all the previous threads and try and ensure our questions were original or some enhancement of the discussion, but for the most part we like the entertainment of conversing in the present.
ynithrix
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 7:01 pm

re

Post by ynithrix »

"Greatness, greatness, greatness. What is it with the fixation on superiority and supremacy? Why must everything be 'deep,' 'lofty,' and 'grand' with you? If the greatest artists happen to be men, does it mean that female artists can only produce rubbish?"

That is a typical feminist question, imo. 'I have drawn something that is rubbish, but I don't want to be rubbish, therefore I shall redefine greatness to suit my creation.' Which is followed by: 'if society doesn't redefine greatness around women, it is mysogynous, because it fails to lie in accordance with feminism.'

The world population is growing, but it's greatness isn't. The weak and the botched are given live by (and at the expense of) their betters, because their betters have not the courage to destroy them. This puerile pity runs deep throughout art, too. Great is thrown around as a standard adjective; it doesn't mean great, it means good effort.
The egalitarian's curse is thus: 'evolution can wait, we have a more important mission: to make lesser people feel good about themselves!'
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by David Quinn »

Thomas wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> Well, greatness is culturally construed, so there are few female artists who have been idealized as much as those artists you mentioned. It's a result of male dominated culture. <hr> Sure, males have defined what greatness is. That goes without saying. It doesn't mean, though, that they deliberately defined greatness in a way that excluded women. Rather, they used objective, non-gender values such as vision, structure, coherency, originality, timelessness, technique, and so on. It is only by abandoning these values that we can begin to entertain the view that feminine art is just as interesting and as significant as masculine art - which is what is currently happening in society.


Quote:Quote:<hr> That's one thing. Another thing is that female artists fought an uphill battle which put artificial (social) constraints on artistic development. <hr> I have my doubts about this. A true artist would never allow herself to be hampered by society's constraints. You're only pandering to woman's intinctive urge to blame everyone else for her own failings.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Until recently, painting was a male niche. But, look at music. Singing has long been a socially accepted role for females. If you want to talk about "greatness" then let's look at this particular niche where females are allowed. It's not that only SOME of the "greatest" singers are female. There is approximately a 50/50 ratio and that is exactly what you would expect in the absence of artificial social constraints.<hr> Singing is not really a creative art form. At best, it is merely an interpretative activity, in which the singer gives his or her own intrepretation of a creative work. Composition is the heart and soul of musical creativity, and it is no surprise to learn that, even today, there are few female composers - and no great ones, as far as I know.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by Naturyl »

Quote:Quote:<hr>That is a typical feminist question, imo. 'I have drawn something that is rubbish, but I don't want to be rubbish, therefore I shall redefine greatness to suit my creation.' Which is followed by: 'if society doesn't redefine greatness around women, it is mysogynous, because it fails to lie in accordance with feminism.'<hr>That is rubbish, but you probably don't want it to be rubbish. I am not a feminist. I am a humanist.

There is no 'redefinition' needed. Females are quite capable of greatness. What is misogynistic is your not-so-subtle implication that in order for women to achieve anything great, greatness must be redefined.

How many of you people are there around here? Sheesh. This is starting to get on my nerves.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by David Quinn »

Quote:Quote:<hr> Females are quite capable of greatness. What is misogynistic is your not-so-subtle implication that in order for women to achieve anything great, greatness must be redefined. <hr> The article posted at the beginning of this thread does show that greatness is being redefined by modern society because it has become clear that women are unable to reach the traditional standards of greatness.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by Naturyl »

Bollocks. If anything, it shows that the society is historically male-oriented in its perceptions. This is not a feminist statement, it is a simple historical fact.
Thomas Knierim
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by Thomas Knierim »

<span style="color:white;">David: Sure, males have defined what greatness is. That goes without saying. It doesn't mean, though, that they deliberately defined greatness in a way that excluded women.</span>

Tell us another. It means precisely that.

<span style="color:white;">David: It is only by abandoning these values that we can begin to entertain the view that feminine art is just as interesting and as significant as masculine art - which is what is currently happening in society.</span>

I don't dispute that males dominate arts and sciences. That would indeed be a silly form of political correctness. To hell with PC! Males rule in the arts and sciences, but for a fairly chauvinist reason. Male domination in these roles is simply the consequence of exploitation; namely the exploitation of the female biological role. Males used to hunt for food and females raised children. Agriculture simplified food provision, so the males had more time for other stuff, hence, philosophy, religion, science, art; in short: males created what we call civilization. Unsurprisingly they dominate this field until today.

<span style="color:white;">David: Singing is not really a creative art form.</span>

It isn't?

<span style="color:white;">David: The article posted at the beginning of this thread does show that greatness is being redefined by modern society because it has become clear that women are unable to reach the traditional standards of greatness.</span>

Achievements of greatness are presently being redefined (scrutinized), because only now society is beginning to realize the magnitude of the patriarchic bias of the past and becomes aware of its consequences. It's the result of (political) enlightenment.

Another example of changing paradigms: Only a hundred years ago, society agreed about the greatness of Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte. Meanwhile, the cultural perception has changed and these figures look more like murderous tyrants to us.

Thomas
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by birdofhermes »

The arguments against female abilities would have more merit if it were not the for long and varied and vicious multi-pronged attacks in every possible venue that have been necessary to constantly maintain in order to keep women down.

Why such efforts, my men? Whence such anxiety?

Look at the sad bit Solway presented by Hsuan Huan about women. Note how many of the 10 problems he says women have are purely attitudinal and culture specific. He says women have a heart the size of a sesame seed. This is the final blow - the ultimate psychological injustice. I had long ago noted the dreariness of Chinese women and the rarity of their smile. First, you squeeze your women until their hearts are contracted, then you complain - see women are not nice, look how their hearts are contracted.

krussell2004
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by krussell2004 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>The fact that I have a generally low opinion of women, in terms of their mental and spiritual qualities, is borne out of many years of experience and observation of women in the world. That is to say, it is borne out of repeatedly judging individuals of both sexes in terms of their mental qualities, level of understanding and values, and finding over and over again that women are seriously lacking in these areas. It's a reality I can't ignore, even though I know that articulating it makes me terribly unpopular. <hr>

David, there's a two-pronged explanation to your perception and why it is so. One of which is that men of exceptionally high levels of intelligence outnumber women 2 to 1. However, the same is true on the other side of the spectrum. ie metally deficient men outnumber mentally deficient women by 2 to 1. Yet, women of average intelligence outnumber man of average intelligence by 2 to 1. This by no means suggests that men are superior to women, but that both men of inferior and superior intellect outnumber women of the same ilk. It is a mysterious and baffling phenomenon that defies explanation. Perhaps, it is your frustration in not finding enough women with the high level of understanding you seek that leads you to your conclusions. Another possibility is the fact that you never took the time to understand the feminine mind because for what ever reason you have a problem with women. All our judgements are clouded by what we want to see. If you try to peel away your prejudices and open your mind to the truth then you will truly become as enlightened as you claim you try to be. Edited by: krussell2004 at: 1/28/04 7:39 am
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by David Quinn »

Krussell wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> David, there's a two-pronged explanation to your perception and why it is so. One of which is that men of exceptionally high levels of intelligence outnumber women 2 to 1. However, the same is true on the other side of the spectrum. ie metally deficient men outnumber mentally deficient women by 2 to 1. Yet, women of average intelligence outnumber man of average intelligence by 2 to 1. This by no means suggests that men are superior to women, but that both men of inferior and superior intellect outnumber women of the same ilk. It is a mysterious and baffling phenomenon that defies explanation.<hr> I don't think it is such a mystery. There is far more diversity among men than there is among women. Men are far more extreme in everything they do, more obsessed, more single-minded, more determined to succeed. That is why they achieve so much more, and also why they can be so much more dangerous and destructive. As Camille Paglia once said: "The reason why there are no female Mozarts is because there are no female Jack-the-Rippers".

Women everywhere are very similar to one another, and even their most extreme members huddle close to the golden mean. No matter where you go in the world, women are virtually identical. They might have a different style of clothing on, or a different hairstyle, or have been impregnated by diffent cultural values - but you don't have scratch the surface very far to see WOMAN shining out in its purest form.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Perhaps, it is your frustration in not finding enough women with the high level of understanding you seek that leads you to your conclusions. Another possibility is the fact that you never took the time to understand the feminine mind because for what ever reason you have a problem with women. <hr> Alas, the complete opposite is the case. I have spent many years closely examining the feminine mind, and nowadays I see right through it.
Rairun
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:21 pm

...

Post by Rairun »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Women everywhere are very similar to one another, and even their most extreme members huddle close to the golden mean. No matter where you go in the world, women are virtually identical. They might have a different style of clothing on, or a different hairstyle, or have been impregnated by diffent cultural values - but you don't have scratch the surface very far to see WOMAN shining out in its purest form.<hr>

"From 1931 to 1933, they continued to travel and Mead continued to study in New Guinea. In 1933, they assembled their third camp in Kenakatem. Here Mead made her great discovery that "human nature is malleable". She had witnessed three specific cultures; Arapesh, Mundugumor and the Tchambuli. Each culture displayed different gender role qualities. In one culture both the women and men were cooperative, in the second they were both ruthless and aggressive, and in the Thambuli culture the women were dominant and the men more submissive.

Due to these findings, Mead was one of the first people to propose that masculine and feminine characteristics reflected cultural conditioning (or socialization) not fundamental biological differences."

<a href="http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/margare ... ad.html</a>
krussell2004
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:23 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by krussell2004 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>I don't think it is such a mystery. There is far more diversity among men than there is among women. Men are far more extreme in everything they do, more obsessed, more single-minded, more determined to succeed. That is why they achieve so much more, and also why they can be so much more dangerous and destructive. As Camille Paglia once said: "The reason why there are no female Mozarts is because there are no female Jack-the-Rippers". <hr>

I remember seeing that quote somewhere recently. Can't remember where though. To a great extent I do agree with that. However, it can also be said that women are more balanced because they don't tend to be as extreme. Granted they don't create or contribute to the greater good as much but they also don't cause as much destruction and catastrophe either. There's always a trade off. Of course, this is a generalization and one must never lose sight of the fact that what is true in general does not apply to every indivudual. It is such generalizations that lead to prejudice, bigotry and setting up barriers to certain groups while paving the way for an elite view. I must say that I'm glad you are a philosopher who chooses to live in poverty to find wisdom rather than a politician or someone of power. On the other hand, if we were to adhere to your generalizations wouldn't it be equally true that women are a stabilizing force given the extreme designs of MAN that need to be tempered?

Quote:Quote:<hr>
Women everywhere are very similar to one another, and even their most extreme members huddle close to the golden mean. No matter where you go in the world, women are virtually identical. They might have a different style of clothing on, or a different hairstyle, or have been impregnated by diffent cultural values - but you don't have scratch the surface very far to see WOMAN shining out in its purest form.<hr>

Reading this last paragraph of your only convinces me further that you have a chauvanistic attitude where women are concerned. It's just a vibe I get from all your posts when you discuss women.
avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by avidaloca »

Singing is one area where women can achieve things that men can't for biological reasons. (To circumvent that some boys were castrated to keep their voices high until early last century.)
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by jimhaz »

Granted they don't create or contribute to the greater good as much but they also don't cause as much destruction and catastrophe either

I think if males thought like women and were merely sperm producers, we would still be apes.

This is just a quirk in nature whereby the male being the inserter of sperm and being able to propogate more than one female, began to become involved in the process of competition and domination over others. Evolution made certain males more successful by both brawn AND gradual improvements in intellectual ability. The female had little chance to develop as swiftly as males during this early period as during periods of pregancy and children rearing they were more reliant on males to provide food, probably in the form of scraps leading to a less rich diet which also handicapped their physical development.

Due to food supply issues and as a protection against males violence women developed brains that were more conniving than the average male and also bodies and affections that would please males need to dominate (femininity). Women joined forces amongst each other as a form of communal protection, which is why Women with the capital W is a form of consciousness in our society to this day. Edited by: jimhaz at: 1/28/04 9:30 am
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Modifying significant concepts to suit women

Post by David Quinn »

Krussell wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> On the other hand, if we were to adhere to your generalizations wouldn't it be equally true that women are a stabilizing force given the extreme designs of MAN that need to be tempered? <hr> This has been the traditional dynamic, yes. The powerful psychological hold that women have upon men has evolved into being because it nicely reigns in the freer, wilder side of men and persuades them to direct their energies towards the "common good" - i.e. towards the protection of women and children.

However, I don't believe that we need to preserve this dynamic indefinitely. We have the intelligence and discipline to unshackle ourselves from the feminine grip and direct our energies in a wiser, more conscious fashion. Indeed, I believe that the long-term future of our species depends on it.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Women everywhere are very similar to one another, and even their most extreme members huddle close to the golden mean. No matter where you go in the world, women are virtually identical. They might have a different style of clothing on, or a different hairstyle, or have been impregnated by diffent cultural values - but you don't have scratch the surface very far to see WOMAN shining out in its purest form.

Krussell: Reading this last paragraph of your only convinces me further that you have a chauvanistic attitude where women are concerned. It's just a vibe I get from all your posts when you discuss women. <hr> I think it's an illusion created by my unusual perspective. A lover of classical music who sees large differences between Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin would instinctively consider the philosopher who speaks against the attachment to all music, and who paints all music as a mindless, emotional orgiastic activity, as being a musical chauvanist and "having a bad vibe".
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ...

Post by David Quinn »

Rairun wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> "From 1931 to 1933, they continued to travel and Mead continued to study in New Guinea. In 1933, they assembled their third camp in Kenakatem. Here Mead made her great discovery that "human nature is malleable". She had witnessed three specific cultures; Arapesh, Mundugumor and the Tchambuli. Each culture displayed different gender role qualities. In one culture both the women and men were cooperative, in the second they were both ruthless and aggressive, and in the Thambuli culture the women were dominant and the men more submissive.

Due to these findings, Mead was one of the first people to propose that masculine and feminine characteristics reflected cultural conditioning (or socialization) not fundamental biological differences." <hr> Refering to unusual tribes living in isolated conditions cut off from the rest of the human gene pool for many centuries doesn't provide a strong foundation for her proposal. Her proposal also conflicts with the masses of scientific research done since the 30s which has discovered that the differences between male and female psychology are largely due to chemistry and genetics.
Locked